Document Anaheim_doc_185186ae6c

Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page left blank intentionally. ---PAGE BREAK--- Initial Study for AMENDMENT TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS City of Anaheim, California Lead Agency: City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by: The Planning Center 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 966-9220 December 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP i Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page PROJECT Project Project Background Purpose of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Project Description Anticipated Additional Project Approvals CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Factors Potentially Evaluation of Environmental I. II. Agricultural Resources III. Air IV. Biological V. Cultural VI. Geology and Soils VII. Hazards and Hazardous VIII. Hydrology and Water IX. Land Use and Planning X. Mineral Resources XI. XII. Population and Housing XIII. Public XIV. XV. Transportation/Traffic XVI. Utilities and Service Systems XVII. Mandatory Findings of FISH AND GAME REFERENCES ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP ii Initial Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Regional 2 Vicinity 3 Aerial 4 Platinum Triangle General Plan Land 5 PTMU Overlay Zone Mixed Use LIST OF TABLES Figure Page 1 Proposed Development Intensities in The Platinum Triangle PTMU Overlay Zone........11 2 Proposed Development Intensities in the PTMU Overlay Zone by ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 1 Initial Study PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction The City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (DSEIR No. 339) to analyze the impacts of increased development intensities in the adopted The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). The Platinum Triangle MLUP encompasses approximately 820 acres at the confluence of Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57) in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California. A General Plan Amendment, amendments to The Platinum Triangle MLUP and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and Zoning reclassifications have been proposed by the City to expand the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone and increase the permitted residential, office, commercial and institutional development intensities within the Platinum Triangle. Approval of the proposed amendments would result in maximum development intensities of 18,909 dwelling units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses within the Platinum Triangle (herein after also referred to as the “proposed project” and “proposed amendments”). There is no proposed development intensity increase for properties within the Platinum Triangle that are outside of the expanded PTMU Overlay Zone. A detailed project description and associated figures are included under the Project Description subheading. DSEIR No. 339 will tier off of Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 for The Platinum Triangle MLUP and Associated Actions (FSEIR No. 332), which was certified on October 25, 2005. This Initial Study presents information on the project and an evaluation of the probable environmental effects anticipated by the project. Together with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the Environmental Checklist Form, the Initial Study has been distributed to all responsible agencies as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A notice has also been sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of The Platinum Triangle and interested parties indicating that these documents are available for a 30-day public review at the Planning Department within Anaheim City Hall at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard in the City of Anaheim or on the Planning Department’s website (www.anaheim.net/planning, click on the link to “Current Environmental Documents”). The notice was also sent to Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (“CREED”) and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (“OCCORD”). As discussed below, these two entities challenged the previous environmental impact report prepared for the proposed project. Project Location The Platinum Triangle consists of approximately 820 acres and is located at the confluence of I- 5 and SR-57, in the City of Anaheim (“City”) in Orange County, California. As shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, the project area is located within the south-central portion of the City. As shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity Map, the Platinum Triangle is located generally east of I-5, west of the Santa Ana River channel and SR 57, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, The Grove of Anaheim, and surrounding light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and supporting retail uses. One mixed-use development in The Platinum Triangle has been completed and several more are under construction or in the planning stages. An aerial photograph of the project area is shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 2 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 3 Initial Study Figure 1 Regional Location ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 4 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 5 Initial Study Figure 2 Local Vicinity 5 57 22 Orange Anaheim Garden Grove Santa Ana Orangewood Av Katella Av Gene Autry Way Ball Rd Chapman Av Lampson Av Garden Grove Bl Cerritos Av Harbor Bl Lewis St State College Bl Sunkist St Anaheim Bl East St Batavia St Glassell St Main St Angel Stadium of Anaheim Santa Ana River SCE Easement The Platinum Triangle Honda Center ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 6 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 7 Initial Study Figure 3 Aerial Photograph 57 Orange Garden Grove Anaheim Orangewood Av Katella Av Cerritos Av Ball Rd Chapman Av Harbor Bl Lewis St State College Bl Sunkist St Anaheim Bl East St Batavia St Main St Gene Autry Way Angel Stadium of Anaheim The Platinum Triangle Honda Center Santa Ana River 5 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 8 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 9 Initial Study Project Background Within the past years, the Anaheim City Council has approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by The Platinum Triangle. On May 30, 1996, the Anaheim Planning Commission certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 320 (State Clearinghouse No. 95041029) and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 92 and Area Development Plan No. 120 for the portion of the Stadium property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition center, 250,000 square feet of office development and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove of Anaheim, the renovated Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were developed or renovated under this plan. On March 2, 1999, the Anaheim City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). The boundaries for this MLUP were generally the same as those for The Platinum Triangle, with the exception that this MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to I-5 that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the approval process for the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP, the City Council also certified Final EIR No. 321 (State Clearinghouse Number 9611041) and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the Anaheim Stadium Area was implemented through the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone. The SE Overlay Zone permitted property owners to continue to operate or expand current uses or develop within the provisions of the existing zoning. The SE Overlay Zone also allowed property owners to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and office uses at increased intensities than previously permitted and provided associated development standards for these uses. Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood School of Technology. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for The Platinum Triangle. The General Plan Update changed the General Plan designations within the project area from Commercial Recreation and Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established an overall maximum development intensity for The Platinum Triangle for up to 9,175 dwelling units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50, and institutional development at a maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 were incorporated into The Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final EIR No. 330 (State Clearinghouse Number [PHONE REDACTED]), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and associated actions, analyzed the above development intensities on a citywide impact level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for The Platinum Triangle. In order to provide the implementation tools necessary to realize the City’s new vision for The Platinum Triangle, on August 17, 2004, the City Council replaced the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP with The Platinum Triangle MLUP, replaced the SE Overlay Zone with The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, approved the form of the Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement and approved associated zoning reclassifications. Under these updated zoning regulations, property owners desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 10 Initial Study Zone provisions are required to enter into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim. Ordinances associated with the PTMU Overlay Zone and the approved zoning reclassifications became effective September 23, 2004. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council adopted and certified the Final Subsequent EIR No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332) (State Clearinghouse Number [PHONE REDACTED]) including an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106A for The Platinum Triangle MLUP and associated actions, which utilized the certified EIR No. 321 (adopted for the Anaheim Stadium Master Land Use Plan, as discussed above) and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. At the present time, FSEIR No. 332 serves as the primary environmental document for subsequent land use actions within The Platinum Triangle, including necessary infrastructure improvements and all local discretionary approvals necessary to implement The Platinum Triangle MLUP, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The General Plan Amendment associated with FSEIR No. 332 increased the allowable development intensity within The Platinum Triangle to 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet of office uses; and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses. Thus, throughout the years, the primary project objective of the City’s land use policy with respect to the Platinum Triangle has been to encourage high density, synergistic mixed use development in the Platinum Triangle area. Since the approval and certification of FSEIR No. 332, the majority of the permitted development intensity on private properties analyzed by the EIR has been either developed, is under construction or has been designated for development under approved Development Agreements. In addition, the Anaheim City Council has approved two addendums to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase The Platinum Triangle intensity by 67 residential units; 55,550 square feet of office development; and 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. A project EIR (FEIR No. 335) has also been approved to increase the allowable development intensity by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable development intensity within The Platinum Triangle to up to 10,266 residential units; 5,055,550 square feet of office uses; and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses. In 2007 the City embarked upon a process to adopt a General Plan Amendment; amendments to the Platinum Triangle MLUP, PTMU Overlay Zone, and the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development; and related zoning reclassifications to increase the development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units; 5,657,847 square feet of commercial uses; 16,819,015 square feet of office uses; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (hereafter, the “Platinum Triangle Expansion Project”). As required by law, the City prepared an environmental impact report in connection with the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) was known as DSEIR No. 334 and was first circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 12, 2007 to August 27, 2007. On October 4, 2007, the City released the DSEIR No. 334 and Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106B (MMP 106B) for an additional 45-day public review. The recirculated DSEIR No. 334 contained minor revisions to the Project Description and additional traffic information based on comments received from the City of Orange and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Other minor revisions to the DSEIR were made based on other comments received on the previously circulated DSEIR No. 334. The recirculated Final SEIR (FSEIR) No. 334 was approved in December 2007 and reapproved in April 2008. However, following the approval of the FSEIR No. 334, a lawsuit was filed by CREED and OCCORD, challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, in light of the public controversy as manifested by the two lawsuits, the City Council repealed the approval of The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 11 Initial Study No. 334 and various related actions and directed staff to prepare a new EIR for the project. The City took this direction because the City has very rarely been challenged based on alleged non- compliance with CEQA, and because the City desired to assuage any concerns held by the public concerning the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. Purpose of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (DSEIR No. 339) Preparation of the new DSEIR for the proposed project would utilize the certified EIR No. 332 (for The Platinum Triangle MLUP) in its analysis, and update and modify the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A (MMP No. 106A), as appropriate. The DSEIR will analyze the environmental effects of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, The Platinum Triangle MLUP, and PTMU Overlay Zone to the degree of specificity required by Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This DSEIR would be the primary reference document in the formation and implementation of a mitigation reporting and monitoring program for The Platinum Triangle; therefore, the previously adopted MMP No. 106A would be updated and modified based on the findings contained therein. Project Description The City of Anaheim proposes to increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in The Platinum Triangle as shown in Table 1. The proposed project has reduced the amount of office and commercial square footage and increased the amount of residential units being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in Final EIR No. 334 that was subsequently repealed by the City Council. 1 These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in The Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities for ARTIC and reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange. Some of these policy objectives, such as an improved jobs housing balance, were advocated by the City. Table 1 Proposed Development Intensities in The Platinum Triangle PTMU Overlay Zone Land Use Adopted Proposed Increase Residential Units 10,266 18,909 8,643 Commercial Square Feet 2,264,400 4,909,682 2,645,282 Office Square Feet 5,055,550 14,340,522 9,284,972 Institutional Square Feet 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 The proposed project would expand the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation within The Platinum Triangle as shown in Figure 4, Platinum Triangle General Plan Land Use, create two new mixed use districts and expand two existing mixed use districts within Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone as shown in Figure 5, PTMU Overlay Zone Mixed Use Districts. Development intensity maps that further break down the allocated development in The Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Districts by sub-area will be included in the DSEIR. Development that occurs within The Platinum Triangle is implemented through the processing of subdivision maps and the submittal of plans for building permits unless a conditional use permit or a variance is required. Development in the PTMU Overlay Zone also requires approval of a Master Site Plan and/or a Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement. 1 For example, the previous FEIR No. 334 proposed 18,363 residential dwelling units; 16,819.015 square feet of office; 5,657,847 square feet of commercial; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional. The new proposed project has reduced the amount of permissible office square feet by 2,478,493 and has also reduced the amount of permissible commercial square feet by 748,165. Thus, the impacts of the new proposed project should be reduced due to the reduction of the project size. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 12 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 13 Initial Study Figure 4 Platinum Triangle General Plan Land Use ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 14 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 15 Initial Study Figure 5 PTMU Overlay Zone Mixed Use Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 16 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 17 Initial Study The proposed project also includes technical refinements and clarifications to the documents that govern and regulate development within The Platinum Triangle: the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), and the PTMU Overlay Zone. Below is a description of the proposed amendments to each of these documents. General Plan: A. Amend the Land Use Element (Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan) to: Redesignate approximately 191 acres from the Office High and Office Low land use designations to the Mixed Use designation; and Redesignate approximately 17 acres from the Institutional land use designation to the Mixed Use designation. B. Amend the Land Use Element (Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City) to: Increase the permitted development intensities in The Platinum Triangle; and Remove the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requirement for Mixed Uses and Office Uses in The Platinum Triangle. C. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network) to modify the designations of streets within The Platinum Triangle: Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way from 6 Lane Major Arterial to 8 Lane Stadium Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and the SR-57 undercrossing from Interior Street to 6 Lane Primary Arterial; Rampart Street between Orangewood Avenue and the South City Limits adjacent to the City of Orange from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; West Dupont Drive between Orangewood Avenue and South Dupont Drive from Interior Street to Collector Street; South Dupont Drive between West Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place from Interior Street to Collector Street; South Towne Centre Place between West Towne Centre Place and Rampart Street from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue from 4 lane Secondary to 4 lane Primary; and, Cerritos Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Street from 4 lane Secondary to 4 lane Primary D. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities) to: Extend the Class II Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to West Dupont Drive and Add the Class II Bikeway to West Dupont Drive, South Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place to Rampart Street. Add the Class II Bikeway to Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Ball Road. E. Amend the Green Element (Figure G-1: Green Plan) to reflect proposed Class II Bikeways. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 18 Initial Study F. Amend the Public Services and Facilities Element (Figure PSF-1: Fire and Police Facilities Map) to reflect the three Fire Stations proposed for The Platinum Triangle. Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan: A. Reflect the proposed General Plan amendments described above; B. Adjust the boundaries of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to create the ARTIC and Office Districts and expand the Katella and Orangewood Districts; C. Distribute the proposed increased development intensities as shown in Table 2 below: Table 2 Proposed Development Intensities in the PTMU Overlay Zone by District Acres Residential Units Office Square Feet1 Commercial Square Feet Platinum Triangle District Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Arena 41 41 425 425 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ARTIC2 0 17 0 520 0 2,202,803 0 358,000 Gateway 53 50 2,142 2,949 530,000 562,250 50,000 64,000 Gene Autry 33 33 1,699 2,362 100,000 338,200 174,100 304,700 Katella 99 141 4,250 5,707 775,000 2,131,058 630,300 832,614 Orangewood 4 35 0 1,771 590,000 1,402,855 10,000 130,000 Stadium3 153 153 1,750 5,175 1,760,000 3,125,000 1,300,000 3,120,368 Total Mixed Use 383 470 10,266 18,909 3,855,000 9,862,166 2,264,400 4,909,682 Office 0 121 0 0 0 4,478,356 0 0 Total PTMU Overlay 383 591 10,266 18,909 3,855,000 14,340,522 2,264,400 4,909,682 1. The adopted General Plan allows an additional 1,200,550 square feet of office development within the Platinum Triangle, on properties outside of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The proposed project expands the PTMU Overlay Zone to encompass these properties. 2. The proposed development intensity includes 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses in addition to the residential, office and commercial uses. 3. The adopted and proposed development intensities for the Stadium District include 119,543 seats for existing (49,043 seats) and potential (70,500 seats) stadiums. D. Replace Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A with Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, and, E. Reflect technical refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, refinements to street cross-sections, density descriptions and exhibits. Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone: The Proposed Project includes amendments to Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to: A. Reflect the proposed General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan amendments described above; B Establish and create zoning standards for two new Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Districts (the ARTIC and Office Districts); C. Modify zoning standards, including, but not limited to, temporary real estate signs, vacant lots, and setbacks and parking structure requirements for hotels and offices; and, ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 19 Initial Study D. Provide development standards for the ARTIC, Stadium, Arena and Office Districts. Zoning Reclassification: The proposed project includes a request to add the PTMU Overlay Zone to the properties within the new ARTIC and Office Districts and the expanded areas of the Katella and Orangewood Districts. Related Infrastructure Upgrades The proposed project would also include upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased intensity of land uses. These upgrades include roadway improvements, including a railroad grade separation project along State College Boulevard, between Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue; sewer upgrades; two new water wells; a new electrical substation; natural gas infrastructure improvements; and an additional fire station. The actual design and location of the related infrastructure facilities would be reviewed through the processing of subsequent plan approvals tentative tract maps, street improvement plans, storm drain improvement plans, and Caltrans encroachment permits) associated with individual development projects. The necessary on-site infrastructure that would be provided as part of future projects would be constructed by future property owner/developers, the City of Anaheim, and/or the utility provider, as determined by the City of Anaheim and/or other responsible agencies. Future street and infrastructure improvements would be coordinated with the appropriate service providers. State College Boulevard Railroad Undercrossing: The AT&SF railroad currently crosses State College Boulevard approximately 250 feet north of Wright Circle within The Platinum Triangle. In order to improve traffic flow and safety, the City of Anaheim is working with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on an underpass concept at this location. To accommodate this concept, the State College Boulevard profile requires depression from about 950 feet north to 750 feet south of the railroad crossing. The profiles of Wright Circle and Howell Avenue will need to be adjusted to meet the proposed grade of State College Boulevard. In anticipation of a future railroad grade separation project along State College Boulevard between Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue, a retaining wall was constructed along the southerly right-of-way of Wright Circle and the westerly right-of-way of State College Boulevard adjacent to the Stadium Lofts building. The retaining wall has a maximum height of 14 feet and was designed to be buried during the interim condition until such time that the grade separation project is constructed. The retaining wall design took into consideration the preliminary road profile of the undercrossing from a previous OCTA study and also accounted for a 3:1 landscaped slope from the back of the sidewalk to the face of wall. Portions of the retaining wall adjacent to Wright Circle and State College Boulevard that will be visible from the right-of-way upon completion of the railroad grade separation project were constructed with a decorative brick finish. Fire Stations: The Anaheim Fire Department plans to construct three new fire stations within the Platinum Triangle. The first station (Fire Station No. 12), the Battalion Headquarters Station (approximately 14,000 square feet in size), is going to be located along Santa Cruz Street, north of Orangewood Avenue. The second station (approximately 8,000 square feet) is anticipated to be located in the north central area of The Platinum Triangle. A third fire station would be required to accommodate the proposed project. The exact locations of the second and third stations have not yet been determined and the estimated timeframe for the construction of these stations would be dependent upon the level of development completed within The Platinum Triangle. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 20 Initial Study Utilities: Utilities along State College Boulevard need to be relocated due to the depressed profile. Existing utilities include a water line, two sewer lines, a stormdrain pipe, a gas line, and two underground power conduits. A pump station will be required for pumping stormwater at the sag point. The City has indicated that the pump station for the sewer line is not allowed along State College Boulevard, and that sewer lines need to be relocated within a sewer easement. Water Wells: A new water well is proposed adjacent to Fire Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street, south of Stanford Court. The new well will have a capacity of 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm), and equipped at an initial production rate of 1,500 gpm. Discharge piping for the new well will connect to the existing 12-inch diameter main in Anaheim Way and the existing 10-inch diameter main in Santa Cruz Street. The building setback requirements and architectural treatments for the new well facility will blend with Fire Station No. 12. Another new water well, with a production capacity of 3,500 gpm, is also required. It will be located within the Platinum Triangle at a site to be determined. Electrical Substation: A new electrical substation is proposed adjacent to Fire Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street, south of Stanford Court. The new electrical substation will have capacity between 112 and 168 mega volt-ampere (MVA). The substation will connect to new and existing electrical transmission lines and distribution circuits located on Anaheim Way, Santa Cruz Street and Orangewood Avenue. The building setback requirements and architectural treatments for the new substation facility will blend with Fire Station No. 12. Construction of the substation will be by the electrical utility provider. Natural Gas: The Southern California Gas Company has indicated that alterations to the existing system and infrastructure improvements would be required. Anticipated Additional Project Approvals Other agencies whose approval may be required include, but are not limited to: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Southern California Association of Governments; Orange County Sanitation District; City of Orange; Caltrans; and Orange County Transit Agency. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 21 Initial Study CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by applicant) Dear Applicant: The City of Anaheim as Lead Agency is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of your development project. In order to assist us in completing this required environmental review, please provide us with the following information: 1. Project Address or Location: The approximately 820-acre Platinum Triangle MLUP area is located east of I-5, west of the Santa Ana River channel and SR-57, south of the Southern California Edison easement and at the northern edge of the Anaheim City limit. The Cities of Orange and Garden Grove are located east and southwest of The Platinum Triangle, respectively. 2. Project Description: See the previous Project Description section of this document. 3. Assessor’s Parcel Number: Various. 4. Name of Property Owner: Various. Address: 5. Name of Authorized Agent: City of Anaheim (Planning Department) Address: 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 90805 6. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including if the site is on filled land or on a slope of ten percent or more, and provide information on its topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historic or scenic aspects. Provide pictures of the site and describe any existing structures on the site, and their current use. The Platinum Triangle, hereinafter referred to as the “project area” encompasses approximately 820 acres, including the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, the Grove of Anaheim, surrounding light industrial buildings, several industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and supporting retail uses (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). 7. Other public agencies whose approval is required for permits, financing, participation agreement). Other agencies whose approval may be required include, but are not limited to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Orange County Sanitation District; City of Orange; California Department of Transportation; and Orange County Transportation Authority. 8. Site size: Approximately 820 acres or square feet (if less than an acre). ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 22 Initial Study 9. Demolition proposed:
No  Yes* N/A square feet *The Master Land Use Plan is applicable to an area that is currently developed with a mix of industrial, commercial, office and sports-entertainment related uses. New development would most likely occur on sites that are currently developed and demolition of existing uses would most likely be involved. The maximum allowable intensities for The Platinum Triangle include both existing and new development. 10. Square feet of new construction: Overall, the amended Platinum Triangle MLUP would allow for the development of up to 18,909 dwelling units; 14,340,522 sq. ft. office uses; 4,909,682 sq. ft. of commercial uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses . 11. Type, number, stories and height of new buildings or structures: A variety of commercial, office, residential, and industrial uses could be constructed in this area. See Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and The Platinum Triangle MLUP for permitted zoning and development standards and other development requirements. 12. Number of on-site parking spaces provided: On-site parking would be provided in accordance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code. 13. Tentative development schedule: Plan is intended to encompass a 20-year time horizon. 14. Airport Land Use Plan – Is the project area located within an airport land use plan a project may be located within an airport land use plan if it is located within 20,000 feet from the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center runway, or within 10,000 feet from Fullerton Municipal Airport runway) or within the vicinity of a heliport or helistop facility? Three heliport/helistops exist in the vicinity of The Platinum Triangle: the Fire Training Site, the UCI Medical Center, and the parking lot at Angel Stadium of Anaheim, which is used by the Anaheim Police Department. Complete Sections 15 and 16 for proposed Residential projects only: 15. Single or Multi- Number of Units Sq. Ft. of Units No. of Bedrooms Family Units? Multifamily Up to 18,909 units 16. Will the proposed residential housing development meet any of the following Article 34 restrictions (low income housing development)*: Yes No A. Apply for property tax abatement
 B. Apply for long-term governmental financing
 C. Provide in excess of 40% of the housing units as low income housing with rent control and occupancy restrictions.
 * The proposed project does not require or preclude individual residential projects that develop in accordance to the master land use plan to apply for property tax abatement, long term government financing or provide in excess of 40% of the housing units as low income housing with rent control and occupancy restrictions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 23 Initial Study Complete Section 17 for proposed Commercial projects only: 17. A. Type of Commercial or Office: Up to 14,340,522 sq. ft. of office space and up to 4,909,682 sq. ft. of commercial space B. Is the project oriented: Regionally, City or Neighborhood C. Anticipated hours of operation: n/a D. Estimated employees per shift and number of shifts: n/a E. Location of loading facilities and anticipated hours of loading/delivery operations: n/a 18. If use is not Residential, Commercial or Office, indicate type of use below: Manufacturing/Warehousing Institutional A. Indicate major function: n/a B. Anticipated hours of operation: n/a C. Estimated employees per shift and number of shifts: n/a D. Type, location and square footage of loading facilities: n/a Complete Sections 19, 20, and 21 to determine whether a Water Assessment Study and Preliminary Grading/Drainage Plans and/or Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan needs to be submitted as part of the Initial Study. 19. Existing and proposed square feet of all on-site impervious surfaces, including all paved areas paved parking lots and walkways areas, building footprint): Existing Acreage: Proposed Acreage: N/A – The overall boundaries of The Platinum Triangle will not be changed and the following documents provide relevant information with regards to this topic. Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area, CH2MHill, January 2006; City of Anaheim Platinum Triangle Drainage Study, Merit Civil Engineering, Inc., September 2004; and Water Quality Technical Report For: Platinum Triangle Project, PSOMAS, February 2005. 20. Water Assessment – Does the Project include a proposed new development or addition that meets any of the following criteria for a “Large Scale Development” (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9): Yes No A Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units?  B Proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space?  C Office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space?  D Hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms?  E Industrial manufacturing or processing plant occupying more than 40 acres or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area?  F Mixed use project that includes one or more of the above-listed projects in items A through E?  If yes was checked in any of the above boxes, the project may qualify as a “Large Scale Development” and you may need to submit a water assessment study which identifies existing water supply entitlements, water rights, and water service contracts relevant to the water supply for the project (please contact the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 26 Initial Study The County of Orange requires that the City notify the County of certain zoning actions. The following checklist will determine the need for notification. The County will be notified of any “yes” responses to questions 1 through 4: 1. Does this zoning action involve adoption or amendment to either the Anaheim General Plan, a Specific Plan, or a Reclassification? Yes  No IF YES, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 2. Does this zoning action involve land located east of the alignment of Weir Canyon Road? Yes No  3. Does this zoning action involve a residential project over 99 acres or 99 units in size? Yes  No 4. Does this zoning action involve a non-residential project over 29 acres or a non-residential project with more than 99 employees? Yes  No EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions: a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 27 Initial Study 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 28 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 29 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? J J J I b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? J J J I c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? I J J J d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? J J I J Narrative Summary: Questions A and B – No Impact. The proposed amendments would not alter the overall project boundaries of The Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle is located generally east of I-5, west of the Santa Ana River channel and SR 57, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the City limit. The project area does not contain any natural or undisturbed areas that provide undisturbed or unique vistas, and/or that are officially recognized by a local, state, or federal agency. The Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan states that the State of California has designated the SR-91, between SR-55 and Weir Canyon as a Scenic Highway. The project site is not scenic and there is no view of the project site from this freeway segment due to the distance and the presence of freeway sound walls. Increased development intensity within The Platinum Triangle would have no impact on any scenic vista or scenic resources. No further analysis of these issues in the EIR is warranted. Question C – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in changes to the massing, scale, and size of structures within the PTMU Overlay Zone which has the potential to create changes to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings than which was analyzed in the FSEIR No. 332. Therefore, this issue would be further analyzed in the EIR. Question D – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments would expand the PTMU Overlay Zone within the project boundaries and increase the overall development intensity within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Platinum Triangle is envisioned as a regional activity center with entertainment, retail, high density housing and office uses that require a certain level of after-hour nighttime lighting. Nighttime illumination of buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, park facilities, and roadways internal to the project area will be used to highlight building design features, emphasize prominent entrances and plazas, and create a feeling of security. Future development within The Platinum Triangle would comply with the applicable provisions of The Platinum Triangle MLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone with regards to landscaping, lighting, and setback requirements. It is also anticipated that proper installments of light fixtures that include the necessary shielding, such as hoods, filtering louvers, and glare shields may be required to maintain proper lighting in park facilities without undue glare impacts on adjoining residential areas. The project area is not located adjacent to any major open space areas and the increased light intensity resulting from the proposed amendments would not be of any unusual form or intensity. The impact would be in conformity with those analyzed in the FSEIR No. 332 and no new significant impacts are anticipated. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 5.1-1 of the MMP No. 106A would adequately mitigate potential shade and shadow impacts and no further mitigation will be necessary. No further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? J J J I ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 30 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? J J J I c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? J J J I Narrative Summary: Questions A through C – No Impact. Based on the 2002 California Important Farmland Map, there are no areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance within or in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed amendments would not alter the overall Platinum Triangle boundaries and therefore, the level of impact would not be greater than determine in the FSEIR No. 332. No new potentially significant impact would occur to agricultural resources as a result of the changes proposed by the amendment and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? I J J J b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? I J J J c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? I J J J d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? I J J J e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? J J I J Narrative Summary: Questions A through D – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed changes to The Platinum Triangle would increase the overall development intensity and associated vehicle trips, which will result in greater short-term construction-related and long-term air emissions that have the potential to affect local and regional air quality. Therefore, a substantial increase in the severity of air quality impacts from that described in the certified FSEIR No. 332 is anticipated. An air quality analysis will be prepared for the EIR to determine the project’s potential air quality impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be discussed in the EIR. Question E – Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing asphalt and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff" of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. The FSEIR No. 332 concluded that such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. However, the increased level of impact would not be substantially greater than analyzed by the FSEIR No. 332. Odors from food preparation in the restaurants and the residential units would be controlled by adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 31 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? J J J I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? J J J I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? J J J I d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? J J J I e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? J J J I f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? J J J I Narrative Summary: Questions A through D – No Impact. The project area is developed with urban uses and is nearly built-out with no natural resources on-site. The proposed project would not change the original project boundary and no new areas would be included as part of The Platinum Triangle. Based on the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element, no locally designated species or natural communities, wetland habitats, or wildlife corridors are known to exist within The Platinum Triangle. The project area is not part of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and would not impact any resources within the NCCP area. The proposed changes to The Platinum Triangle would not result in level of impact greater than determined in the FSEIR No. 332 and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question E – No Impact. The project site is not located in an area where trees are subject to a preservation ordinance. The proposed project would not increase the total area to be developed by The Platinum Triangle. No new significant impact is anticipated by the propose project and the conclusion of the FSEIR No. 332 remains valid. No further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question F – No Impact. The project site is not part of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The conclusion of the FSEIR No. 332 remains valid and no further analysis in the EIR is warranted. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? J J J I ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 32 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? J J J I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? J J J I d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? J J J I Narrative Summary: Question A through D – No Impact. According to the FSEIR No. 332, the project area does not contain any historical resource as defined in section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Platinum Triangle is not located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District by the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and none of the structures in the project area are identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999). Also, there are no known prehistoric/historic archaeological sites located within the project area. The project site has already been disturbed and the potential for any subsurface cultural resources is remote. While the limits of PTMU Overlay Zone would be adjusted, there will be no changes to The Platinum Triangle boundaries. The conclusion of the FSEIR No. 332 remains valid and no further assessment of this issue in the EIR is warranted. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. J J J I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? J J I J iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? J J I J iv) Landslides? J J J I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? J J I J c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? J J I J d) Be located on expansive soil, as described by Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? J J I J e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? J J J I Narrative Summary: Question A – No Impact. The project site is not underlain by any known earthquake faults, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The proposed project would not place the project area any closer to an Alquist-Priolo Zone, therefore, no new potentially significant impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. No further assessment of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Questions A (ii and iii) and C – Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in FSEIR No. 332, the project area may be exposed to impacts from earthquakes, including strong seismic groundshaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, and/or collapse. The impacts would be similar to those analyzed in the FSEIR No. 332 since ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 33 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact the overall boundaries for The Platinum Triangle did not change. Issues related to seismic safety have been adequately addressed in the FSEIR No. 332 and compliance with required Codes and Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-6 of Updated and Modified MMP No. 106A or equivalent measures would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. No further evaluation in the EIR is warranted. Question A (iv) – No Impact. The project area is already developed and does not contain any major slopes on or in the immediate vicinity. No impacts from landslides are anticipated. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question B – Less Than Significant Impact. Soils in the project area are considered to have a slight erosion potential. Development would be subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading. In addition, development projects that encompass area of one or more acres would require compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan during construction to control erosion. Adherence to the existing requirements would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level. No further evaluation in the EIR is warranted. Question D – Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in FSEIR No. 332, the near-surface soils within The Platinum Triangle are generally medium-dense, fine and fine-to-medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of silt. As a result, the expansion potential for these soils is considered low. In addition, the design of the individual development projects within the project area would be in conformance with the California Building Code (CBC) and the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17 Land Development Resources. Application of the existing regulations identified in the Municipal Code and CBC and grading regulations would minimize the risk associated with any development proposed within areas containing expansive soils. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. Question E – No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative sewer disposal systems. The project would incorporate the use of City sewer lines and sewer disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would result from project implementation and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? J J I J b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? J J I J c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school? J J I J d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? J J I J e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? J J J I f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? J J I J g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? J J I J h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? J J J I ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 34 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Question A – Less Than Significant Impact. Various hazardous materials are currently used and stored by businesses within the project area. Such materials include cleaning chemicals, fuels, and other hydrocarbon products, solvents, etc, used during operations of the facilities and for maintenance purposes. Development of The Platinum Triangle MLUP allows continued operation of these businesses. In addition, the project has designated the northern periphery of the project area as industrial, which may handle hazardous materials. However, businesses are required to obtain permits and maintain records regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous material. Adhering to the existing permitting process would ensure that less than significant hazard to the public or the environment occur as result of project implementation. The proposed project will not change the existing condition of the project area and/or increase the use of hazardous materials in the area. No further assessment of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question B and D – Less Than Significant Impact. Database records searches were conducted as part of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan FEIR No. 321 in 1999 and the FSEIR No. 332 in 2005 to identify properties that could potentially pose a variety of environmental hazards within the boundaries and immediately adjacent to The Platinum Triangle. Action status on many of the identified properties were “closed” and required no further remediation and some were undergoing environmental remediation. However, these impacts are site-specific and implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-7 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332, would ensure that identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material is handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. The mitigation measure also requires that a Phase I Site Assessment is prepared and the site receives a no-further-action status by an applicable oversight agency. Therefore, the FSEIR No. 332 determined that development of The Platinum Triangle would not create a significant hazard to the environment through the release of hazardous materials and the proposed project does not involve actions that would affect the impact finding. In addition, existing Federal and State regulations that govern hazardous material and waste management help to minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The conclusion of the FSEIR No. 332 remains valid and no further discussion in the EIR is warranted. Question C – Less Than Significant Impact. The Paul Revere Elementary School at 140 W. Guinida Lane and the Ponderosa Elementary School (under construction) near Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street are within one- quarter mile of the project area. Additionally, the Anaheim City Unified School District operates the Family Oasis at 131 W. Midway Drive and the Facilities and Operations Center at 1411 S. Anaheim Boulevard. Use or handling of hazardous materials or substances within the project area would comply with appropriate state and federal rules and regulations through permitting process. No unauthorized use of hazardous materials would be allowed. The project area is occupied by various industrial uses and the proposed mixed-use development would not result in substantial adverse impact to school population due to increased amount of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. No additional analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question E – No Impact. The project area is not within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed further in the EIR. Question F – Less Than Significant Impact. The heliport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft from structures located within navigable airspace and crash hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. There are two heliports in the project vicinity: the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center. The Anaheim Police Department (APD) also uses the parking lot at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. The primary risks associated with heliports and training areas are take-offs and landings. The North Net Training Center is approximately one-half mile east of the project site. The flight path for this facility is along the Santa Ana River channel; flights landing and taking-off head directly for the channel and continue north or south. As helicopters are directed away from the project site, there are no hazards posed by these operations to the project site. The UC Irvine Medical Center heliport is one mile south of the project site, across I-5. The flight pattern from this facility runs along the Santa Ana River channel and the project area is not within the overflight contours for the facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose future residents to hazards associated with operation of this heliport. The parking lot of Angel Stadium of Anaheim is used by the APD for helicopter training exercises. The general flight path is over the Santa Ana riverbed from the south side of the parking lot. The APD has used the western portion of the parking lot in the past but has discontinued this practice. The use of the stadium parking lot for training exercises does not pose a safety concern given the flight patterns currently used by the APD. Therefore, the Platinum Triangle FSEIR No. 332 determined that operations of these heliports are not expected to pose safety hazards to future residents of the project area. The proposed project would not expose future residents to heliport safety hazards. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 35 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Question G – Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim has an emergency preparedness plan that complies with State law and interfaces with other cities and counties within Southern California. The plan outlines the operations that shall be taken in the event of a disaster. It also allows for coordination with other agencies in the event that Anaheim is affected by a disaster elsewhere. The plan addresses a warning system, emergency broadcast system (EBS), Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and shelter system. The plan provides a foundation to conduct operations and coordinate the management of critical resources during emergencies. It also provides the framework for which nongovernmental agencies and organizations that have resources needed to meet emergency requirements are integrated into the program. The City of Anaheim also participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi-agency responses to disasters. SEMS is required by the California Government Code and was developed to provide a “common language” for emergency response personnel to request resources and equipment from other agencies. In addition to resource allocation, SEMS was established to minimize the duplication of efforts during emergency response by defining common tactics and identifying a clear chain of command. The SEMS program is developed to respond to incidents as they occur, and does not provide long-term recovery guidelines. The proposed project would intensify development densities in the area. However, new development would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.4-3 and 5.4-4 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332 would ensure that impacts related to emergency safety are mitigated. Therefore, no further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question H – No Impact. The project area is developed with industrial uses and no undeveloped wildland areas are adjacent to the project area. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No further analysis in the EIR is necessary. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? J J I J b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? I J J J c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site? J J I J d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-site or off-site? J J I J e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? J J I J f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? J J I J g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? J J I J h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? J J I J i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J J I J j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? J J J I ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 36 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? J J I J l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? J J I J Narrative Summary: Question A – Less Than Significant Impact. Since the project area is already developed entirely and covered with paved surfaces, the proposed project would not increase the area of impervious surfaces. In addition, the proposed project would not change the boundaries of The Platinum Triangle. During grading and construction activities, there will be a potential for surface water runoff to carry sediment and small quantities of pollutants into the stormwater system. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332, and the State General Construction Permit would ensure that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is prepared and implemented at sites greater than one acre and the City’s Grading Ordinance requires an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as part of that permit. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is prepared in accordance with the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the project area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of The Platinum Triangle. The FSEIR No. 332 described the existing water quality conditions and provided an analysis of potential water quality impacts associated with the implementation of the MLUP. The proposed project would be required to comply with current water quality regulations associated with the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the County area-wide MS4 Storm Water Runoff Permit. The conclusion of the FSEIR No. 332 remains valid and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question B – Potentially Significant Impact. There are two groundwater wells located on the project area: a monitoring well on the eastern border of the project area and a production well located north of Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Although the majority of the project area is already developed and do not represent a substantial groundwater recharging area, the proposed project would use groundwater as a water resource. The proposed project would contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Questions C and D – Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves redevelopment of the existing land uses. Thus, the project would not significantly increase the amount of impervious surface and the runoff rates are expected to remain approximately the same compared to the existing conditions. The proposed project would not increase the runoff volume within the project area. The City of Anaheim Public Works Department and the Orange County Flood Control District would review the design of the drainage system; design requirements of these two agencies would ensure that runoff is properly conveyed and discharged as appropriate. Therefore, while there would be changes to the existing drainage system, the new improvements would not substantially alter the course of a stream or river. As such, the impacts are considered less than significant and no further analysis would be provided in the EIR. Questions E and F – Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332, requires the City Engineer to review the location of each project within The Platinum Triangle to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities and that the impacts of the project are mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office, if the project will increase storm water flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study. In addition, the property owner/developer is also required to participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program. The proposed project should not increase the amount of impervious surfaces and the runoff rates are expected to remain approximately the same compared to the approved conditions. Although runoff may contain increased amount of urban pollutants during construction activities, construction would be temporary and required compliance with the established regulations the local grading ordinance, the State General Construction Permit and the County area-wide MS4 Storm Water Runoff Permit) would ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant. The conclusion of the FSEIR No. 332 remains valid and the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff. No further analysis will be provided in the EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 37 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Questions G though I – Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study area within Zone A99 and X designation. The majority of the project area is located in Zone X which lies in a 100-Year to 500-Year Flood Zone with flooding below one foot. However, Mitigation Measures 5.5-1 and 5.5-4 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332 would ensure that potential flooding impacts are mitigated to a less than significant impact. It is anticipated that plans documenting that the design of all aboveground structures are at least three feet higher than the 100-year flood zone unless otherwise required by the City Engineer and all structures below this level are required to be flood-proofed. The proposed project would not result in greater flooding impact than analyzed in the FEIR No. 332. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question J – No Impact. The project site is developed with light industrial buildings and exhibits flat topography. Therefore, the project site would not be subject to mudflow. No water bodies are located within the project area that could produce a seiche during a seismic event. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further assessment of this issue is warranted. Questions K and L – Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves development of a mixed-use community comprised of residential, commercial, office and institutional uses. These uses typically do not include activities such as material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, or hazardous materials handling; and limited storage, delivery area, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas. Construction-related runoff may also affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. However, the project would be required to comply with current water quality regulations associated with the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan, and the County-wide MS4 Storm Water Runoff Permit. The project site is currently developed with light industrial uses and implementation of the proposed project would not be greater than the current water quality conditions. No further analysis is necessary. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? J J J I b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? I J J J c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? J J J I Narrative Summary: Question A – No Impact. The proposed project would increase the adopted development intensities and expand the PTMU Overlay Zone. No physical division of an established community would result from the proposed project. No further assessment of this issue is warranted. Question B – Potentially Significant Impact. The project includes a General Plan Amendment, MLUP Amendment, and a PTMU Overlay Zone Amendment that would provide for the additional development of 8,643 dwelling units, 9,284,972 square feet of office uses, 2,645,282 square feet of commercial uses and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses in the PTMU Overlay Zone. The EIR will evaluate the consistency of these proposed amendments with City policies and regulations, and other relevant local and regional planning documents General Plan, Development Code, SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide [RCPG]). Question C – No Impact. The project area is not part of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any conservation plans. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? J J J I b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use? J J J I ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 38 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Questions A and B – No Impact. The project area does not contain any mineral resources. The project area is not identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G-4, Mineral Resource Map) as Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of the availability of mineral resources that would be of regional value. Therefore, no additional discussion of this issue in the EIR is necessary. XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? I J J J b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? I J J J c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? I J J J d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? I J J J e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? J J J I f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? J J I J Narrative Summary: Questions A, C and D – Potentially Significant Impact. The activities associated with the implementation of the project have the potential to substantially increase the ambient noise levels near existing sensitive receptors, and expose future residents to adverse noise levels from adjacent major roadways. In addition, the project would generate potentially significant noise levels during construction phases. The EIR will evaluate the existing noise conditions on-site and predict the noise conditions in the future with and without the project. The EIR will also identify applicable noise standards and provide mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Question B – Potentially Significant Impact. Project operation would not generate any significant amounts of long-term groundborne vibration or noise; thus, no impact would occur from the project. However, there is the potential for temporary vibration and noise impacts during construction. Potential vibration impacts could result from on-site blasting, which may be required during construction. Groundborne noise and vibration impacts will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation measures identified, as necessary. Question E – No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan. Future residents and people working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from these types of operations. Therefore, no further discussion will be provided in the EIR. Question F – Less Than Significant Impact. There are two heliports in the project vicinity: the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center. The Anaheim Police Department also uses the parking lot at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. There are no private airstrips within the City. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.7-3 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332, requires that new development project property owner/developer use the most current available Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resources of evaluating heliport and airport operations. While the proposed project would place more people to the heliport noise, the noise would not increase as a result of the project and no further mitigation is necessary. The conclusion of the FSEIR No. 332 remains valid and this issue would not be further analyzed in the EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 39 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? I J J J b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? J J J I c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? J J J I Narrative Summary: Question A – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would create additional jobs and housing in the project area. Therefore, the project’s impact on local and regional population and housing will be addressed in the EIR. Questions B and C – No Impact. Since the approval of the Master Land Use Plan, 390 dwelling units have been constructed and an additional 1,530 units are under construction. None of these units are expected to be displaced as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no housing displacement issues would be discussed in the EIR. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? I J J J b) Police protection? I J J J c) Schools? I J J J d) Parks? I J J J e) Other public facilities? I J J J Narrative Summary: Questions A through E – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in increased service demand for all public services including fire and police protection, schools, and parks, as well as other public facilities. Based on coordination with service providers, impacts to public services will be evaluated in the EIR, and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary. XIV. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? I J J J b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? I J J J Narrative Summary: Question A – Potentially Significant Impact. By increasing the development intensities in The Platinum Triangle, the proposed project may result in an increase in the use of existing park and recreational facilities. Impacts related to the increased use of these recreation facilitates will be evaluated in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary. Question B – Potentially Significant Impact. Development fees collected for projects within The Platinum Triangle will be used for the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. In addition, developers of residential projects ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 40 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact totaling over 325 units on parcels eight acres or larger are required to construct an on-site public park, at a minimum size of 44 square feet per dwelling unit. Impacts to the physical environment related to the construction or expansion of recreation facilitates for the proposed project will be evaluated in the EIR, and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? I J J J b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? I J J J c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? J J I J d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? I J J J e) Result in inadequate emergency access? J J I J f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? J J I J g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation bus stops/routes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc.)? I J J J Narrative Summary: Questions A and B – Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would cause an increase in traffic and increase the number of vehicle trips, and the volume of vehicles on roads and at intersections. A traffic and circulation study will be prepared for the EIR to determine the project’s potential traffic impacts, including compliance with level of service standards established for designated roads and highways in the vicinity of the project. Mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary. Question C – Less Than Significant Impact. There are two heliports in the project vicinity: the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center. The Anaheim Police Department also uses the parking lot at Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. There are no private airstrips within the City. Heliport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft from structures located within navigable airspace and crash hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. The primary risks associated with heliports are take- offs and landings. The City typically seeks to minimize public exposure to heliport-related risks primarily through minimizing the siting of incompatible land uses surrounding the City’s existing heliports. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County assists local agencies to ensure that there are no direct conflicts with land uses, noise, or other issues that would impact the functionality and safety of heliport operations. The ALUC requires that local jurisdictions’ general plans and zoning ordinances are consistent with Airport Environs Land Use Plans (AELUPs), which contain noise contours, restrictions for types of construction and building heights in navigable air space, as well as requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within close proximity to airports and heliports. Therefore, although implementation of The Platinum Triangle will allow development of various land uses, including high rise residential uses in proximity to the existing heliports, such development would initiate a review by the ALUC for compatibility. It is anticipated that following AELUP guidelines will help reduce hazards related to heliports within the project area and the impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question D – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would intensify uses and increase the number of vehicle trips occurring in the project area. Although the proposed project would not change the backbone circulation system and arterial connections of the existing Platinum Triangle MLUP, the projected increase in turning movements and pedestrian traffic would increase the safety hazards in the project area. Therefore, the EIR will address potential safety hazards associated with the proposed project and provide mitigation measures, if necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 41 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Question E – Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project would increase the area traffic, all vehicle access will be designed and improved in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer to reduce any emergency access impact at buildout of The Platinum Triangle. The property owner/developer is required to submit customary emergency access plans for review and approval of the Anaheim Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. This plan would ensure that sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles is provided during all phases of construction. It should be noted that during construction, if any project work street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound walls, storm drain construction, street connections, etc.) occurs in the vicinity of the Caltrans right-of-way, an encroachment permit would be required. Implementation of Measure 5.10-6 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332, also requires the property owner/developer to dedicate, including any necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)- of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property to maintain adequate levels of service and access within the project area. Therefore, less than significant impact would result from the project implementation and no further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. Question F – Less Than Significant Impact. New development will comply with the parking requirements set forth for the use in the Zoning Code, therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be any significant impacts created by new development. Parking will not be further analyzed in the EIR. Question G – Potentially Significant Impact. The Platinum Triangle MLUP promotes alternative forms of transportation by integrating design standards for bus stops, enhanced pedestrian walkways, and the regional bike system. The proposed project will continue to promote alternative mode of transportation and comply with the design standards of The Platinum Triangle. However, the proposed project will amend the General Plan Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities, this issue would be further discussed in the EIR. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? I J J J b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? I J J J c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? I J J J d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Checklist) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? I J J J e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? I J J J f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? I J J J g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? I J J J h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? I J J J i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? I J J J j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? J J I J ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 42 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? J J I J Narrative Summary: Questions A through I – Potentially Significant Impact. The project would require the implementation of new electrical, water, sewer, and stormwater drainage facilities that would connect to existing utility systems provided by the City of Anaheim and other agencies. Additionally, the project would generate solid waste that would be disposed of in the County of Orange landfill system. Based on technical studies to be prepared for the project and/or coordination with utility/service providers, the EIR will evaluate impacts to utility/service systems, and will determine the existing conditions and impacts of project build- out on utility/service systems, and assess environmental impacts. The EIR will also evaluate consistency of the project with applicable statutes and regulations related to public services and utilities and potential physical impacts associated with implementation of utility systems. A Water Supply Assessment in accordance with SB 610 will be completed as part of the EIR. Question C – Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with industrial buildings and associated parking lots. Since the project site is covered with impervious surfaces, the rate or volume of stormwater within the project site would not be greater than the existing conditions. However, The Platinum Triangle Drainage Study, prepared in September 2004 by Merit Civil Engineering identified existing deficiencies in the drainage system. Therefore, this issue would be further discussed in the EIR. Question J – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase the demand on the telephone service system; however, telephone service already exists in the project area and telephone facilities can be upgraded without any significant impact on the environment. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. Question K – Less Than Significant Impact. Time-Warner provides cable television service to the City of Anaheim. The infrastructure capacity for cable television is also expected to expand with new development without any significant impact on the environment. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? J J J I b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) I J J J c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I J J J Narrative Summary: Question A – No Impact. Because the project site is already developed and approved for redevelopment, the proposed increase in development intensities would not further degrade the quality of environment related to biological and cultural resources compared to the adopted MLUP. Impacts related to biological resources and cultural resources have been adequately addressed in the FSEIR No. 332. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Nos. 5.12-1 and 5.12-2 of MMP No. 106A, prepared for FSEIR No. 332 would ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant level and no further discussion on this issue is warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 43 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Questions B and C – Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impact in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, land use, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities. The project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts and affect the human environment. Because of this potential for significant adverse effects, an EIR will be prepared for the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 44 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 45 Initial Study Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.)* Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the proposed project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption) No (Pay fee) *Note: Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee. ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP 46 Initial Study REFERENCES CITED Anaheim, City of. 2004, May (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan. Anaheim, City of. 2004, May (amended). Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Anaheim, City of. 2004, August (amended). The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. California Department of Conservation. 2002 California Important Farmland Map. The Planning Center. 2004, May. Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330. The Planning Center. 2005, May. The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, No. 332. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix B Comments on Notice of Preparation ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page left blank intentionally. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix C Air Quality Modeling Output ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page left blank intentionally. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Glassell&Walnut.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 89. Glassell and Walnut RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 175. CM ALT= 0. BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) A. NF * 4 -450 4 -150 * AG 1550 1.0 .0 9.6 B. NA * 5 -150 5 0 * AG 1410 1.4 .0 9.9 C. ND * 5 0 5 150 * AG 1660 1.1 .0 9.9 D. NE * 4 150 4 450 * AG 1660 1.0 .0 9.6 E. SF * -4 450 -4 150 * AG 1400 1.0 .0 9.6 F. SA * -5 150 -5 0 * AG 1300 1.4 .0 9.9 G. SD * -5 0 -5 -150 * AG 1240 1.1 .0 9.9 H. SE * -4 -150 -4 -450 * AG 1240 1.0 .0 9.6 I. WF * 450 4 150 4 * AG 400 1.0 .0 9.6 J. WA * 150 4 0 4 * AG 310 1.6 .0 9.9 K. WD * 0 4 -150 4 * AG 620 1.7 .0 9.9 L. WE * -150 4 -450 4 * AG 620 1.0 .0 9.6 M. EF * -450 -4 -150 -4 * AG 780 1.0 .0 9.6 N. EA * -150 -5 0 -5 * AG 450 1.6 .0 9.9 O. ED * 0 -5 150 -5 * AG 610 1.7 .0 9.9 P. EE * 150 -4 450 -4 * AG 610 1.0 .0 9.6 Q. NL * 0 -150 0 0 * AG 140 1.2 .0 9.9 R. SL * 0 150 0 0 * AG 100 1.2 .0 9.9 S. WL * 150 0 0 0 * AG 90 1.6 .0 9.9 T. EL * -150 0 0 0 * AG 330 1.6 .0 9.9 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glassell&Walnut.txt JOB: 89. Glassell and Walnut RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES RECEPTOR * X Y Z 1. NE * 12 8 1.8 2. SE * 12 -12 1.8 3. SW * -12 -12 1.8 4. NW * -12 8 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H 1. NE * 265. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * 353. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * 6. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 4. NW * 174. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T 1. NE * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Haster_GeneAutry.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 24. Haster & Gene Autry RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 175. CM ALT= 0. BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) A. NF * 9 -450 9 -150 * AG 2270 1.0 .0 16.8 B. NA * 14 -150 14 0 * AG 2010 1.4 .0 21.6 C. ND * 14 0 14 150 * AG 1950 1.2 .0 10.8 D. NE * 9 150 9 450 * AG 1950 1.0 .0 16.8 E. SF * -9 450 -9 150 * AG 1590 1.0 .0 16.8 F. SA * -14 150 -14 0 * AG 1340 1.4 .0 21.6 G. SD * -14 0 -14 -150 * AG 2020 1.2 .0 10.8 H. SE * -9 -150 -9 -450 * AG 2020 1.0 .0 16.8 I. WF * 450 9 150 9 * AG 2010 .9 .0 16.8 J. WA * 150 14 0 14 * AG 1280 1.4 .0 21.6 K. WD * 0 14 -150 14 * AG 1680 1.1 .0 10.8 L. WE * -150 9 -450 9 * AG 1680 .9 .0 16.8 M. EF * -450 -11 -150 -11 * AG 1510 .9 .0 20.4 N. EA * -150 -14 0 -14 * AG 1200 1.4 .0 21.6 O. ED * 0 -14 150 -14 * AG 1730 1.1 .0 14.4 P. EE * 150 -11 450 -11 * AG 1730 .9 .0 20.4 Q. NL * 0 -150 0 0 * AG 260 1.4 .0 9.9 R. SL * 0 150 0 0 * AG 250 1.4 .0 9.9 S. WL * 150 0 0 0 * AG 730 1.4 .0 9.9 T. EL * -150 0 0 0 * AG 310 1.4 .0 9.9 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Haster_GeneAutry.txt JOB: 24. Haster & Gene Autry RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES RECEPTOR * X Y Z 1. NE * 28 28 1.8 2. SE * 28 -28 1.8 3. SW * -28 -28 1.8 4. NW * -28 28 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H 1. NE * 187. * 6.1 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * 344. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * 79. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NW * 164. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T 1. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Lewis_Katella.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 33. Lewis and Katella RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 175. CM ALT= 0. BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) A. NF * 4 -450 4 -150 * AG 1440 .9 .0 9.6 B. NA * 4 -150 4 0 * AG 1190 1.8 .0 9.9 C. ND * 4 0 4 150 * AG 1280 1.8 .0 9.9 D. NE * 4 150 4 450 * AG 1280 .9 .0 9.6 E. SF * -4 450 -4 150 * AG 1610 .9 .0 9.6 F. SA * -4 150 -4 0 * AG 1230 1.8 .0 9.9 G. SD * -4 0 -4 -150 * AG 1050 1.8 .0 9.9 H. SE * -4 -150 -4 -450 * AG 1050 .9 .0 9.6 I. WF * 450 7 150 7 * AG 3370 .9 .0 16.8 J. WA * 150 9 0 9 * AG 2890 1.4 .0 14.4 K. WD * 0 9 -150 9 * AG 3720 1.2 .0 10.8 L. WE * -150 7 -450 7 * AG 3720 .9 .0 16.8 M. EF * -450 -7 -150 -7 * AG 2630 .9 .0 16.8 N. EA * -150 -9 0 -9 * AG 2210 1.3 .0 14.4 O. ED * 0 -9 150 -9 * AG 3000 1.2 .0 10.8 P. EE * 150 -7 450 -7 * AG 3000 .9 .0 16.8 Q. NL * 0 -150 0 0 * AG 250 1.6 .0 9.9 R. SL * 0 150 0 0 * AG 380 1.6 .0 9.9 S. WL * 150 0 0 0 * AG 480 1.3 .0 9.9 T. EL * -150 0 0 0 * AG 420 1.3 .0 9.9 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Lewis_Katella.txt JOB: 33. Lewis and Katella RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES RECEPTOR * X Y Z 1. NE * 8 19 1.8 2. SE * 8 -19 1.8 3. SW * -8 -19 1.8 4. NW * -8 19 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H 1. NE * 185. * 6.5 * .0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * 355. * 6.5 * .0 .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * 5. * 6.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 .0 4. NW * 175. * 6.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .2 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T 1. NE * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NW * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Amendment to the Platinum Triangle MLUP Caline Results Ambient CO For Source Receptor Area 17 AQMD Projected CO Concentrations Year One Hour Year Eight Hour 2015 5.8 2015 3.9 Ambient 2020 5.8 2020 3.9 2030 5.8 2030 3.9 1 hr/8hr deterioration 70% 33. Lewis and Katella 6.5 4.6 50. State College and Gateway Center 6.3 4.4 89. Glassell and Walnut 6.1 4.3 24. Haster & Gene Autry 6.1 4.3 9:59 AM 1/6/2010 Results-CO CL4v9.3_New.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- StateCollege_Gateway.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 50. State College and Gateway Center RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 175. CM ALT= 0. BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 15.0 DEGREE II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) A. NF * 7 -450 7 -150 * AG 1590 .9 .0 16.8 B. NA * 7 -150 7 0 * AG 1510 1.3 .0 10.8 C. ND * 7 0 7 150 * AG 1620 1.0 .0 10.8 D. NE * 7 150 7 450 * AG 1620 .9 .0 16.8 E. SF * -9 450 -9 150 * AG 1570 .9 .0 16.8 F. SA * -13 150 -13 0 * AG 1170 1.3 .0 18.0 G. SD * -13 0 -13 -150 * AG 2240 1.1 .0 10.8 H. SE * -9 -150 -9 -450 * AG 2240 .9 .0 16.8 I. WF * 450 4 150 4 * AG 1780 1.0 .0 9.6 J. WA * 150 4 0 4 * AG 620 1.8 .0 9.9 K. WD * 0 4 -150 4 * AG 280 1.1 .0 9.9 L. WE * -150 4 -450 4 * AG 280 1.0 .0 9.6 M. EF * -450 -4 -150 -4 * AG 140 1.0 .0 9.6 N. EA * -150 -4 0 -4 * AG 80 1.5 .0 9.9 O. ED * 0 -4 150 -4 * AG 940 1.8 .0 9.9 P. EE * 150 -4 450 -4 * AG 940 1.0 .0 9.6 Q. NL * 0 -150 0 0 * AG 80 1.3 .0 9.9 R. SL * 0 150 0 0 * AG 400 1.3 .0 9.9 S. WL * 150 0 0 0 * AG 1160 1.8 .0 9.9 T. EL * -150 0 0 0 * AG 60 1.5 .0 9.9 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- StateCollege_Gateway.txt JOB: 50. State College and Gateway Center RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES RECEPTOR * X Y Z 1. NE * 16 8 1.8 2. SE * 16 -8 1.8 3. SW * -25 -8 1.8 4. NW * -25 8 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H 1. NE * 186. * 6.2 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * 84. * 6.3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * 85. * 6.3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NW * 95. * 6.2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T 1. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 4. NW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 2 Projected Future Year 1-hour CO Concentrations (ppm) Y E A R Monitoring Site Location 1999 2000 2010 2015 2020 1 Central LA 7 6.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 2 West LA 6 5.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 3 Hawthorne 10 9.6 7.3 7.3 7.3 4 Long Beach 7 6.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 6 Reseda 9 8.6 6.5 6.6 6.6 7 Burbank 9 8.6 6.5 6.6 6.6 8 Pasadena 9 8.6 6.5 6.6 6.6 9 Azusa 5 4.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 10 Pomona 10 9.6 7.3 7.3 7.3 11 Pico Rivera 7 6.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 12 Lynwood 19 18.2 13.8 13.8 13.9 12 Compton 19 18.2 13.8 13.8 13.9 13 Santa Clarita 7 6.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 16 La Habra 11 10.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 17 Anaheim* 8 7.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 18 Costa Mesa 8 7.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 19 El Toro 4 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 23 Rubidoux 7 6.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 23 Banning AP** 7 6.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 30 Palm Springs 3 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 34 San Bernardino 5 4.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 *Anaheim data recovery rate: 33.7% **Banning AP data recovery rate: 82.2% ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 3 Projected Future Year 8-hour CO Concentrations (ppm) Y E A R Monitoring Site Location 1999 2000 2010 2015 2020 1 Central LA 6.3 6.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 2 West LA 3.8 3.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 3 Hawthorne 8.4 8.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 4 Long Beach 5.4 5.2 3.9 3.9 3.9 6 Reseda 7.6 7.3 5.5 5.5 5.5 7 Burbank 9 8.6 6.5 6.6 6.6 8 Pasadena 6.6 6.3 4.8 4.8 4.8 9 Azusa 3.9 3.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 10 Pomona 6.7 6.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 11 Pico Rivera 5.6 5.4 4.1 4.1 4.1 12 Lynwood 11 10.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 12 Compton 11.7 11.2 8.5 8.5 8.5 13 Santa Clarita 3.6 3.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 16 La Habra 5.3 5.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 17 Anaheim* 5.3 5.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 18 Costa Mesa 6.4 6.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 19 El Toro 2.5 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 23 Rubidoux 4.4 4.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 23 Banning AP** 4.1 3.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 Palm Springs 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 34 San Bernardino 4 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 *Anaheim data recovery rate: 33.7% **Banning AP data recovery rate: 82.2% ---PAGE BREAK--- Title: Orange County - 2030 Version: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov, 1 2006 Run Date: 9/4/2009 Scen Year: 2030- All Model years in the range 1986 to 2030 selected Season: Annual Area: Orange County Running Emissions (grams/mile) Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide (CO) Temperature: 60F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 0.667 1.126 1.367 1.364 4.983 15.485 1.038 Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 60F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 0.013 0.031 0.033 0.099 0.158 0.015 0.026 Pollutant Name: PM10 (Tire Wear) Temperature: 60F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.022 0.009 0.004 0.009 Pollutant Name: PM10 (Break Wear) Temperature: 60F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.013 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 0.04 0.078 0.153 1.866 7.809 0.914 0.155 ---PAGE BREAK--- Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases (ROG) Temperature: 85F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 0.023 0.041 0.058 0.241 0.675 2.247 0.056 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Temperature: 77F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 428.294 538.105 [PHONE REDACTED].306 1867.583 153.723 552.148 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Temperature: 85F Relative Humidity: 70% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 25 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.015 0.018 0.002 0.006 Starting Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide (CO) Temperature: 60F Relative Humidity: All Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.13 0.224 0.622 1.133 3.147 3.365 0.335 10 0.258 0.443 1.229 2.22 6.166 4.329 0.644 20 0.502 0.865 2.395 4.255 11.82 6.162 1.235 30 0.733 1.265 3.501 6.107 16.963 7.866 1.791 40 0.952 1.643 4.544 7.774 21.595 9.443 2.311 50 1.157 2 5.527 9.257 25.715 10.89 2.795 60 1.349 2.335 6.447 10.556 29.323 12.209 3.244 120 2.103 3.647 9.594 8.945 24.847 16.315 4.539 180 1.485 2.595 7.023 9.206 25.574 12.254 3.424 240 1.607 2.815 7.607 9.476 26.324 13.364 3.683 300 1.716 3.008 8.124 9.755 27.098 14.385 3.914 360 1.81 3.177 8.574 10.042 27.896 15.318 4.118 420 1.89 3.319 8.956 10.338 28.718 16.162 4.295 480 1.956 3.436 9.27 10.643 29.565 16.918 4.444 540 2.009 3.527 9.517 10.956 30.435 17.585 4.565 600 2.047 3.593 9.696 11.278 31.328 18.163 4.659 660 2.071 3.633 9.808 11.608 32.246 18.653 4.726 720 2.081 3.648 9.852 11.947 33.188 19.055 4.765 ---PAGE BREAK--- Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 60F Relative Humidity: All Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0.007 0.001 10 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.002 20 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.003 30 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 40 0.004 0.009 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 50 0.005 0.011 0.009 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.008 60 0.006 0.013 0.011 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.009 120 0.01 0.021 0.018 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.014 180 0.011 0.024 0.02 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.016 240 0.012 0.026 0.022 0.005 0.007 0.011 0.018 300 0.013 0.028 0.024 0.005 0.007 0.013 0.019 360 0.013 0.029 0.025 0.006 0.007 0.014 0.02 420 0.014 0.031 0.026 0.006 0.007 0.016 0.021 480 0.014 0.032 0.027 0.006 0.008 0.017 0.022 540 0.015 0.033 0.028 0.006 0.008 0.018 0.022 600 0.015 0.033 0.028 0.006 0.008 0.019 0.023 660 0.015 0.034 0.029 0.006 0.008 0.019 0.023 720 0.015 0.034 0.029 0.007 0.009 0.019 0.023 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: All Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.042 0.099 0.597 0.205 0.835 0.154 0.181 10 0.045 0.105 0.634 0.309 1.258 0.193 0.197 20 0.051 0.115 0.7 0.492 2.001 0.263 0.226 30 0.056 0.124 0.757 0.641 2.606 0.32 0.251 40 0.059 0.132 0.804 0.756 3.074 0.365 0.271 50 0.062 0.138 0.842 0.837 3.404 0.398 0.287 60 0.065 0.142 0.87 0.884 3.597 0.419 0.297 120 0.07 0.154 0.943 0.891 3.623 0.422 0.318 180 0.07 0.155 0.943 0.888 3.609 0.418 0.319 240 0.069 0.154 0.936 0.883 3.589 0.411 0.316 300 0.069 0.152 0.925 0.876 3.562 0.403 0.313 360 0.067 0.149 0.909 0.867 3.527 0.393 0.307 420 0.066 0.146 0.888 0.857 3.486 0.382 0.301 480 0.064 0.142 0.863 0.845 3.437 0.368 0.293 540 0.062 0.137 0.834 0.832 3.382 0.353 0.284 600 0.06 0.131 0.8 0.816 3.319 0.337 0.274 660 0.057 0.125 0.762 0.799 3.25 0.318 0.262 720 0.054 0.118 0.719 0.78 3.173 0.298 0.248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases (ROG) Temperature: 85F Relative Humidity: All Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.005 0.009 0.033 0.054 0.163 0.637 0.019 10 0.01 0.017 0.065 0.104 0.319 0.783 0.034 20 0.02 0.033 0.127 0.198 0.604 1.064 0.063 30 0.029 0.048 0.185 0.281 0.856 1.33 0.089 40 0.037 0.062 0.24 0.353 1.075 1.581 0.114 50 0.044 0.076 0.291 0.413 1.261 1.817 0.136 60 0.051 0.088 0.339 0.463 1.414 1.988 0.157 120 0.08 0.144 0.55 0.561 1.711 2.371 0.237 180 0.092 0.165 0.593 0.595 1.815 2.52 0.259 240 0.098 0.175 0.63 0.628 1.916 2.68 0.275 300 0.103 0.186 0.667 0.66 2.014 2.837 0.291 360 0.109 0.196 0.704 0.691 2.108 2.99 0.307 420 0.114 0.206 0.74 0.721 2.2 3.141 0.322 480 0.12 0.216 0.776 0.75 2.288 3.288 0.337 540 0.125 0.226 0.812 0.778 2.372 3.432 0.352 600 0.13 0.236 0.847 0.804 2.453 3.572 0.367 660 0.136 0.246 0.883 0.83 2.531 3.71 0.382 720 0.141 0.255 0.917 0.854 2.606 3.844 0.397 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Temperature: 77F Relative Humidity: 70% Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 12.21 15.367 21.663 2.852 3.038 13.326 14.537 10 13.709 17.262 24.532 5.688 6.06 15.525 16.504 20 17.207 21.681 31.144 11.312 12.053 19.843 21.019 30 21.372 26.939 38.921 16.874 17.978 24.053 26.305 40 26.203 33.035 47.862 22.372 23.836 28.156 32.363 50 31.701 39.969 57.967 27.807 29.627 32.151 39.193 60 37.866 47.742 69.237 33.179 35.351 36.039 46.796 120 88.224 111.159 159.552 56.432 60.126 53.502 107.307 180 100.144 126.187 181.329 66.67 71.034 57.729 121.972 240 112.044 141.189 203.022 76.304 81.298 61.707 136.569 300 123.925 156.164 224.629 85.333 90.919 65.437 151.098 360 135.787 171.112 246.152 93.758 99.896 68.92 165.559 420 147.629 186.034 267.59 101.579 108.228 72.154 179.952 480 159.452 200.93 288.942 108.796 115.918 75.14 194.278 540 171.256 215.799 310.21 115.409 122.963 77.878 208.535 600 183.041 230.641 331.392 121.417 129.364 80.368 222.725 660 194.806 245.457 352.49 126.821 135.122 82.611 236.847 720 206.551 260.246 373.503 131.62 140.236 84.605 250.901 ---PAGE BREAK--- Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Temperature: 85F Relative Humidity: 70% Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 60 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0 120 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 180 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 240 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 300 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 360 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 420 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 480 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 540 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 600 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 660 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 720 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 Hot Soak Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases (ROG) Temperature: 85F Relative Humidity: All Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.026 0.046 0.035 0.004 0.044 0.185 0.034 10 0.048 0.085 0.066 0.007 0.081 0.345 0.062 20 0.083 0.147 0.113 0.012 0.138 0.602 0.107 30 0.106 0.19 0.147 0.015 0.178 0.792 0.139 40 0.115 0.206 0.159 0.017 0.193 0.868 0.151 Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip of less than 5 minutes (aboute 25% of in-use trips). Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases (ROG) Temperature: All Relative Humidity: All Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 60 0.02 0.039 0.038 0.001 0.001 0.138 0.031 70 0.031 0.059 0.057 0.002 0.002 0.306 0.049 77 0.039 0.074 0.072 0.002 0.003 0.407 0.063 85 0.056 0.103 0.1 0.003 0.004 0.563 0.088 Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases (ROG) Temperature: All Relative Humidity: All Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 60 0.012 0.026 0.026 0.001 0.001 0.054 0.019 70 0.014 0.04 0.041 0.001 0.001 0.104 0.028 77 0.017 0.049 0.05 0.002 0.001 0.165 0.035 85 0.025 0.069 0.071 0.002 0.002 0.3 0.052 ---PAGE BREAK--- Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases (ROG) Temperature: 85F Relative Humidity: All Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 1 0.009 0.23 0.253 0.071 0.753 0.005 0.123 2 0.007 0.118 0.13 0.036 0.385 0.038 0.064 3 0.008 0.083 0.092 0.025 0.263 0.055 0.047 4 0.009 0.067 0.074 0.02 0.203 0.066 0.039 5 0.01 0.058 0.063 0.017 0.167 0.073 0.035 10 0.012 0.04 0.043 0.011 0.095 0.088 0.027 15 0.013 0.035 0.038 0.01 0.073 0.093 0.025 20 0.013 0.034 0.036 0.009 0.063 0.097 0.024 25 0.014 0.033 0.036 0.009 0.057 0.099 0.024 30 0.014 0.033 0.036 0.009 0.058 0.1 0.024 35 0.014 0.033 0.036 0.009 0.058 0.101 0.024 40 0.014 0.034 0.036 0.009 0.058 0.101 0.024 45 0.014 0.034 0.036 0.009 0.059 0.102 0.024 50 0.014 0.034 0.037 0.009 0.059 0.103 0.024 55 0.014 0.034 0.037 0.009 0.059 0.103 0.025 60 0.014 0.034 0.037 0.009 0.06 0.104 0.025 ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary of Emission Rates Running Emissions (lbs/mile) Starting Emissions (lbs/trip) Hot Soak Emissions (lbs/trip) Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (lbs/hour) Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (lbs/hour) Evaporative Resting Loss Emissions (lbs/minute) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.002 0.010 Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.000 0.000 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 0.000 0.001 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.000 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1.217 0.428 Sulfur Oxide (SO2) 0.000 0.000 Hot Soak: Assumes 20 minutes Diurnal Loss Assumes 16 hours for partial day diurnal loss based on 16 hours between work end and next day start Resting Loss Assumes 8 hours for partial day resting loss, based on an 8-hour workday Evaportative Assumes 60 minutes for evaportative running loss emissions 1 gram = 0.0022046 lbs 0.0022046 ---PAGE BREAK--- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Existing Future No Project Platinum Triangle MLUP Difference Trips/day 84,416 243,060 443,263 200,203 VMT/day 655,113 1,715,669 3,135,398 1,419,729 average trip length 7.76 7.06 7.07 0.01 Running Emission Rate (lbs/mile) Emissions (lbs/day) CO 2.29E-03 1,499 3,926 7,175 3,249 PM10 1.06E-04 69 182 332 150 NOx 3.42E-04 224 586 1,071 485 ROG 1.23E-04 81 212 387 175 CO2 1.22E+00 797,446 2,088,425 3,816,612 1,728,187 SO2 1.32E-05 9 23 41 19 Emissions (lbs/day) Starting Emissions (lbs/trip) CO 9.80E-03 827 2,381 4,343 1,961 PM10 4.85E-05 4 12 21 10 NOx 6.46E-04 55 157 286 129 ROG 7.43E-04 63 181 329 149 CO2 4.28E-01 36,156 104,104 189,852 85,748 SO2 4.41E-06 0 1 2 1 Evaporative Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) VOC (HS) 2.36E-04 20 57 105 47 VOC (Dirunal) 3.10E-03 262 754 1,376 621 VOC (Resting) 9.17E-04 77 223 407 184 VOC (Running) 5.51E-05 5 13 24 11 Total ROG 364 1,048 1,911 863 P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\Transportation\EMFACWorksheetRegional.xls PB 1/6/2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Total Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) CO 2,326 6,307 11,518 5,210 PM10 73 193 353 160 PM2.5 73 191 350 158 NOx 278 743 1,358 614 ROG 508 1,441 2,628 1,187 CO2 833,602 2,192,529 4,006,464 1,813,935 SO2 9 24 43 20 assumes PM2.5 is 99 percent of PM10 for mobile sources 1 Ton = 2,000 lbs Emissions (tons/year) CO 425 1,151 2,102 951 PM10 13 35 64 29 PM2.5 13 35 64 29 NOx 51 136 248 112 ROG 93 263 480 217 CO2 152,132 400,136 731,180 331,043 SO2 2 4 8 4 1 Ton = 0.9071847 Mtons Emissions (Mtons/year) CO 385 1,044 1,907 863 PM10 12 32 58 26 PM2.5 12 32 58 26 NOx 46 123 225 102 ROG 84 238 435 197 CO2 138,012 362,998 663,315 300,317 SO2 1 4 7 3 convert to MMTons 0.14 0.36 0.66 0.30 Assumptions SCAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Appendix Table A9-5-F, Input Assumptions to Determine Speed by Trip Type. County Average Speeds (miles per hour) 1987 2010 2030 Orange County 27.0 26.0 25.1 Orange County (Area 1) CO 60 NOx 70 ROG/VOC 85 Based on SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Table A9-5-I, Estimating Temperatures Needed to Choose Composite P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\Transportation\EMFACWorksheetRegional.xls PB 1/6/2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Greenhouse Gas Emissions CO2 77 Based on annual average temperature (WRRC) Starting emissions: Hot Soak: Assumes 20 minutes Diurnal Loss Assumes 16 hours for partial day diurnal loss based on 16 hours between work end and next day start Resting Loss Assumes 8 hours for partial day resting loss, based on an 8-hour workday Evaportative Assumes 60 minutes for evaportative running loss emissions assumes that cars rest for an average of 480 minutes between trips, based on an 8 hour workday (60 minutes/hour * 8 hours = 480 minutes) P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\Transportation\EMFACWorksheetRegional.xls PB 1/6/2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 1 BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK VERSION 5.0 – MAY 9, 2008 THE FRAMEWORK SUPPORTS YOUR EFFORTS NOW This Best Practices Framework offers suggestions for local action in ten Climate Leadership Opportunity Areas (see right), both in agency operations and the community at large. An agency can use specific best practice suggestions for stand-alone programs or as part of a broad-based climate action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The suggestions are designed to reflect the variation among cities and counties and offer a variety of options ranging from simple steps to more complex undertakings. YOU CAN START NOW We encourage you to review the Framework and get started on those actions that make sense for your agency. Many ideas in the Framework can be implemented immediately, even if you don’t have a climate action plan. For example, you can audit agency buildings and operations to find ways to save energy and money, such as by replacing lights, inefficient HVAC systems or water pumps. Buying climate-friendly products are another option. Check the Framework for ideas you haven’t thought of – if it fits your agency or community, you can start today. DEVELOP A BROAD-BASED CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Strategies for reducing greenhouse gases often overlap more than one program area. For example, many practices that improve energy efficiency also can apply to green building and water conservation. Strategies to promote efficient transportation are related to land use and community design. You can use the Framework to help identify these overlaps and start developing a broad-based climate action plan for your community. SEND US YOUR FEEDBACK The Best Practices Framework is an evolving resource document. Over time, we will include new actions that reflect innovation at the local level. If your city or county has additional suggestions for best practices to share, please send them to us, along with any background information available. Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] If you would like to receive information about climate change resources and updates from CCAN, please visit www.ca-ilg.org/climatelistserve to be added to the CCAN listserve. Climate Leadership Opportunity Areas 1. Energy Efficiency and Conservation 2. Water and Wastewater Systems 3. Green Building 4. Waste Reduction and Recycling 5. Climate-Friendly Purchasing 6. Renewable Energy and Low-Carbon Fuels 7. Efficient Transportation 8. Land Use and Community Design 9. Storing and Offsetting Carbon Emissions 10. Promoting Community and Individual Action The California Climate Action Network provides information, tools and resources in support of local governments’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their communities. The California Climate Action Network is a program of the Institute for Local Government, the non-profit research and education affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. Visit the California Climate Action Network Web site at www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 2 Energy Efficiency and Conservation GOAL BEST PRACTICE Energy conservation and efficiency in agency buildings and equipment. See also Green Building section for additional energy options. Audit/evaluation • Audit major agency buildings and facilities to quantify energy use and identify opportunities for energy savings through efficiency and conservation measures. • Conduct retro-commissioning studies of major agency building HVAC and lighting systems. • Benchmark energy use of major agency buildings. Building retrofitting and retro-commissioning • Develop an implementation schedule to implement no cost/low cost opportunities. • Develop implementation plan for capital intensive energy retrofits. • Develop implementation plan to achieve facility Energy Star rating of 60- 75 or greater, where feasible. • Implement retro-commissioning improvements as recommended in studies. Operations/protocols • Establish energy efficiency protocols for building custodial and cleaning services. • Establish facility energy efficiency policy for employees that provides guidelines, instructions and requirements for efficient use of the facility such as by turning lights and computers off, thermostat use, etc. • Implement off-peak scheduling of pumps, motors and other energy intensive machinery where feasible. • Incorporate energy management software or other methods to monitor energy use in agency buildings. Standards/commissioning • Develop commissioning and retro-commissioning standards for new and renovated buildings. • Develop and implement shading requirements for agency and community parking lots, buildings and other facilities to reduce the urban heat island effect. • Develop and implement a continuous commissioning plan. • Integrate energy efficiency, conservation, solar and other renewable energy technologies into new agency facilities. Work with energy provider • Work with energy provider to access utility’s technical assistance and financial incentives. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 3 Energy Efficiency and Conservation GOAL BEST PRACTICE Reduce energy use for traffic signal and street lighting system. • Replace incandescent traffic and crosswalk lights with energy-efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs). • Replace incandescent and mercury vapor street and parking lot lights with energy efficient alternatives. Outreach to business and residents to promote energy efficiency in the community. • Encourage community businesses to conduct energy audits. • Work with energy provider to encourage commercial sector to install energy efficient exterior lighting that is appropriate for the location and use, considering security versus decorative lighting. • Require energy audits and/or retrofits, such as at time of sale of commercial and residential properties. • Work with energy provider to promote use of financial incentives to assist residential and commercial customers improve energy efficiency. • Promote and reward energy efficiency efforts of local retail businesses. • Collaborate with local retail businesses to encourage residents to purchase energy efficient products. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 4 Water and Wastewater Systems GOAL BEST PRACTICE Reduce energy use in water, irrigation and waste water systems (either operated by agency or by another agency or private company). See also Green Buildings section for additional options. • Audit agency’s water and waste-water pumps and motors to identify most and least efficient equipment. • Develop and implement a motor/pump efficiency cycling schedule to use most efficient water or waste-water motors/pumps first and least efficient ones last. • Replace least efficient water/wastewater motors and pumps with more efficient units. • Work with agency or company that provides water and waste water service to implement an audit, cycling and equipment replacement program for water and waste water pumps and motors. • Implement methane capture for energy production at wastewater treatment plants. • Use recycled water for agency facilities and operations, including parks and medians, where appropriate. • Retrofit existing agency buildings and facilities to meet standards for the LEED Standards Rating Systems for Existing Buildings (EB) or Commercial Interiors (CI). • Require dual plumbing for use of recycled water for new commercial and/or residential developments. Reduce water use in agency operations and in the community. See also Green Building section for additional options. Agency operations • Assess, maintain and repair existing plumbing fixtures, pipes, and irrigation systems in all agency buildings and facilities to minimize water use, including building and parking lot landscaping, public rest rooms and parks, golf courses and other recreational facilities. • Upgrade and retrofit agency plumbing and irrigation systems with state- of-the-art water conserving technology. • Implement all feasible water efficiency strategies included in the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use in all agency parks, landscaping and in new developments. Community at large • Adopt water efficiency principles similar to the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use for new and existing residential and commercial developments. • Implement water conservation and reclamation programs to reduce energy use associated with water delivery. • Require water efficiency audits at point of sale for commercial and residential properties. • Adopt retrofit program to encourage or require installation of water conservation measures in existing businesses and homes. • Partner with water provider to adopt water conservation measures. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 5 Green Building GOAL BEST PRACTICE Establish minimum levels of energy efficiency and green building standards for agency buildings and facilities. See also Energy Efficiency and Conservation section for more options. • Require that agency buildings have a performance equivalent to an Energy Star rating of at least 60-75 (as described in the LEED-E3 reference guide), where feasible. • Require all new agency buildings and facilities to meet at least LEED Silver certification standards. • Require renovated agency buildings and facilities and those using agency funds or other financial support to meet at least LEED Silver certification standards. Establish and implement minimum levels of energy efficiency and green building standards for commercial and residential buildings. See also Energy Efficiency and Conservation section for more options. • Require new residential and commercial construction to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards to extent permitted by law. • Provide technical assistance, financial assistance, and other significant incentives to private development projects that meet or exceed LEED Silver certification standards for commercial buildings. • Adopt and implement a local green building ordinance or program setting minimum standards of LEED Silver certification for new commercial, industrial and high-rise residential building projects. • Adopt and implement a local green building ordinance or program to require new low-rise residential construction to meet minimum green building standards, such as Build It Green, California Green Builder, LEED, or a similar program. • Provide technical assistance, financial assistance, and other significant incentives to private development projects that meet or exceed specified standards under green building programs such as Build It Green, California Green Builder, LEED, or a similar program. • Work with commercial developers to incorporate materials and furnishings made from recycled content. Implement sustainable landscaping. See also Water and Wastewater section for more options. • Develop and implement sustainable landscaping standards for public agency facilities to reduce water consumption. • Develop and implement sustainable landscaping standards for new commercial construction and renovation to reduce water consumption. • Develop and implement sustainable landscaping standards for new residential construction and renovation to reduce water consumption. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 6 Waste Reduction and Recycling GOAL BEST PRACTICE Enhance existing waste reduction and recycling activities at agency buildings and in the community. • Institute a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling program in agency offices and facilities. • Institute a partnership with other public agency offices located within the jurisdiction for waste reduction and recycling at those facilities. • Adopt a partnership with local schools for waste reduction and recycling. • Increase opportunities for e-waste and hazardous waste recycling by residents and businesses. • Educate the community about “buy recycled” opportunities. • Evaluate current community recycling infrastructure relative to future population growth and waste generation. • Include provisions and incentives for new recycling infrastructure and facilities to accommodate growth, in land use planning and zoning. Implement source reduction, recycling and resource recovery programs for waste organic material. Produce compost, mulch, energy and fuels from organic waste stream. • Audit agency facilities to identify opportunities to increase material recovery and beneficial use of organic material. • Establish an organic material recovery program for green waste from agency parks and facility landscaping. • Establish a program to use the maximum amount as possible of organic waste generated within the jurisdiction to produce compost and/or biofuel, including use on agency parks and landscaping. • Establish incentives for residents to participate in green waste recycling programs. • Adopt a restaurant food waste collection program or ordinance. • Approve siting of composting facility within jurisdiction. Reduce office and commercial waste and increase recycling. • Adopt a program or ordinance to encourage or require recycling at multi- family apartments. • Adopt a program or ordinance to encourage or require recycling in the commercial/industrial sectors. • Adopt a program or ordinance to encourage or require waste audits and waste reduction plans for existing and/or new commercial developments. • Audit major waste generators and recommend strategies to reduce waste and increase recycling. • In partnership with the waste hauler(s) serving the commercial sector, institute a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling program with financial and other incentives to promote waste reduction and recycling for commercial/industrial waste generators. • Partner with the California Integrated Waste Management Board to encourage businesses and residents to participate in CalMax (California Materials Exchange) or a similar program. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 7 Waste Reduction and Recycling GOAL BEST PRACTICE Source reduction, recycling and resource recovery programs for construction and demolition material. • Require all agency demolition projects to incorporate de-construction and construction and demolition waste recycling or recovery practices. • Adopt a program or ordinance to reduce, reuse and recycle community construction and demolition waste. • Adopt a “deconstruction” program or ordinance to salvage and reuse materials in all community remodeling projects. • Adopt and implement a policy to require use of rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) for streets and roads. • Adopt and implement a policy to require use recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) for streets and roads. • Implement a policy to use RAP for commercial and community parking lots, where feasible. • Encourage schools and other public agencies to use RAP for parking lots, where feasible. • Establish a program or ordinance that results in 100 percent in-place recycling of asphalt concrete. • Establish a program or ordinance that results in recycling of 100 percent of all Portland cement and asphalt concrete. Decrease carbon footprint of jurisdiction’s waste and recycling collection system. • Work with solid waste and recycling collection providers to calculate carbon footprint of collection system. • Work with solid waste and recycling collection providers to reduce collection system footprint. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 8 Climate-Friendly Purchasing GOAL BEST PRACTICE Commit to purchasing specific products and goods that are climate-friendly. See also Waste Reduction and Recycling and Green Building sections. • Adopt and implement a procurement policy that establishes standards for climate-friendly products and requires agency purchases to meet such standards as: o New equipment meets Energy Star or comparable energy efficiency standards. o Computer purchases meet the highest feasible EPEAT certification level. o Office paper purchases (copy paper, printer paper, writing pads, stationery, envelopes and business cards) contain a minimum specified percentage of post consumer recycled content. o Other paper purchases (paper towels, toilet paper, napkins and similar items) contain a minimum percentage of post consumer recycled content. o Carpeting and other furnishings contain a minimum percentage of recycled content. o Plastic items (refuse and recycling receptacles, decking, parking lot barriers, furniture, etc.) contain recycled content. o Oil and oil-related products contain recycled content. o Products certified by either GreenSeal or EcoLogo, as long as they cost no more than an agency-determined percentage above the price of non- certified products. • Create an interdepartmental team to 1) promote policy implementation, 2) track policy adherence, and 3) suggest additional items to be included in the agency’s climate-friendly purchasing program, including such tasks as: o Reviewing and analyzing current (baseline) purchasing by major product categories. o Prioritizing product categories in terms of greenhouse gas emissions implications and improvement potential. o Reviewing policies, procedures, organization/staffing for implementation barriers. o Developing multi-year implementation schedule based on priorities, difficulty, upcoming solicitations. o Reporting achievements under the policy to policy makers and the public annually. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 9 Climate-Friendly Purchasing GOAL BEST PRACTICE Purchase services that are climate-friendly. • Require service providers to follow climate-friendly practices, or provide a preference in selecting and contracting with service providers to those that follow climate-friendly practices. • Provide incentives for the use of alternative fuel vehicles for agency contracts for services involving vehicles (buses, waste hauling and recycling, construction, etc.). • Ensure that the highest feasible percentage of annual expenditures for contract services is with companies registered with the California Climate Action Registry or its successor. Give a preference to climate- friendly vendors. • Provide a price preference to product vendors that follow climate-friendly practices, including use of recycled content materials, Energy Star and EPEAT materials and equipment, as well as alternative fuel vehicles. • Provide a price preference to product vendors that inventory and register their greenhouse gas emissions with the California Climate Action Registry or its successor and that report their verified greenhouse gas emissions within the jurisdiction. Community education about climate friendly procurement. • Educate the public about climate friendly procurement opportunities. • Work with the business community to educate them about climate friendly procurement opportunities. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 10 Renewable Energy and Low-Carbon Fuels GOAL BEST PRACTICE Promote agency use of fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. See also Efficient Transportation section • Convert vehicles owned, leased or operated by the agency to run on alternative fuels or other non-fossil fuel based technology that significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. • Install bicycle racks, showers and other amenities at agency facilities to promote bicycle use by agency employees and visitors. Promote methane recovery programs and projects. See also Waste Reduction and Recycling section. • For jurisdictions that own or operate one or more landfills, recover and use the maximum feasible amount of recoverable methane gas from the landfill to produce electricity, fuel co-generation facilities, and/or produce CNG for use in alternative fuel vehicles. • For jurisdictions that do not own or operate landfills, calculate the methane emissions associated with the disposal of waste generated within the community. • For jurisdictions that do not own or operate landfills, enter into partnerships or agreements with waste disposal agencies or companies to ensure that the maximum feasible amount of methane is recovered for waste-to-energy purposes. • Install digesters and other technologies at wastewater treatment facilities to produce methane and other biofuels. Promote the use of renewable sources of energy. • Install photovoltaic systems or other renewable sources of energy on agency facilities OR enter into power purchasing agreements to meet at least 10-25 percent of the electrical energy requirements of facilities owned, leased or operated by the agency. • Adopt policy or program that offers incentives, such as streamlined permitting system or fee waivers, to encourage installation of photovoltaic systems on new or existing residential and commercial buildings. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 11 Efficient Transportation GOAL BEST PRACTICE Implement transportation planning processes that reduce automobile dependency. • Update transportation models and surveys to capture data for and accurately reflect all modes of transportation. • Make reductions in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) a high-priority criteria in evaluation of policy, program and project alternatives. • Implement transportation planning procedures that consider demand management solutions equally with strategies to increase capacity. • Include all significant impacts (costs and benefits) in benefit-cost assessment of alternatives, including non-market or indirect impacts, such as improving mobility options or reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Improve infrastructure and Transportation Systems Management (TSM). See also Land Use and Community Design section. • Implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) for surveillance and traffic control, such as signals, transit and emergency signal priority, and other traffic flow management techniques, to improve traffic flow and reduce vehicle idling. • Implement programs to reduce "incident-based" traffic congestion, such as expedited clearing of accidents from major traffic arteries, airport traffic mitigation, etc. • Develop infrastructure improvements such as HOV/HOT lanes and dedicated bus rapid transit right-of-ways. Reduce Idling. • Adopt and implement a policy requiring limitations on idling for commercial vehicles, construction vehicles, buses and other similar vehicles, beyond state law, where feasible. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 12 Efficient Transportation GOAL BEST PRACTICE Promote alternatives to single- occupant auto commuting. See also Land Use and Community Design section. Agency operations • Provide agency employees with incentives to use alternatives to single- occupant auto commuting, such as parking cash-out, flexible schedules, transit incentives, bicycle facilities, ridesharing services and subsidies, and telecommuting. • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from municipal fleet operations by purchasing or leasing high MPG, low carbon fuel or hybrid vehicles, or by using an external car sharing program in lieu of city/county fleet. Community • Work with major employers in the community to offer incentives and services to increase the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto commuting (voluntary commute trip reduction programs). • Encourage and facilitate the development of car-sharing and other services that reduce the need to own a personal motor vehicle. • Develop and implement voluntary agreements for commute trip reduction programs for new commercial developments. • Provide parking preferences in public lots, garages and on-street spaces for residents who rideshare or use low-carbon fuel vehicles. • Implement variable (“congestion”) pricing and other pricing mechanisms for parking facilities, to provide incentives and discourage single- occupant-vehicle and peak travel. • Dedicate revenues from fees and tolls to promote alternative transportation modes. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 13 Land Use and Community Design GOAL BEST PRACTICE Create communities and neighborhoods that are attractive, safe and convenient for walkers and bicyclists. See also Efficient Transportation section. • Assess and report on pedestrian and bicycle conditions in existing communities and neighborhoods. • Develop a community-wide pedestrian and bicycle plan and capital program that maximizes the potential for residents to walk or bicycle within and between neighborhoods. • Require new commercial developments to install bicycle parking facilities and other cyclist amenities at a level commensurate with the number of employees or square footage. • Adopt and implement a community-wide pedestrian and bicycle plan. • Provide bicycle access to transit services on major transit corridors and other routes that may attract bicyclists, such as routes serving schools and colleges. • Install traffic calming devices and other measures to reduce traffic speeds and volumes and increase the safety and feasibility of bicycling and walking. • Implement design standards that require streets and sidewalks to be designed for multi-modal mobility and access, including walking and bicycling, to ensure that new development is designed, sited and oriented to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle and other mobility and access. Orient new development to capitalize on transit system investments and services. See also Efficient Transportation section. • Provide incentives and remove zoning and other barriers to mixed-use and higher intensity development at transit nodes and along transit corridors (existing and planned). • Require new development at transit nodes and along transit corridors to meet planning and design standards to generate, attract, and facilitate transit ridership as a condition of approval. • Integrate park-and-ride lots with multi-use facilities. Adopt policies that promote compact and efficient development in new and existing communities. See also Efficient Transportation and Green Building sections. • Inventory infill development sites. Plan, zone and provide incentives for new development and renovation of existing uses in identified infill areas. • Adopt and enforce land use ordinances and regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include prioritizing mixed uses and infill development, and providing more transportation and housing choices. • Require new housing and mixed use developments be built to the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) standard or its equivalent. • Provide expedited application processing for development projects that meet climate change response policies. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 14 Land Use and Community Design GOAL BEST PRACTICE Incorporate greenhouse gas emissions considerations into the General Plan and environmental review process. See also Efficient Transportation section. • Include a greenhouse gas reduction plan in the General Plan, or include within the General Plan a requirement for development and adoption of a greenhouse gas reduction plan. • Analyze impact of greenhouse gas emissions from land use and transportation sectors in the EIR prepared in connection with general plan updates. • Amend local CEQA guidelines to explain how analysis of greenhouse gas emissions will be treated, such as thresholds of significance. [NOTE: the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has published recommendations at www.capcoa.org.] • Analyze impacts of development projects on safety, availability and use of alternative transportation in CEQA documents. Establish planning processes that encourage reducing greenhouse gas emissions. See also Efficient Transportation section. • Develop and adopt a preferred “climate-friendly” land use and transportation scenario for future development to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through software tools such as the PLACE3S system developed by the California Energy Commission. • Incorporate land use and transportation policies in the General Plan, capital improvement program and other planning and spending documents, codes and ordinances to reflect the preferred “climate- friendly” land use and transportation scenario. • Implement a regional blueprint or other long-range, regional planning process to assess the climate impacts of future growth and develop a preferred regional climate-friendly growth scenario. • Involve emergency responders early and consistently in development of growth plans. Increase transportation choices. See also Efficient Transportation section. • Establish land use policies that support multimodal transportation systems and connection of modes to each other. • Require sidewalks in all new developments. • Plan and permit road networks of neighborhood-scaled streets (generally 2 or 4 lanes) with high levels of connectivity and short blocks. • Zone for concentrated activity centers around transit service. • Coordinate planning and project approval procedures to increase collaboration between land use and transportation planning staff. • Cluster freight facilities near ports, airports and rail terminals. • Coordinate with regional efforts and neighboring jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate alternate modes. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 15 Storing and Offsetting Carbon Emissions GOAL BEST PRACTICE Preserve and enhance forests, parks, street trees, open space and other natural systems that act as carbon “sinks.” • Inventory existing trees on property owned or managed by the agency and implement a management system to preserve and enhance the existing urban forest. • Manage parks, open space, recreational facilities and other natural areas owned or operated by the agency to ensure the long-term health and viability of trees and other vegetation. • Develop and implement a community-wide urban forestry management and reforestation program to significantly increase the carbon storage potential of trees and other vegetation in the community. • Steer new development away from open space and agricultural lands that provide natural carbon storage. • Partner with other agencies and non-profit organizations to protect natural lands in and adjacent to the community through acquisition, conservation easements or other long-term mechanisms. Promote local sustainable agriculture to reduce carbon emissions associated with food production, processing, and transport. • Promote the purchase of local and organic produce through farmers markets and other measures. • Enact a local food purchase policy for agency food purchases. • Promote conservation tillage and other agricultural practices to retain carbon fixed in soils. Offset carbon emissions through carbon credits or allowances. • Audit agency-sponsored events and activities to determine greenhouse gas emissions associated with the event/activity. • Achieve carbon neutrality at agency-sponsored events and activities through conservation, efficiency, alternative transportation, and the purchase of third-party verified emission reductions to offset carbon emissions. • Achieve carbon neutrality for major agency operations through conservation, efficiency, alternative transportation, and the purchase of third-party verified emission reductions to offset carbon emissions. • Create incentives for community organizations and residents to reduce their carbon use including the purchase of third-party verified emission reductions. • Purchase and retire third-party verified emission reductions to offset community-wide carbon emissions. ---PAGE BREAK--- INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK - VERSION 5.0 MAY 9, 2008 www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange PAGE 16 Promoting Community and Individual Actions GOAL BEST PRACTICE Promote individual actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve natural systems that store carbon. • Survey businesses and residents to understand attitudes and behaviors related to climate change. • Include information on actions that individuals can take to address climate change in local agency mailings, websites, and other communications. • Develop a community climate change education initiative that enlists participation from schools, museums, service groups, business organizations (such as local Chambers of Commerce), neighborhood and homeowner associations, and other community partners. • Identify and allocate resources to implement a community climate change education initiative, and establish an implementation timeline not to exceed five years. • Initiate implementation of the education and action plan. • Provide programs and/or incentives to individuals, groups, and businesses that adopt practices that reduce their carbon footprint. Promote cooperation among agencies and communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve natural systems that store carbon. • Participate in inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional meetings to share information about climate change and best practices to reduce carbon emissions. • Create an inter-agency local or regional climate action partnership and/or action plan with one or more sister agencies or neighboring jurisdictions. • Initiate the regional action plan. • Participate in the development of a regional blueprint or other long-range planning process to assess the climate impacts of future growth and develop a preferred climate-friendly growth scenario. • Initiate a Community Climate Action Partnership with a Global Sister Agency. Provide opportunities for public engagement that will support successful implementation of climate change actions. • Organize and promote community dialogues that educate residents about climate change and its possible impacts on the community. • Develop informational material for residents about climate change and opportunities for individual action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Use public involvement processes to develop recommendations from residents and businesses about the city or county’s climate change action plan and actions the agency is taking to respond to climate change, such as through green building, energy conservation, efficient transportation, and other actions. • Provide opportunities for interested residents to stay engaged after the initial planning to help monitor and assess ongoing efforts and recommend plan adaptations as needed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Construction GHG Emissions Summary From Urbemis2007 Year Adopted Amended Increase 2010 13,152 31,406 2011 22,202 53,014 2012 22,285 53,212 2013 22,284 53,209 2014 22,283 53,206 2015 22,282 53,204 2016 22,281 53,200 2017 22,194 52,994 2018 22,279 53,196 2019 22,279 53,195 2020 22,364 53,398 2021 22,276 53,188 2022 22,191 52,984 2023 22,191 52,984 2024 22,362 53,392 2025 22,276 53,188 2026 22,275 53,185 2027 22,275 53,185 2028 22,190 52,982 2029 22,275 53,185 2030 9,303 22,212 445,499 1,063,719 0 Conversion to CO2e Year Adopted Amended Increase 0 0 0 2010 13,191 31,500 0 2011 22,269 53,173 0 2012 22,352 53,372 0 2013 22,351 53,369 0 2014 22,350 53,366 0 2015 22,349 53,364 0 2016 22,348 53,360 0 2017 22,261 53,153 0 2018 22,346 53,356 0 2019 22,346 53,355 0 2020 22,431 53,558 0 2021 22,343 53,348 0 2022 22,258 53,143 0 2023 22,258 53,143 0 2024 22,429 53,552 0 2025 22,343 53,348 0 2026 22,342 53,345 0 2027 22,342 53,345 0 2028 22,257 53,141 0 2029 22,342 53,345 0 2030 9,331 22,279 0 Total By Phase 446,835 1,066,910 620,075 Average Annual Construction 22,342 53,346 31,004 ---PAGE BREAK--- Construction GHG Emissions Summary Conversion to MTons of CO2e Year Adopted Amended Increase 0 0 0 2010 11,967 28,577 0 2011 20,202 48,238 0 2012 20,277 48,418 0 2013 20,276 48,415 0 2014 20,275 48,412 0 2015 20,275 48,411 0 2016 20,274 48,407 0 2017 20,194 48,220 0 2018 20,272 48,403 0 2019 20,272 48,402 0 2020 20,349 48,587 0 2021 20,269 48,396 0 2022 20,192 48,210 0 2023 20,192 48,210 0 2024 20,347 48,582 0 2025 20,269 48,396 0 2026 20,268 48,393 0 2027 20,268 48,393 0 2028 20,191 48,209 0 2029 20,268 48,393 0 2030 8,465 20,211 0 Total By Phase 405,362 967,885 562,522 Average Annual Construction 20,268 48,394 28,126 1 short ton (Ton) equals 0.9071847 metric tons (Mton) URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Assumes CO2 represents 99.6 percent of total CO2e emissions from motorgasoline and 99.7 percent of total from diesel CO2e while CH4, N2O, and Fluorinated Gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). ---PAGE BREAK--- Construction GHG Emissions Summary - With Industrial From Urbemis2007 Year Total 0 2010 32,436 32,436 2011 54,754 54,754 2012 54,959 54,959 2013 54,953 54,953 2014 54,951 54,951 2015 54,947 54,947 2016 54,734 54,734 2017 54,942 54,942 2018 54,942 54,942 2019 54,942 54,942 2020 55,151 55,151 2021 54,934 54,934 2022 54,724 54,724 2023 54,724 54,724 2024 55,145 55,145 2025 54,934 54,934 2026 54,932 54,932 2027 54,932 54,932 2028 54,721 54,721 2029 54,932 54,932 2030 22,941 22,941 1,098,629 0 0 1,098,629 Conversion to CO2e Year 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 2010 32,533 0 0 32,533 2011 54,918 0 0 54,918 2012 55,124 0 0 55,124 2013 55,118 0 0 55,118 2014 55,116 0 0 55,116 2015 55,112 0 0 55,112 2016 54,898 0 0 54,898 2017 55,107 0 0 55,107 2018 55,107 0 0 55,107 2019 55,106 0 0 55,106 2020 55,316 0 0 55,316 2021 55,099 0 0 55,099 2022 54,888 0 0 54,888 2023 54,888 0 0 54,888 2024 55,310 0 0 55,310 2025 55,099 0 0 55,099 2026 55,097 0 0 55,097 2027 55,097 0 0 55,097 2028 54,885 0 0 54,885 2029 55,097 0 0 55,097 2030 23,010 0 0 23,010 Total By Phase 1,101,925 0 0 1,101,925 ---PAGE BREAK--- Construction GHG Emissions Summary - With Industrial Conversion to MTons of CO2e Year 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 2010 29,514 0 0 29,514 2011 49,821 0 0 49,821 2012 50,008 0 0 50,008 2013 50,002 0 0 50,002 2014 50,000 0 0 50,000 2015 49,997 0 0 49,997 2016 49,803 0 0 49,803 2017 49,992 0 0 49,992 2018 49,992 0 0 49,992 2019 49,992 0 0 49,992 2020 50,182 0 0 50,182 2021 49,985 0 0 49,985 2022 49,794 0 0 49,794 2023 49,794 0 0 49,794 2024 50,177 0 0 50,177 2025 49,985 0 0 49,985 2026 49,983 0 0 49,983 2027 49,983 0 0 49,983 2028 49,791 0 0 49,791 2029 49,983 0 0 49,983 2030 20,874 0 0 20,874 Total By Phase 999,650 0 0 999,650 1 short ton (Ton) equals 0.9071847 metric tons (Mton) URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Assumes CO2 represents 99.6 percent of total CO2e emissions from motorgasoline and 99.7 percent of total from diesel CO2e while CH4, N2O, and Fluorinated Gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future PTMLUP Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future PTMLUP Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future PTMLUP Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future PTMLUP Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft 2) Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft 2/Year) /Year) /Year) /Year) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO 2e/Year e/Year e/Year e/Year Retail (Other Than Mall) 4,909,682 11.3 55,479,407 35,080,322 Office 14,340,522 16.8 240,920,770 152,337,214 Public Assembly 1,500,000 19.7 29,550,000 18,684,834 Mercantile 0 17.3 0 0 Total Commercial Total Commercial Total Commercial Total Commercial 20,750,204 20,750,204 20,750,204 20,750,204 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1 325,950,176 325,950,176 325,950,176 325,950,176 206,102,371 206,102,371 206,102,371 206,102,371 Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year 103,051 103,051 103,051 103,051 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 564,664 564,664 564,664 564,664 Residential Residential Residential Residential Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft 2) Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft 2 2 2 2 /Year) /Year) /Year) /Year) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO 2e/Year e/Year e/Year e/Year Residential 27,720,594 41.7 338,692,990 214,159,811 Total Residential Total Residential Total Residential Total Residential 27,720,594 27,720,594 27,720,594 27,720,594 83.4 83.4 83.4 83.4 338,692,990 338,692,990 338,692,990 338,692,990 214,159,811 214,159,811 214,159,811 214,159,811 Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year 107,080 107,080 107,080 107,080 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 586,739 586,739 586,739 586,739 Total Total Total Total Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use CO2e CO2e CO2e CO2e KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year 664,643,166 664,643,166 664,643,166 664,643,166 lbs/Year lbs/Year lbs/Year lbs/Year 420,262,182 420,262,182 420,262,182 420,262,182 GWH/Year GWH/Year GWH/Year GWH/Year 665 665 665 665 MTons/year MTons/year MTons/year MTons/year 190,628 190,628 190,628 190,628 Tons/Year Tons/Year Tons/Year Tons/Year 210,131 210,131 210,131 210,131 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 1,151,403 1,151,403 1,151,403 1,151,403 Sources Sources Sources Sources Note: New structures would be constructed to meet newer California Building Code energy efficiency requirements California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors 0.631 lbs of CO2/kwh Southern California Edison* 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California US EUA http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632 Conversion Factors Conversion Factors Conversion Factors Conversion Factors 0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 Metric Tons 0.000293 BTU (British Thermal Units) in a kwh 471,000,000 tons of CO2e in 1990 and Goal for 2020: Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions 1 Commercial energy use based on Table C20 and C14 (where climate specific information was not available) US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ 1 Residential energy use based on US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov Table US1. Total Energy Consumption, Expenditures, and Intensities, 2005. Part 1: Housing Unit Characteristics and Energy Usage Indicators Released January 2009. Assumes residential units are for sale units and are 1,466 sqft. Based on average sqft for units in the western United States (US Census). Based on CARB emissions inventory of GHG emissions for the State of California in 1990 of 471 million short tons of CO2e (427 million metric tons of CO2e) of in state emissions adopted in December 2007. * As reported to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Existing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Existing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Existing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Existing Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft 2) Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft 2/Year) /Year) /Year) /Year) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO 2e/Year e/Year e/Year e/Year Retail (Other Than Mall) 605,676 11.3 6,844,139 4,327,635 Office 6,805,412 16.8 114,330,922 72,292,871 Public Assembly 19.7 0 0 Mercantile 0 17.3 0 0 Total Commercial Total Commercial Total Commercial Total Commercial 7,411,088 7,411,088 7,411,088 7,411,088 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1 121,175,060 121,175,060 121,175,060 121,175,060 76,620,505 76,620,505 76,620,505 76,620,505 Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year 38,310 38,310 38,310 38,310 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 209,919 209,919 209,919 209,919 Residential Residential Residential Residential Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft 2) Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft 2 2 2 2 /Year) /Year) /Year) /Year) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO 2e/Year e/Year e/Year e/Year Residential 571,740 41.7 6,985,576 4,417,067 Total Residential Total Residential Total Residential Total Residential 571,740 571,740 571,740 571,740 83.4 83.4 83.4 83.4 6,985,576 6,985,576 6,985,576 6,985,576 4,417,067 4,417,067 4,417,067 4,417,067 Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year 2,209 2,209 2,209 2,209 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 12,102 12,102 12,102 12,102 Total Total Total Total Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use CO2e CO2e CO2e CO2e KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year 128,160,637 128,160,637 128,160,637 128,160,637 lbs/Year lbs/Year lbs/Year lbs/Year 81,037,573 81,037,573 81,037,573 81,037,573 GWH/Year GWH/Year GWH/Year GWH/Year 128 128 128 128 MTons/year MTons/year MTons/year MTons/year 36,758 36,758 36,758 36,758 Tons/Year Tons/Year Tons/Year Tons/Year 40,519 40,519 40,519 40,519 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 222,021 222,021 222,021 222,021 Sources Sources Sources Sources Note: New structures would be constructed to meet newer California Building Code energy efficiency requirements California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors 0.631 lbs of CO2/kwh Southern California Edison* 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California US EUA http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632 Conversion Factors Conversion Factors Conversion Factors Conversion Factors 0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 Metric Tons 0.000293 BTU (British Thermal Units) in a kwh 471,000,000 tons of CO2e in 1990 and Goal for 2020: Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions 1 Commercial energy use based on Table C20 and C14 (where climate specific information was not available) US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ 1 Residential energy use based on US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov Table US1. Total Energy Consumption, Expenditures, and Intensities, 2005. Part 1: Housing Unit Characteristics and Energy Usage Indicators Released January 2009. Assumes residential units are for sale units and are 1,466 sqft. Based on average sqft for units in the western United States (US Census). Based on CARB emissions inventory of GHG emissions for the State of California in 1990 of 471 million short tons of CO2e (427 million metric tons of CO2e) of in state emissions adopted in December 2007. * As reported to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future No Project Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future No Project Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future No Project Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use - Future No Project Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft 2) Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft Energy Consumption (kWh/ft 2/Year) /Year) /Year) /Year) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO 2e/Year e/Year e/Year e/Year Retail (Other Than Mall) 2,264,400 11.3 25,587,720 16,179,435 Office 5,055,550 16.8 84,933,240 53,704,349 Public Assembly 19.7 0 0 Mercantile 0 17.3 0 0 Total Commercial Total Commercial Total Commercial Total Commercial 7,319,950 7,319,950 7,319,950 7,319,950 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1 110,520,960 110,520,960 110,520,960 110,520,960 69,883,785 69,883,785 69,883,785 69,883,785 Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year 34,942 34,942 34,942 34,942 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 191,462 191,462 191,462 191,462 Residential Residential Residential Residential Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft Area (ft 2) Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft Energy Consumption (BTU/1000ft 2 2 2 2 /Year) /Year) /Year) /Year) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO lbs of CO 2e/Year e/Year e/Year e/Year Residential 15,049,956 41.7 183,881,867 116,270,803 Total Residential Total Residential Total Residential Total Residential 15,049,956 15,049,956 15,049,956 15,049,956 83.4 83.4 83.4 83.4 183,881,867 183,881,867 183,881,867 183,881,867 116,270,803 116,270,803 116,270,803 116,270,803 Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year 58,135 58,135 58,135 58,135 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 318,550 318,550 318,550 318,550 Total Total Total Total Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use Annual Electricity Use CO2e CO2e CO2e CO2e KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year KWH/Year 294,402,827 294,402,827 294,402,827 294,402,827 lbs/Year lbs/Year lbs/Year lbs/Year 186,154,588 186,154,588 186,154,588 186,154,588 GWH/Year GWH/Year GWH/Year GWH/Year 294 294 294 294 MTons/year MTons/year MTons/year MTons/year 84,438 84,438 84,438 84,438 Tons/Year Tons/Year Tons/Year Tons/Year 93,077 93,077 93,077 93,077 lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day 510,013 510,013 510,013 510,013 Sources Sources Sources Sources Note: New structures would be constructed to meet newer California Building Code energy efficiency requirements California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors California Energy Emission Factors 0.631 lbs of CO2/kwh Southern California Edison* 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California US EUA http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh lbs of CO2e/kwh 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632 Conversion Factors Conversion Factors Conversion Factors Conversion Factors 0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 Metric Tons 0.000293 BTU (British Thermal Units) in a kwh 471,000,000 tons of CO2e in 1990 and Goal for 2020: Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions 1 Commercial energy use based on Table C20 and C14 (where climate specific information was not available) US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ 1 Residential energy use based on US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov Table US1. Total Energy Consumption, Expenditures, and Intensities, 2005. Part 1: Housing Unit Characteristics and Energy Usage Indicators Released January 2009. Assumes residential units are for sale units and are 1,466 sqft. Based on average sqft for units in the western United States (US Census). Based on CARB emissions inventory of GHG emissions for the State of California in 1990 of 471 million short tons of CO2e (427 million metric tons of CO2e) of in state emissions adopted in December 2007. * As reported to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2007 Annual Entity Emissions: Electric Power Generation/Electric Utility Sector Southern California Edison 2244 Walnut Grove Ave Legend Rosemead Ca 91770 Blue = required Website: www.sce.com Green = required Orange = optional Reporting Year: 2007 Direct Baseline Year: 2002 Indirect Baseline Year: 0 Reporting Scope: CA and US Reporting Boundaries: Equity Share Reporting Protocols: General Reporting Protocol Version 3.0 (April 2008) Power/Utility Reporting Protocol Version 1.0 (April 2005) Contact: Howard Gollay Title: Manager Telephone: [PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Industry Type: Entity NAICS Code: Facility NAICS Code: Entity Description: POWER/UTILITY ENTITY EMISSIONS Direct Emissions from Owned Facilities CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O HFCs* PFCs* SF6 Unit Mobile Combustion 51,326.00 51,326.00 0.00 0.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. metric tons Total Stationary Combustion 6,868,412.00 6,827,012.00 820.00 78.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. metric tons 6,868,412.00 6,827,012.00 820.00 78.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. metric tons from Natural Gas-Related Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. metric tons from Other On-Site Combustion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. metric tons Process Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.a. metric tons Fugitive Emissions 269,329.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.27 metric tons TOTAL DIRECT EMISSIONS 7,189,067 6,878,338.00 820.00 78.00 0.00 0.00 11.27 metric tons 100 0 7,189,067 6,878,338.00 820.00 78.00 0.00 0.00 11.27 metric tons 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Comments: Indirect Emissions from Owned Facilities CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O Unit Electricity Purchased and Consumed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Steam Purchased and Consumed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Heat Purchased and Consumed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Cooling Purchased and Consumed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Total Transmission and Distribution Losses 1,985,658.20 1,982,911.00 14.20 7.90 metric tons from Purchased Power 1,454,248.20 1,452,267.00 10.20 5.70 metric tons from Wheeled Power (excluding Direct Access) 222,461.70 222,147.00 1.70 0.90 metric tons from Direct Access 308,948.30 308,497.00 2.30 1.30 metric tons TOTAL INDIRECT EMISSIONS 1,985,658 1,982,911.00 14.20 7.90 metric tons Comments: De Minimis Emissions CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O HFCs* PFCs* SF6 Unit TOTAL DE MINIMIS EMISSIONS 60,105 0.00 259.61 8.26 31.51 0.00 0.00 metric tons Comments: Electric Power Producer 2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Total Direct Emissions from Deliveries outside of CA * Throughout this report, please note that HFCs and PFCs are classes of greenhouse gases that include many compounds. These columns may reflect the total emissions of multiple HFC and PFC compounds, each with a unique Global Warming Potential (GWP). The values you see in these columns represent the total metric tons of multiple HFC or PFC compounds summed together, not the metric tons of the individuals gases. Notes: Emissions reported in this section are estimated; these estimates are reviewed by the verifier and found to be less than 5% of the total entity's emissions. These estimates are conservatively estimated per the GRP. For example, although some HFC leakage is assumed for the largest of SCE facilities, the General Office Complex, it in fact had no HFC leaks that required refills in 2007. Southern California Edison is one of the largest electric utilities in the U.S., and the largest subsidiary of Edison International. On an average day, SCE provides power for 13 million individuals, 430 communities and cities, 5,000 large businesses, and 280,000 small businesses. in Central and Southern California. Delivering that power across a 50,000 mile service area takes 16 utility interconnections, 4,900 transmission and distribution circuits, 365 transmission and distribution crews, the days and nights of 12,642 employees, and over a century of experience. from Electric Power Generation, Transmission & Distributio % of Net Generation Delivered to CA % of Net Generation Delivered Outside of CA Total Direct Emissions from Deliveries to CA ---PAGE BREAK--- GENERATION & PURCHASED POWER INFORMATION Amount Unit CO2 Unit Owned Generation Total (Net) MWh 6,827,012.00 metric tons Fossil Generation (Net) 11,339,359.00 MWh 6,827,012.00 metric tons Biogenic Generation (Net) 0.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Geothermal Generation (Net) 0.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Other Renewable Generation (Net) 360,138.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Zero Emission Generation (Net) 19,604,576.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Co-generation (Net) 0.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Purchased Generation Total (Net) MWh metric tons Purchased Fossil Generation (Net) 20,658,274.00 MWh 8,755,072.00 metric tons Purchased Biogenic Generation (Net) 1,241,931.00 MWh 22,534.00 metric tons Purchased Geothermal Generation (Net) 7,469,380.00 MWh - metric tons Purchased Other Renewable Generation (Net) 3,404,770.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Purchased Zero Emission Generation (Net) 1,078,118.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Purchased Co-generation (Net) 12,831,457.00 MWh 6,064,179.00 metric tons Purchased Wholesale Power (Net) 5,970,767.00 MWh 2,379,845.00 metric tons TOTAL FOSSIL GENERATION/PURCHASES MWh metric tons TOTAL FROM BIOGENIC SOURCES 1,241,931.00 MWh 22,534.00 metric tons TOTAL OTHER GENERATION/PURCHASES MWh 8,444,024.00 metric tons TOTAL FROM ALL GENERATION SOURCES MWh metric tons TOTAL FROM RETAIL SALES 0.00 MWh 0.00 metric tons Comments: OTHER BIOGENIC EMISSIONS CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O Unit Stationary Combustion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Mobile Combustion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Process Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Fugitive Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons TOTAL OTHER BIOGENIC EMISSIONS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Comments: Yes EMISSIONS EFFICIENCY METRICS Ratio Electricity Deliveries: 630.89 lbs CO2/MWh delivered (includes CO 2 from owned and purchased generation) Net Generation: 480.80 Net Fossil Generation: 1,327.32 lbs CO2/MWh net owned fossil generation only Comments: Note: Efficiency metrics are calculated using CO 2 emissions from stationary combustion for purposes of electricity generation. CO 2 emissions from biogenic sources are not included in the Electricity Deliveries metric; however MWh from biogenic and all other generation sources are included. Geothermal generation CO2 emissions and MWh are included in Net Generation metric but not Net Fossil Generation metric. Combustion sources related to any non-electricity generating natural gas operations are not included. Do you deliver power to an end-user/retail customer? (Enter yes or no) lbs CO2/MWh net owned generation (fossil, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, etc.) Note: CO 2 from biogenic sources (indicated in green ) are not included in entity's total CO 2 , nor used to calculate efficiency metrics. Biogenic Generation consists of biomass, landfill gas, waste-to-energy. Renewable Generation consists of small hydro, solar, wind. Zero Emission Generation consists of large hydro and nuclear. Co- generation consists of the electricity component only. CO 2 from Geothermal includes anthropogenic process emissions. Purchased Wholesale Power consists of Spot Market purchases. The goethermal CO2 emissions are estimated to be 508,217 metric tons. These emissions are excluded from the worksheet to be consistent with the PUP that states that only emissions from stationary sources should be included in the metric. Note: Other Biogenic Emissions sources include non-generation stationary combustion or mobile combustion (ethanol or biodiesel vehicles). ---PAGE BREAK--- OPTIONAL INFORMATION Optional Emissions CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O HFCs* PFCs* SF6 Unit TOTAL OPTIONAL EMISSIONS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 metric tons Comments: metric tons CO2e metric tons CO2e metric tons CO2e metric tons CO2e MWh therms Information on Environmental Goals and Programs: Company Activities to Improve Energy Efficiency Comments: Purchases of GHG Emission Offsets: Information in this section is voluntarily provided by the participant for public information, but is not required and is not verified under the California Registry protocols. Sales of Tradable Renewable Certificates: Purchases of Tradable Renewable Certificates: Geographic Origin of Certificates: Purpose of Transaction: Information on GHG Risk and Liability: Company Activities Related to Renewable Energy Benefits of Actions: Description: Estimated Annual Energy Efficiency Savings: Reasons for Undertaking Energy Efficiency Programs: Other Emissions Efficiency Metric(s): Comments: Parties Notified of Transaction(s): Other Company Actions to Reduce GHG Emissions: Sales of GHG Emission Offsets: Type of Project(s): Terms of Purchase/Sale: Parties Notified of Transaction(s): Comments: Company Activities to Offset GHG Emissions ---PAGE BREAK--- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary Existing GHG Emissions Inventory Source CO 2e Emissions Tons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 Percent of Total Transportation Sector1 152,741 138,564 73% Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment3 863 783 0% Purchased Energy2 40,519 36,758 19% Total Energy Emissions 41,382 37,541 20% Recycling and Waste Sector4 4,264 3,868 2% Area Sources Sector5 12,160 11,032 6% Annual Average Construction6 0 0 0% Total all Sectors 210,547 191,005 100% Employees + Residents 15,407 15,407 Per-Capita 13.7 12.4 Adopted Business As Usual GHG Emissions Inventory Source CO 2e Emissions Tons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 Percent of Total Transportation Sector1 401,737 364,449 71% Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment3 2,637 2,392 0% Purchased Energy2 93,077 84,438 16% Total Energy Emissions 95,714 86,830 17% Recycling and Waste Sector4 12,111 10,987 2% Area Sources Sector5 35,804 32,481 6% Annual Average Construction6 22,342 20,268 4% Total all Sectors 567,708 515,016 100% Employees + Residents 30,039 30,039 Per-Capita 18.9 17.1 Amendment to the PTMLUP Business As Usual GHG Emissions Inventory Source CO 2e Emissions Tons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 Percent of Total Transportation Sector1 734,105 665,969 66% Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment3 5,786 5,249 1% Purchased Energy2 210,131 190,628 19% Total Energy Emissions 215,917 195,877 19% Recycling and Waste Sector4 30,248 27,441 3% Area Sources Sector5 77,088 69,933 7% Annual Average Construction6 53,346 48,394 5% Total all Sectors 1,110,703 1,007,613 100% Employees + Residents 64,864 64,864 Per-Capita 17.1 15.5 Net Increase in GHG Emissions from Existing Existing Amendment to MLUP Net Increase Source CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 Transportation Sector1 138,564 665,969 527,405 Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment3 783 5,249 4,466 Purchased Energy2 36,758 190,628 153,869 Total Energy Emissions 37,541 195,877 158,335 Recycling and Waste Sector4 3,868 27,441 23,572 Area Sources Sector5 11,032 69,933 58,901 Annual Average Construction6 0 48,394 48,394 Total all Sectors 191,005 1,007,613 816,608 ---PAGE BREAK--- Net Increase in GHG Emissions from Adopted Adopted Amendment to MLUP Net Increase Source CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 Transportation Sector1 364,449 665,969 301,519 Electricity Sector 0 0 Water Demand and Treatment3 2,392 5,249 2,857 Purchased Energy2 84,438 190,628 106,190 Total Energy Emissions 86,830 195,877 109,046 Recycling and Waste Sector4 10,987 27,441 16,454 Area Sources Sector5 32,481 69,933 37,452 Annual Average Construction6 20,268 48,394 28,126 Total all Sectors 515,016 1,007,613 492,597 Employees + Residents 30,039 64,864 Per-Capita 17.1 15.5 -1.6 Note CARB CO2e based on fuel consumption and not EMFAC 1 short ton (Ton) equals 0.9071847 GREENHOUSE GAS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Future No Project Future With Project Reductions CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 Reductions CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 2030 2030 Based on 2020 reductions 15% above 2005 Title 24- Area Sources1 3,217 8,835 15% above 2005 Title 24- Energy1 7,152 23,080 Renewable Energy Portfolio - Energy 16,230 35,185 Renewable Energy Portfolio - Water 502 1,102 Transportation - increase in Fuel Efficiency Year 155,984 285,035 Total Reductions from BAU - Year 2012 183,086 353,237 2 Based on an increase in renewable energy use from 12 percent to 33 percent by 2020. (CARB 2008a) 3 Based on an increase in 15 percent energy efficiency from the 2005 to 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, California Building 5. Service population includes people who live (residents) and work (employees) in the Platinum Triangle. The Adopted MLUP generates 15,399 residents and 14,640 employees for a service population of 30,039 people. The Amendment to the MLUP would generate 23,364 residents and 41,500 employees for a service population of 64,864 people. 6. URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Based on the default construction equipment mix and assumes CO2 represents 99.7 percent of total from diesel CO 2e while CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). Does not include a reduction in GHG emissions from implementation of the low carbon fuel standard which would reduce the carbon content of fuel proposed by year 2020, thereby reducing GHG emissions from fuel from construction equipment by 10 percent. 1 URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Assumes CO2 represents 99.6 percent of total CO2e emissions from gasoline while CH4, N2O, and Fluorinated Gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). 2. Includes energy required for water conveyance, treatment, distribution, and wastewater treatment. Water use estimated from SCAQMD Water and Electricity Usage in Southern California. CO 2e emissions calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the United States Department of Energy, Southern California Edison. Based on California Energy Commission. 2005, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011-SF. 3. CO2e emissions calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the United States Department of Energy, EIA, and Southern California Edison. Based on the EIA 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption, December 2006, Table C14 and C20. Note: Does not take into account increase in appliance and building energy efficiency. 4. CO2e emissions from waste generation are based on the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) created by the USEPA and the waste stream jurisdictional profile for the City of Anaheim (CIWMB) 1 Based on a 42.8 percent increase in fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles from 2008 to 2020 in the CARB 2008 Technical Advisory. Pavley 2 would require an average fleet fuel economy of new cars of 42.5 mpg by 2020 compared to an existing average of 24.4 mpg (CARB 2008b). ---PAGE BREAK--- GHG Emissions Inventory with Scoping Plan Reductions Adpoted Amendment to MLUP CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 CO 2e Emissions MTons/Year 1 Source 2030 2030 Percent of Total Transportation Sector1 208,465 380,934 58% Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment3 1,890 4,147 1% Purchased Energy2 61,056 132,362 20% Total Energy Emissions 62,946 136,509 21% Recycling and Waste Sector4 10,987 27,441 4% Area Sources Sector5 29,264 61,098 9% Annual Average Construction6 20,268 48,394 7% Total all Sectors 331,930 654,375 100% Employees + Residents 30,039 64,864 Per-Capita 11.0 10.1 Percent Decrease from BAU 36% 35% Increase from Existing 463,371 PercentIncrease from Existing 243% Service Population Existing Adopted MLUP Residents 585 15399 23364 Employees 14,822 14640 41500 15407 30039 64864 ---PAGE BREAK--- GHG Emissions Analysis Summary Report Version 8 (5/06) GHG Emissions Waste Management Analysis for Prepared by: Project Period for this Analysis: 01/00/00 to 01/00/00 GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCO2E): 3,868 Commodity Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCO2E Glass - 663 - NA 25 Mixed Paper, Broad - 6,220 - NA 2,166 Mixed Metals - 1,184 - NA 45 Mixed Plastics - 1,867 - NA 71 Mixed Organics NA 5,864 - - 1,385 Mixed MSW NA 205 - NA 87 Concrete - 2,325 NA NA 88 ---PAGE BREAK--- GHG Emissions Analysis Summary Report Version 8 (5/06) GHG Emissions Waste Management Analysis for Prepared by: Project Period for this Analysis: 01/00/00 to 01/00/00 GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCO2E): 12,111 Commodity Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCO2E Glass - 2,094 - NA 80 Mixed Paper, Broad - 17,397 - NA 6,058 Mixed Metals - 3,170 - NA 120 Mixed Plastics - 5,345 - NA 203 Mixed Organics NA 20,682 - - 4,886 Mixed MSW NA 1,335 - NA 566 Concrete - 5,207 NA NA 198 ---PAGE BREAK--- GHG Emissions Analysis Summary Report Version 8 (5/06) GHG Emissions Waste Management Analysis for Prepared by: Project Period for this Analysis: 01/00/00 to 01/00/00 GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCO2E): 30,248 Commodity Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCO2E Glass - 5,216 - NA 198 Mixed Paper, Broad - 44,998 - NA 15,668 Mixed Metals - 8,317 - NA 316 Mixed Plastics - 13,723 - NA 522 Mixed Organics NA 49,928 - - 11,796 Mixed MSW NA 2,819 - NA 1,195 Concrete - 14,548 NA NA 553 ---PAGE BREAK--- Jurisdiction Profile for City of Anaheim Profiles Home Overview Profile New Jurisdiction Help General Information Jurisdiction: Anaheim County: Orange Size: 44.0 Sq./Miles Geographic Area: Southern California Rural/Urban: Urban (L)EA: CIWMB State Representatives 5 Senate District(s) More... Ashburn, Roy Senate District 18 Correa, Lou Senate District 34 Florez, Dean Senate District 16 Huff, Bob Senate District 29 Walters, Mimi Senate District 33 9 Assembly District(s) More... Conway, Connie Assembly District 34 Duvall, Michael D. Assembly District 72 Fuller, Jean Assembly District 32 Hagman, Curt Assembly District 60 Mendoza, Tony Assembly District 56 Miller, Jeff Assembly District 71 Silva, Jim Assembly District 67 Solorio, Jose Assembly District 69 Tran, Van Assembly District 68 US Senate Information US Representative Information County Information City Information Household Materials Generators (2004) Amount Rank (of 530) Population: 310,700 16 Population Density: 7,061 /sq mile Single Family Units: 49,188 24 Multi-Family Units: 46,077 13 Mobile Home Units: 4,086 35 Business Materials Generators Taxable Sales (2000): $4,263,199,000 Employment (2000): 146,426 Businesses (2000): 10,576 Household Materials Collection Data not available Business Materials Collection Commercial On-Site Recyclable Pickup: No Commercial On-Site Greenwaste Pickup: No Top 4 Specific Materials in Household Disposal (Based on 1999 Statewide Estimates) Top 4 Specific Materials in Business Disposal (Based on 1999 Statewide Estimates) Page 1 of 2 Jurisdiction Profile Overview - California Waste Stream Profiles 9/9/2009 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- Specific Material Type % Tons Food 20.0% 24,314 Leaves and Grass 10.5% 12,742 Remainder/Composite Organic 9.5% 11,523 Remainder/Composite Paper 8.1% 9,797 More... Specific Material Type % Tons/Yr Food 16.0% 34,503 Remainder/Composite Paper 10.3% 22,248 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 6.7% 14,400 Lumber 6.3% 13,509 More... Household Disposal by Overall Materials (Based on 2000 Statewide Estimates) Material General Category % Tons Other Organic 45.0% 54,700 Paper 27.5% 33,369 Plastic 8.8% 10,754 Metal 4.6% 5,625 Construction and Demolition 4.5% 5,445 Glass 4.0% 4,906 Mixed Residue 4.0% 4,864 Household Hazardous Waste 0.3% 393 Special Waste 0.0% 29 Business Disposal By General Material Category (Based on 1999 Statewide Estimates) Material Category % Tons Paper 32.4% 69,983 Glass 3.4% 7,249 Metal 6.2% 13,457 Plastic 9.7% 20,861 Other Organic 29.6% 63,857 Construction and Demolition 12.4% 26,679 Household Hazardous Waste 0.2% 431 Special Waste 0.1% 168 Mixed Residue 0.6% 1,401 Household Disposal Rates (2008) 33% of overall disposal Total Household Waste Disposal (Tons/Yr.) 0 Top 4 Business Types with the Most Disposal (Based on 2000 Statewide Estimates) Sector % Tons/Yr Construction 12.9% 27,039 Retail Trade-Restaurants 12.7% 26,595 Services-Hotels / Lodging 8.3% 17,367 Services-Medical / Health 7.3% 15,252 More... Business Disposal Rates (2004) 67.0% of overall disposal Total Business Waste Disposal (Tons/Yr) Waste Stream Information Profiles http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/ CIWMB Webmaster: [EMAIL REDACTED] (916) 341-6141 Disclaimer Information Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy ©1995, 2009 California Integrated Waste Management Board. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 2 Jurisdiction Profile Overview - California Waste Stream Profiles 9/9/2009 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy From Waste Disposal - Existing Jurisdiction Profile for the City of Anaheim Business Household Other Organic 29.6% 45.0% Paper 32.4% 27.5% Plastic 9.7% 8.8% Metal 6.2% 4.6% Construction and Demolition 12.4% 4.5% Glass 3.4% 4.0% Mixed Residue 0.6% 4.0% Household Hazardous Waste 0.2% 0.3% Special Waste 0.1% 0.0% Project-Generated Solid Waste lbs/day Commercial/Business 100,930 Total Business 100,930 Household 5,014 Total Household 5,014 Total 105,944 Project-Generated Solid Waste by Type lbs/day tons/year Other Organic 32,132 5,864 Paper 34,080 6,220 Plastic 10,231 1,867 Metal 6,488 1,184 Construction and Demolition 12,741 2,325 Glass 3,632 663 Mixed Residue 806 147 Household Hazardous Waste 217 40 Special Waste 101 18 100,429 18,328 Conversion 0.0005 tons/lbs WARM FIELDS Glass 663 Mixed Paper (general) 6,220 Mixed Metals 1,184 Mixed Plastics 1,867 Mixed Organics 5,864 Mixed MSW 205 Concrete1 2,325 FROM WARM 3,868 Metric Tons of CO2e 4,264 Short Tons of CO2e metric tons to short tons conversion 1.102311 tons/metric ton Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2009. Jurisdiction Profile for City of Anahiem. Based on 1999 (business) and 2000 (household) Statewide Estimates http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy From Waste Disposal - Future No Project Jurisdiction Profile for the City of Anaheim Business Household Other Organic 29.6% 45.0% Paper 32.4% 27.5% Plastic 9.7% 8.8% Metal 6.2% 4.6% Construction and Demolition 12.4% 4.5% Glass 3.4% 4.0% Mixed Residue 0.6% 4.0% Household Hazardous Waste 0.2% 0.3% Special Waste 0.1% 0.0% Project-Generated Solid Waste lbs/day Commercial/Business 182,190 Total Business 182,190 Household 131,991 Total Household 131,991 Total 314,181 Project-Generated Solid Waste by Type lbs/day tons/year Other Organic 113,324 20,682 Paper 95,327 17,397 Plastic 29,288 5,345 Metal 17,367 3,170 Construction and Demolition 28,531 5,207 Glass 11,474 2,094 Mixed Residue 6,373 1,163 Household Hazardous Waste 760 139 Special Waste 182 33 302,627 55,229 Conversion 0.0005 tons/lbs WARM FIELDS Glass 2,094 Mixed Paper (general) 17,397 Mixed Metals 3,170 Mixed Plastics 5,345 Mixed Organics 20,682 Mixed MSW 1,335 Concrete1 5,207 FROM WARM 12,111 Metric Tons of CO2e 13,350 Short Tons of CO2e metric tons to short tons conversion 1.102311 tons/metric ton Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2009. Jurisdiction Profile for City of Anahiem. Based on 1999 (business) and 2000 (household) Statewide Estimates http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy From Waste Disposal - Future PTMLUP Jurisdiction Profile for the City of Anaheim Business Household Other Organic 29.6% 45.0% Paper 32.4% 27.5% Plastic 9.7% 8.8% Metal 6.2% 4.6% Construction and Demolition 12.4% 4.5% Glass 3.4% 4.0% Mixed Residue 0.6% 4.0% Household Hazardous Waste 0.2% 0.3% Special Waste 0.1% 0.0% Project-Generated Solid Waste lbs/day Commercial/Business 554,647 Total Business 554,647 Household 243,116 Total Household 243,116 Total 797,763 Project-Generated Solid Waste by Type lbs/day tons/year Other Organic 273,578 49,928 Paper 246,563 44,998 Plastic 75,195 13,723 Metal 45,571 8,317 Construction and Demolition 79,716 14,548 Glass 28,583 5,216 Mixed Residue 13,053 2,382 Household Hazardous Waste 1,839 336 Special Waste 555 101 764,652 139,549 Conversion 0.0005 tons/lbs WARM FIELDS Glass 5,216 Mixed Paper (general) 44,998 Mixed Metals 8,317 Mixed Plastics 13,723 Mixed Organics 49,928 Mixed MSW 2,819 Concrete1 14,548 FROM WARM 30,248 Metric Tons of CO2e 33,343 Short Tons of CO2e metric tons to short tons conversion 1.102311 tons/metric ton Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2009. Jurisdiction Profile for City of Anahiem. Based on 1999 (business) and 2000 (household) Statewide Estimates http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Use from Project-Related Water Demand - Existing Total project-related water demand 588,942 gallons per day 214,963,830 gallons per year 215.0 million gallons per day Energy-intensity 2,730,041 Kwh/MG CO2 Emissions from Water Demand 1,726,239 lbs of CO2e/year 4,729 lbs of CO2e/day Project-related water-energy 863 tons of CO2e/year 783 metrics tons of CO2e/year Table 1-3: Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Kwh/MG Northern California Southern California Water Supply and Conveyance 150 8,900 Water Treatement 100 100 Water Distribution 1,200 1,200 Wastewater Treatment 2,500 2,500 Total 3,950 12,700 California Energy Emission Factors 0.631 lbs of CO2/kwh Southern California Edison* 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwh 0.632 Sources Conversion: 0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 tons in a Metric Ton Assumptions for water demand: Based on the Initial Study, USS section. 1 LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, Exhibit M.2-12, p. M.2-25. http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ead/EADWeb-AQD/thresholdsguide.htm. 2 3 Not including commercial structures. 4 230 gpd is the wastewater generation factor for a three-bedroom single-family residence (LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006). 5 160 gpd is the wastewater generation factor for a two-bedroom multifamily residential unit (LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006). Water consumption is estimated to be approximately 125 percent of the estimated wastewater generated (per Program EIR p. 3.15-18). * As reported to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) and for SCE California Energy Commission. 2005, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011- SF. Energy Intensity: Amount of energy consumed per unit of water to perform water management-related actions desalting, pumping, presurizing, groundwater extraction, conveyance, and treatment) Kwh/MG: kilowatt hours per million gallon of water US Energy Information Administration (US EIA). 2002, April. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Average Electricty Factors by State and Region. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Use from Project-Related Water Demand - Future No Project Total project-related water demand 1,799,215 gallons per day 656,713,475 gallons per year 656.7 million gallons per day Energy-intensity 8,340,261 Kwh/MG CO2 Emissions from Water Demand 5,273,651 lbs of CO2e/year 14,448 lbs of CO2e/day Project-related water-energy 2,637 tons of CO2e/year 2,392 metrics tons of CO2e/year Table 1-3: Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Kwh/MG Northern California Southern California Water Supply and Conveyance 150 8,900 Water Treatement 100 100 Water Distribution 1,200 1,200 Wastewater Treatment 2,500 2,500 Total 3,950 12,700 California Energy Emission Factors 0.631 lbs of CO2/kwh Southern California Edison* 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwh 0.632 Sources Conversion: 0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 tons in a Metric Ton Assumptions for water demand: Based on the Initial Study, USS section. 1 LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, Exhibit M.2-12, p. M.2-25. http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ead/EADWeb-AQD/thresholdsguide.htm. 2 3 Not including commercial structures. 4 230 gpd is the wastewater generation factor for a three-bedroom single-family residence (LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006). 5 160 gpd is the wastewater generation factor for a two-bedroom multifamily residential unit (LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006). Water consumption is estimated to be approximately 125 percent of the estimated wastewater generated (per Program EIR p. 3.15-18). * As reported to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) and for SCE California Energy Commission. 2005, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011- SF. Energy Intensity: Amount of energy consumed per unit of water to perform water management-related actions desalting, pumping, presurizing, groundwater extraction, conveyance, and treatment) Kwh/MG: kilowatt hours per million gallon of water US Energy Information Administration (US EIA). 2002, April. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Average Electricty Factors by State and Region. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Use from Project-Related Water Demand - Future With Project Total project-related water demand 3,948,335 gallons per day 1,441,142,275 gallons per year 1441.1 million gallons per day Energy-intensity 18,302,507 Kwh/MG CO2 Emissions from Water Demand 11,572,904 lbs of CO2e/year 31,707 lbs of CO2e/day Project-related water-energy 5,786 tons of CO2e/year 5,249 metrics tons of CO2e/year Table 1-3: Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Kwh/MG Northern California Southern California Water Supply and Conveyance 150 8,900 Water Treatement 100 100 Water Distribution 1,200 1,200 Wastewater Treatment 2,500 2,500 Total 3,950 12,700 California Energy Emission Factors 0.631 lbs of CO2/kwh Southern California Edison* 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwh 0.632 Sources Conversion: 0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 tons in a Metric Ton Assumptions for water demand: Based on the Initial Study, USS section. 1 LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, Exhibit M.2-12, p. M.2-25. http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ead/EADWeb-AQD/thresholdsguide.htm. 2 3 Not including commercial structures. 4 230 gpd is the wastewater generation factor for a three-bedroom single-family residence (LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006). 5 160 gpd is the wastewater generation factor for a two-bedroom multifamily residential unit (LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006). Water consumption is estimated to be approximately 125 percent of the estimated wastewater generated (per Program EIR p. 3.15-18). * As reported to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) and for SCE California Energy Commission. 2005, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011- SF. Energy Intensity: Amount of energy consumed per unit of water to perform water management-related actions desalting, pumping, presurizing, groundwater extraction, conveyance, and treatment) Kwh/MG: kilowatt hours per million gallon of water US Energy Information Administration (US EIA). 2002, April. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Average Electricty Factors by State and Region. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:49:47 PM ROG 2.16 0.08 0.07 96.11 11.02 109.44 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\FutureNP.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-FutureNoProject Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 109.44 28.55 17.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 35,661.67 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 109.44 28.55 17.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 35,661.67 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 28.51 16.34 0.00 0.05 0.05 35,623.90 Hearth 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.23 Landscape 0.01 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.00 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 0.05 0.05 35,661.67 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 28.55 17.20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:50:06 PM ROG 11.81 0.37 526.65 60.36 599.19 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\FutureNP.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-FutureNoProject Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 599.19 156.30 94.17 0.00 0.31 0.31 195,207.89 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 599.19 156.30 94.17 0.00 0.31 0.31 195,207.89 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 156.24 89.53 0.00 0.29 0.29 195,199.46 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.06 4.64 0.00 0.02 0.02 8.43 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.00 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 0.31 0.31 195,207.89 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 156.30 94.17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:49:56 PM ROG 11.81 3.32 526.65 60.36 602.14 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\FutureNP.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-FutureNoProject Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 602.14 213.00 113.69 0.36 4.88 4.83 267,665.34 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 602.14 213.00 113.69 0.36 4.88 4.83 267,665.34 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 156.24 89.53 0.00 0.29 0.29 195,199.46 Hearth 56.76 24.16 0.36 4.59 4.54 72,465.88 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.36 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 4.88 4.83 267,665.34 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 213.00 113.69 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:51:56 PM ROG 4.64 0.26 0.09 177.03 28.05 210.07 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\FutureWP.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-FutureWithProject Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 210.07 61.84 39.01 0.00 0.12 0.11 76,780.70 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 210.07 61.84 39.01 0.00 0.12 0.11 76,780.70 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 61.77 37.86 0.00 0.12 0.11 76,711.91 Hearth 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.74 Landscape 0.02 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.05 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.00 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 0.12 0.11 76,780.70 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 61.84 39.01 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:51:38 PM ROG 25.43 0.49 970.03 153.71 1,149.66 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\FutureWP.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-FutureWithProject Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1,149.66 338.53 213.64 0.00 0.65 0.64 420,350.45 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1,149.66 338.53 213.64 0.00 0.65 0.64 420,350.45 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 338.45 207.46 0.00 0.63 0.62 420,339.21 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.08 6.18 0.00 0.02 0.02 11.24 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.00 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 0.65 0.64 420,350.45 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 338.53 213.64 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:51:47 PM ROG 25.43 6.12 970.03 153.71 1,155.29 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\FutureWP.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-FutureWithProject Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1,155.29 443.01 251.95 0.67 9.08 8.98 553,814.50 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1,155.29 443.01 251.95 0.67 9.08 8.98 553,814.50 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 338.45 207.46 0.00 0.63 0.62 420,339.21 Hearth 104.56 44.49 0.67 8.45 8.36 133,475.29 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.67 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 9.08 8.98 553,814.50 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 443.01 251.95 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/4/2009 03:54:27 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Exhaust CO2 17.95 82.44 214.38 0.31 350.90 3.69 354.59 3.35 32,436.33 17.95 82.44 214.38 0.31 58.43 3.69 62.12 3.35 32,436.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.48 0.00 0.00 28.77 127.00 337.67 0.52 592.43 5.77 598.20 5.22 54,753.79 28.77 127.00 337.67 0.52 98.65 5.77 104.42 5.22 54,753.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.54 0.00 0.00 27.40 115.60 315.61 0.52 594.71 5.30 600.01 4.79 54,958.62 27.40 115.60 315.61 0.52 99.03 5.30 104.33 4.79 54,958.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.61 0.00 0.00 26.01 104.30 293.34 0.52 594.71 4.85 599.56 4.37 54,955.64 26.01 104.30 293.34 0.52 99.03 4.85 103.88 4.37 54,955.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.67 0.00 0.00 24.75 93.55 273.40 0.52 594.71 4.42 599.13 3.97 54,952.81 24.75 93.55 273.40 0.52 99.03 4.42 103.45 3.97 54,952.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.73 0.00 0.00 2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 24.98 Percent Reduction 83.13 80.56 2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 128.49 2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 25.38 Percent Reduction 83.13 80.31 2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 128.90 2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 25.79 Percent Reduction 83.13 80.05 2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 129.31 2011 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 20.93 26.15 Percent Reduction 83.13 79.77 2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.05 129.27 2010 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 12.39 15.74 Percent Reduction 83.13 79.51 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 73.47 76.82 Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\sampleconstruction.urb924 Project Name: Construction Sample ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/4/2009 03:54:27 PM 23.53 83.48 254.55 0.52 594.71 4.05 598.76 3.63 54,950.73 23.53 83.48 254.55 0.52 99.03 4.05 103.08 3.63 54,950.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.78 0.00 0.00 22.49 75.14 238.10 0.52 594.71 3.73 598.44 3.34 54,946.79 22.49 75.14 238.10 0.52 99.03 3.73 102.76 3.34 54,946.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.83 0.00 0.00 21.49 67.67 221.71 0.52 592.43 3.45 595.88 3.08 54,733.77 21.49 67.67 221.71 0.52 98.65 3.45 102.10 3.08 54,733.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.87 0.00 0.00 20.72 61.66 208.14 0.52 594.71 3.21 597.93 2.86 54,942.57 20.72 61.66 208.14 0.52 99.03 3.21 102.25 2.86 54,942.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.90 0.00 0.00 19.96 56.11 194.79 0.52 594.71 2.99 597.70 2.66 54,941.55 19.96 56.11 194.79 0.52 99.03 2.99 102.02 2.66 54,941.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.93 0.00 0.00 19.30 51.47 183.07 0.53 596.99 2.87 599.86 2.54 55,151.14 19.30 51.47 183.07 0.53 99.41 2.87 102.28 2.54 55,151.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.95 0.00 0.00 17.29 40.83 138.27 0.52 594.71 2.61 597.32 2.30 54,934.43 17.29 40.83 138.27 0.52 99.03 2.61 101.64 2.30 54,934.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.98 0.00 0.00 17.23 40.68 137.74 0.52 592.43 2.60 595.03 2.29 54,723.95 17.23 40.68 137.74 0.52 98.65 2.60 101.25 2.29 54,723.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.98 0.00 0.00 17.23 40.68 137.74 0.52 592.43 2.60 595.03 2.29 54,723.95 17.23 40.68 137.74 0.52 98.65 2.60 101.25 2.29 54,723.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.98 0.00 0.00 17.36 40.99 138.80 0.53 596.99 2.62 599.61 2.31 55,144.90 17.36 40.99 138.80 0.53 99.41 2.62 102.03 2.31 55,144.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.98 0.00 0.00 2024 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.09 23.40 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.62 2024 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 125.00 127.31 2023 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 20.93 23.22 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.62 2023 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.05 126.34 2022 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 20.93 23.22 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.62 2022 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.05 126.34 2021 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 23.31 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.62 2021 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 126.82 2020 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.09 23.63 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.47 2020 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 125.00 127.54 2019 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 23.66 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.39 2019 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 127.18 2018 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 23.87 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.26 2018 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 127.39 2017 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 20.93 24.00 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.12 2017 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.05 127.12 2016 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 24.34 Percent Reduction 83.13 80.96 2016 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 127.86 2015 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 24.64 Percent Reduction 83.13 80.77 2015 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 128.16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/4/2009 03:54:27 PM 17.29 40.83 138.27 0.52 594.71 2.61 597.32 2.30 54,934.43 17.29 40.83 138.27 0.52 99.03 2.61 101.64 2.30 54,934.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 82.98 0.00 0.00 16.33 36.90 115.11 0.52 594.71 2.51 597.22 2.21 54,931.79 16.33 36.90 115.11 0.52 99.03 2.51 101.54 2.21 54,931.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 16.33 36.90 115.11 0.52 594.71 2.51 597.22 2.21 54,931.79 16.33 36.90 115.11 0.52 99.03 2.51 101.54 2.21 54,931.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 16.27 36.76 114.67 0.52 592.43 2.50 594.93 2.20 54,721.32 16.27 36.76 114.67 0.52 98.65 2.50 101.15 2.20 54,721.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 16.33 36.90 115.11 0.52 594.71 2.51 597.22 2.21 54,931.79 16.33 36.90 115.11 0.52 99.03 2.51 101.54 2.21 54,931.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 6.82 15.41 48.07 0.22 248.37 1.05 249.41 0.92 22,940.86 6.82 15.41 48.07 0.22 41.36 1.05 42.41 0.92 22,940.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.35 0.00 83.00 0.00 0.00 2030 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 8.77 9.70 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.68 2030 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 52.00 52.93 2029 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 23.22 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.68 2029 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 126.74 2028 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 20.93 23.13 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.68 2028 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.05 126.25 2027 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 23.22 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.68 2027 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 126.74 2026 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 23.22 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.68 2026 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 126.74 2025 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.01 23.31 Percent Reduction 83.13 81.62 2025 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 124.52 126.82 ---PAGE BREAK--- SO2 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:30:28 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\sampleconstruction_adopted.urb924 Project Name: Construction Sample - Adopted MLUP Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 7.05 39.51 85.84 63.65 1.88 65.53 13.37 1.71 15.08 13,152.25 2010 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 7.05 39.51 85.84 10.46 1.88 12.34 2.26 1.71 3.97 13,152.25 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 81.16 83.10 0.00 73.66 0.00 2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 11.21 61.14 135.45 107.46 2.95 110.41 22.57 2.68 25.25 22,201.76 2011 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 11.21 61.14 135.45 17.66 2.95 20.61 3.81 2.68 6.50 22,201.76 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 81.33 83.10 0.00 74.27 0.00 2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 10.58 55.95 126.87 107.87 2.71 110.58 22.65 2.46 25.11 22,285.00 2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 10.58 55.95 126.87 17.73 2.71 20.43 3.83 2.46 6.28 22,285.00 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 81.52 83.10 0.00 74.97 0.00 2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 9.96 50.80 118.20 107.87 2.48 110.35 22.65 2.24 24.90 22,283.91 2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 9.96 50.80 118.20 17.73 2.48 20.21 3.83 2.24 6.07 22,283.91 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 81.69 83.10 0.00 75.61 0.00 2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 9.38 45.86 110.43 107.87 2.25 110.12 22.65 2.03 24.68 22,282.87 2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 9.38 45.86 110.43 17.73 2.25 19.97 3.83 2.03 5.86 22,282.87 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 81.86 83.10 0.00 76.27 0.00 2015 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 8.82 41.12 103.08 107.87 2.06 109.93 22.65 1.86 24.51 22,282.12 2015 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 8.82 41.12 103.08 17.73 2.06 19.79 3.83 1.86 5.69 22,282.12 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.00 83.10 0.00 76.80 0.00 2016 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 8.34 37.13 96.69 107.87 1.88 109.75 22.65 1.69 24.35 22,280.66 2016 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 8.34 37.13 96.69 17.73 1.88 19.61 3.83 1.69 5.52 22,280.66 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.13 83.10 0.00 77.32 0.00 2017 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 7.88 33.51 90.30 107.46 1.72 109.18 22.57 1.55 24.12 22,194.38 2017 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 7.88 33.51 90.30 17.66 1.72 19.38 3.81 1.55 5.36 22,194.38 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.25 83.10 0.00 77.76 0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:30:28 PM 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 2018 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 7.50 30.56 85.06 107.87 1.59 109.46 22.65 1.43 24.08 22,279.14 2018 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 7.50 30.56 85.06 17.73 1.59 19.32 3.83 1.43 5.26 22,279.14 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.35 83.10 0.00 78.18 0.00 2019 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 7.15 27.83 79.88 107.87 1.46 109.33 22.65 1.31 23.96 22,278.78 2019 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 7.15 27.83 79.88 17.73 1.46 19.19 3.83 1.31 5.14 22,278.78 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.45 83.10 0.00 78.56 0.00 2020 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 6.83 25.53 75.37 108.29 1.39 109.67 22.74 1.24 23.98 22,363.83 2020 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 6.83 25.53 75.37 17.80 1.39 19.18 3.84 1.24 5.08 22,363.83 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.51 83.10 0.00 78.81 0.00 2021 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 6.05 21.24 58.25 107.87 1.28 109.15 22.65 1.14 23.79 22,276.24 2021 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 6.05 21.24 58.25 17.73 1.28 19.01 3.83 1.14 4.97 22,276.24 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.59 83.10 0.00 79.12 0.00 2022 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 6.03 21.16 58.02 107.46 1.27 108.73 22.57 1.13 23.70 22,190.89 2022 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 6.03 21.16 58.02 17.66 1.27 18.93 3.81 1.13 4.95 22,190.89 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.59 83.10 0.00 79.12 0.00 2023 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 6.03 21.16 58.02 107.46 1.27 108.73 22.57 1.13 23.70 22,190.89 2023 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 6.03 21.16 58.02 17.66 1.27 18.93 3.81 1.13 4.95 22,190.89 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.59 83.10 0.00 79.12 0.00 2024 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 6.07 21.32 58.47 108.29 1.28 109.57 22.74 1.14 23.88 22,361.59 2024 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 6.07 21.32 58.47 17.80 1.28 19.08 3.84 1.14 4.99 22,361.59 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.59 83.10 0.00 79.12 0.00 2025 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 6.05 21.24 58.25 107.87 1.28 109.15 22.65 1.14 23.79 22,276.24 2025 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 6.05 21.24 58.25 17.73 1.28 19.01 3.83 1.14 4.97 22,276.24 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.59 83.10 0.00 79.12 0.00 2026 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 5.68 19.67 49.41 107.87 1.24 109.11 22.65 1.10 23.76 22,275.31 2026 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 5.68 19.67 49.41 17.73 1.24 18.97 3.83 1.10 4.93 22,275.31 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.62 83.10 0.00 79.25 0.00 2027 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 5.68 19.67 49.41 107.87 1.24 109.11 22.65 1.10 23.76 22,275.31 2027 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 5.68 19.67 49.41 17.73 1.24 18.97 3.83 1.10 4.93 22,275.31 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.62 83.10 0.00 79.25 0.00 2028 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 5.65 19.59 49.22 107.46 1.23 108.69 22.57 1.10 23.66 22,189.96 2028 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 5.65 19.59 49.22 17.66 1.23 18.89 3.81 1.10 4.91 22,189.96 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.62 83.10 0.00 79.25 0.00 2029 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 5.68 19.67 49.41 107.87 1.24 109.11 22.65 1.10 23.76 22,275.31 2029 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 5.68 19.67 49.41 17.73 1.24 18.97 3.83 1.10 4.93 22,275.31 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.62 83.10 0.00 79.25 0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:30:28 PM 0.08 0.08 0.00 2030 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 2.37 8.21 20.64 45.05 0.52 45.57 9.46 2030 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 2.37 8.21 20.64 2.06 9,302.72 0.46 9.92 9,302.72 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.46 7.40 0.52 7.92 0.00 79.25 0.00 83.57 0.00 82.62 83.10 Percent Reduction 0.00 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 2613813 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 37.57 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0.75 Off-Road Equipment: 3 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 820 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 41 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 13.69 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Trenching Description Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 57.62 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 7 hours per day 3 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:30:28 PM Phase: Architectural Coating 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: ---PAGE BREAK--- SO2 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:31:50 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\sampleconstruction.urb924 Project Name: Construction Sample - Amendment to MLUP Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 17.07 72.97 210.38 64.44 3.35 67.79 13.65 3.03 16.68 31,405.90 2010 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 17.07 72.97 210.38 11.26 3.35 14.60 2.54 3.03 5.57 31,405.90 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 78.46 81.38 0.00 66.59 0.00 2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 27.39 112.18 331.50 108.80 5.25 114.05 23.04 4.75 27.79 53,014.11 2011 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 27.39 112.18 331.50 19.00 5.25 24.25 4.29 4.75 9.04 53,014.11 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 78.74 81.38 0.00 67.48 0.00 2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 26.08 101.87 309.96 109.22 4.82 114.04 23.13 4.34 27.48 53,212.25 2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 26.08 101.87 309.96 19.08 4.82 23.89 4.31 4.34 8.65 53,212.25 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 79.05 81.38 0.00 68.51 0.00 2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 24.74 91.66 288.20 109.22 4.41 113.63 23.13 3.97 27.10 53,209.27 2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 24.74 91.66 288.20 19.08 4.41 23.49 4.31 3.97 8.28 53,209.27 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 79.33 81.38 0.00 69.46 0.00 2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 23.55 82.05 268.70 109.22 4.01 113.23 23.13 3.60 26.73 53,206.44 2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 23.55 82.05 268.70 19.08 4.01 23.09 4.31 3.60 7.91 53,206.44 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 79.61 81.38 0.00 70.42 0.00 2015 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 22.40 73.03 250.25 109.22 3.69 112.91 23.13 3.30 26.43 53,204.37 2015 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 22.40 73.03 250.25 19.08 3.69 22.76 4.31 3.30 7.61 53,204.37 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 79.84 81.38 0.00 71.22 0.00 2016 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 21.43 65.59 234.15 109.22 3.39 112.60 23.13 3.02 26.15 53,200.43 2016 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 21.43 65.59 234.15 19.08 3.39 22.46 4.31 3.02 7.33 53,200.43 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.05 81.38 0.00 71.98 0.00 2017 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 20.48 58.97 218.08 108.80 3.13 111.93 23.04 2.79 25.83 52,994.10 2017 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 20.48 58.97 218.08 19.00 3.13 22.14 4.29 2.79 7.08 52,994.10 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.22 81.38 0.00 72.59 0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:31:50 PM 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 2018 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 19.76 53.66 204.74 109.22 2.93 112.15 23.13 2.60 25.73 53,196.21 2018 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 19.76 53.66 204.74 19.08 2.93 22.01 4.31 2.60 6.91 53,196.21 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.38 81.38 0.00 73.16 0.00 2019 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 19.04 48.78 191.61 109.22 2.73 111.95 23.13 2.42 25.55 53,195.19 2019 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 19.04 48.78 191.61 19.08 2.73 21.81 4.31 2.42 6.73 53,195.19 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.52 81.38 0.00 73.67 0.00 2020 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 18.43 44.73 180.07 109.64 2.63 112.27 23.22 2.33 25.55 53,398.09 2020 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 18.43 44.73 180.07 19.15 2.63 21.78 4.32 2.33 6.65 53,398.09 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.60 81.38 0.00 73.97 0.00 2021 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 16.47 34.68 135.49 109.22 2.39 111.61 23.13 2.10 25.24 53,188.07 2021 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 16.47 34.68 135.49 19.08 2.39 21.47 4.31 2.10 6.41 53,188.07 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.77 81.38 0.00 74.59 0.00 2022 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 16.41 34.55 134.97 108.80 2.38 111.18 23.04 2.10 25.14 52,984.29 2022 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 16.41 34.55 134.97 19.00 2.38 21.39 4.29 2.10 6.39 52,984.29 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.77 81.38 0.00 74.59 0.00 2023 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 16.41 34.55 134.97 108.80 2.38 111.18 23.04 2.10 25.14 52,984.29 2023 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 16.41 34.55 134.97 19.00 2.38 21.39 4.29 2.10 6.39 52,984.29 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.77 81.38 0.00 74.59 0.00 2024 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 16.53 34.81 136.01 109.64 2.40 112.04 23.22 2.11 25.33 53,391.86 2024 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 16.53 34.81 136.01 19.15 2.40 21.55 4.32 2.11 6.44 53,391.86 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.77 81.38 0.00 74.59 0.00 2025 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 16.47 34.68 135.49 109.22 2.39 111.61 23.13 2.10 25.24 53,188.07 2025 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 16.47 34.68 135.49 19.08 2.39 21.47 4.31 2.10 6.41 53,188.07 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.77 81.38 0.00 74.59 0.00 2026 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 15.52 30.93 112.42 109.22 2.30 111.52 23.13 2.02 25.15 53,185.44 2026 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 15.52 30.93 112.42 19.08 2.30 21.38 4.31 2.02 6.33 53,185.44 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.83 81.38 0.00 74.84 0.00 2027 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 15.52 30.93 112.42 109.22 2.30 111.52 23.13 2.02 25.15 53,185.44 2027 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 15.52 30.93 112.42 19.08 2.30 21.38 4.31 2.02 6.33 53,185.44 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.83 81.38 0.00 74.84 0.00 2028 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 15.46 30.82 111.99 108.80 2.29 111.09 23.04 2.01 25.06 52,981.66 2028 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 15.46 30.82 111.99 19.00 2.29 21.30 4.29 2.01 6.31 52,981.66 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.83 81.38 0.00 74.84 0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:31:50 PM 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 2029 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 15.52 30.93 112.42 109.22 2.30 111.52 23.13 2.02 25.15 53,185.44 2029 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 15.52 30.93 112.42 19.08 2.30 21.38 4.31 2.02 6.33 53,185.44 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.83 81.38 0.00 74.84 0.00 2030 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 6.48 12.92 46.95 45.61 0.96 46.57 9.66 2030 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 6.48 12.92 46.95 2.64 22,211.54 0.84 10.51 22,211.54 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.84 7.97 0.96 8.93 0.00 74.84 0.00 82.53 0.00 80.83 81.38 Percent Reduction 0.00 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1477273 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 21.97 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0.44 Off-Road Equipment: 3 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 820 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 41 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 13.69 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Trenching Description Off-Road Equipment: 4 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 225.45 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:31:50 PM Phase: Building Construction 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 7 hours per day 3 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:30:06 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\sampleconstruction_adopted.urb924 Project Name: Construction Sample - Adopted MLUP Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 2613813 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 37.57 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0.75 Off-Road Equipment: 3 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 820 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 41 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 13.69 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Trenching Description Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 57.62 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:30:06 PM Phase: Building Construction 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 7 hours per day 3 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Time Slice 6/1/2010-12/31/2010 Active 91.56 513.10 1,114.75 1.55 135.85 24.45 160.30 29.33 22.26 51.59 170,808.46 Asphalt 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 3.28 19.36 11.75 0.00 0.01 1.69 1.70 0.00 1.55 1.56 1,591.17 Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 3.20 19.17 10.47 0.00 0.00 1.68 1.68 0.00 1.55 1.55 1,418.81 Paving On Road Diesel 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.23 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.56 Building 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 50.67 333.33 1,016.49 1.54 6.55 14.96 21.51 2.32 13.53 15.86 153,797.61 Building Off Road Diesel 4.08 23.31 14.31 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 1.54 1.54 2,259.28 Building Vendor Trips 21.80 263.08 197.62 0.48 1.75 10.65 12.40 0.59 9.77 10.36 49,838.64 Building Worker Trips 24.79 46.94 804.56 1.06 4.80 2.64 7.44 1.73 2.23 3.96 101,699.69 Coating 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 18.64 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.44 Architectural Coating 18.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.44 Demolition 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 5.58 46.53 27.46 0.00 0.02 2.23 2.25 0.01 2.05 2.06 4,291.17 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 5.54 46.44 26.23 0.00 0.00 2.22 2.22 0.00 2.05 2.05 4,132.45 Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.16 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.23 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.56 Mass Grading 06/01/2010- 11.30 96.09 49.23 0.00 129.26 4.69 133.95 27.00 4.31 31.31 9,211.98 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.24 0.00 129.24 26.99 0.00 26.99 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 11.19 95.53 46.62 0.00 0.00 4.66 4.66 0.00 4.29 4.29 8,842.87 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.03 0.42 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 58.01 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.08 0.14 2.46 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 311.11 Trenching 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 2.09 17.75 9.20 0.00 0.01 0.88 0.89 0.00 0.81 0.81 1,839.08 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.06 17.69 8.22 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.81 0.81 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.44 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:30:06 PM Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:31:24 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\sampleconstruction.urb924 Project Name: Construction Sample - Amendment to MLUP Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1477273 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 21.97 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0.44 Off-Road Equipment: 3 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 820 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 41 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 13.69 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Trenching Description Off-Road Equipment: 4 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 225.45 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:31:24 PM Phase: Building Construction 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 7 hours per day 3 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Time Slice 6/1/2010-12/31/2010 Active 221.73 947.70 2,732.23 3.96 146.17 43.47 189.64 33.01 39.37 72.38 407,868.85 Asphalt 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 3.39 19.71 11.88 0.00 0.01 1.70 1.71 0.00 1.57 1.57 1,640.09 Paving Off-Gas 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 3.20 19.17 10.47 0.00 0.00 1.68 1.68 0.00 1.55 1.55 1,418.81 Paving On Road Diesel 0.03 0.47 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 65.72 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.23 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.56 Building 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 120.33 749.78 2,623.63 3.95 16.86 33.09 49.95 6.00 29.82 35.82 388,842.56 Building Off Road Diesel 4.08 23.31 14.31 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 1.54 1.54 2,259.28 Building Vendor Trips 49.90 600.85 456.15 1.10 4.02 24.34 28.36 1.36 22.32 23.68 114,414.50 Building Worker Trips 66.35 125.62 2,153.17 2.85 12.85 7.07 19.92 4.64 5.96 10.60 272,168.78 Coating 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 76.96 0.10 1.63 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 206.19 Architectural Coating 76.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.05 0.10 1.63 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 206.19 Demolition 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 5.58 46.52 27.46 0.00 0.02 2.23 2.24 0.00 2.05 2.05 4,289.86 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 5.54 46.44 26.23 0.00 0.00 2.22 2.22 0.00 2.05 2.05 4,132.45 Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.23 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.56 Mass Grading 06/01/2010- 11.30 96.09 49.23 0.00 129.26 4.69 133.95 27.00 4.31 31.31 9,211.98 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.24 0.00 129.24 26.99 0.00 26.99 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 11.19 95.53 46.62 0.00 0.00 4.66 4.66 0.00 4.29 4.29 8,842.87 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.03 0.42 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 58.01 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.08 0.14 2.46 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 311.11 Trenching 06/01/2010-06/01/2030 4.18 35.49 18.40 0.00 0.01 1.76 1.77 0.00 1.62 1.62 3,678.17 Trenching Off Road Diesel 4.12 35.38 16.43 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.75 0.00 1.61 1.61 3,429.28 Trenching Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.89 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/10/2009 01:31:24 PM Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 6/1/2010 - 6/1/2030 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:48:22 PM ROG 0.73 0.00 0.07 3.65 8.04 12.49 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\Existing.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-Existing Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 12.49 10.06 9.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 12,111.86 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 12.49 10.06 9.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 12,111.86 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 10.05 8.15 0.00 0.02 0.02 12,108.94 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 Landscape 0.01 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.00 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 0.02 0.02 12,111.86 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.06 9.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:48:47 PM ROG 4.01 0.37 20.01 44.04 68.43 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\Existing.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-Existing Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 68.43 55.11 49.30 0.00 0.12 0.12 66,358.79 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 68.43 55.11 49.30 0.00 0.12 0.12 66,358.79 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 55.05 44.66 0.00 0.10 0.10 66,350.36 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.06 4.64 0.00 0.02 0.02 8.43 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.00 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 0.12 0.12 66,358.79 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 55.11 49.30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page: 1 9/9/2009 03:48:37 PM ROG 4.01 0.13 20.01 44.04 68.19 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\COA-51.0E\Technical Studies\AIr\URBEMIS\Existing.urb924 Project Name: PTMLUP-Existing Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 68.19 57.21 45.58 0.01 0.27 0.27 69,103.30 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 68.19 57.21 45.58 0.01 0.27 0.27 69,103.30 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 55.05 44.66 0.00 0.10 0.10 66,350.36 Hearth 2.16 0.92 0.01 0.17 0.17 2,752.94 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.01 Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% 0.27 0.27 69,103.30 Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 57.21 45.58 ---PAGE BREAK--- ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature Table updated on Aug 27, 2009 For and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Station:(040192) ANAHEIM From Year=1989 To Year=2008 Averages Daily Extremes Extremes Max. Temp. M Tem Max. Min. Mean High Date Low Date Highest Mean Year Lowest Mean Year 90 F 32 F 32 F F F F F dd/yyyy or F dd/yyyy or F - F - # Days # Days # Days January 69.6 47.4 58.5 95 31/2003 30 30/2002 64.8 2003 55.4 2001 0.2 0.0 0.1 February 70.1 48.3 59.2 94 12/2006 30 15/1990 63.2 1995 55.3 2001 0.7 0.0 0.1 March 72.3 50.5 61.4 97 19/1997 37 18/2002 66.9 2004 55.8 1999 0.9 0.0 0.0 April 74.4 52.7 63.6 106 26/2004 38 02/1999 67.6 2008 59.1 1999 1.5 0.0 0.0 May 77.0 57.3 67.1 106 03/2004 45 01/1999 71.8 2004 62.6 1995 2.1 0.0 0.0 June 80.2 60.5 70.4 104 27/1990 50 17/1995 76.1 2006 66.6 1999 2.6 0.0 0.0 July 85.2 64.2 74.7 107 22/2006 54 24/1999 82.6 2006 71.3 1991 6.8 0.0 0.0 August 86.9 64.3 75.6 102 12/1994 53 23/2002 78.9 1992 71.4 2002 9.1 0.0 0.0 September 86.1 62.5 74.3 108 30/1999 51 13/1991 77.9 1997 71.1 1999 9.6 0.0 0.0 October 81.3 57.7 69.5 107 10/1991 45 31/1991 74.7 2008 63.2 2002 5.1 0.0 0.0 November 75.3 51.8 63.6 99 02/1997 33 19/1994 68.5 2008 57.9 1994 1.3 0.0 0.0 December 69.9 46.9 58.4 89 10/2004 32 23/1998 61.6 2005 55.0 2002 0.0 0.0 0.1 Annual 77.3 55.3 66.3 108 19990930 30 19900215 67.7 2004 64.2 2002 40.0 0.0 0.2 Winter 69.8 47.5 58.7 95 20030131 30 19900215 61.2 2006 56.7 2001 0.8 0.0 0.2 Spring 74.6 53.5 64.0 106 20040426 37 20020318 68.6 2004 59.4 1999 4.5 0.0 0.0 Summer 84.1 63.0 73.6 107 20060722 50 19950617 78.6 2006 70.7 1999 18.5 0.0 0.0 Fall 80.9 57.4 69.1 108 19990930 33 19941119 73.3 2008 66.2 2000 16.1 0.0 0.0 Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and May Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov. Page 1 of 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature 9/4/2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Western Regional Climate Center, [EMAIL REDACTED] Page 2 of 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature 9/4/2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA (040192) Period of Record Climate Summary Period of Record : 8/ 1/1989 to 12/31/2008 Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 99.8% Min. Temp.: 99.7% Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 100% Snow Depth: 100% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, [EMAIL REDACTED] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature 69.6 70.1 72.3 74.4 77.0 80.2 85.2 86.9 86.1 81.3 75.3 69.9 77.3 Average Min. Temperature 47.4 48.3 50.5 52.7 57.3 60.5 64.2 64.3 62.5 57.7 51.8 46.9 55.3 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 2.85 3.66 1.89 0.81 0.38 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.64 0.82 1.58 12.92 Average Total SnowFall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Snow Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 1 of 1 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Period of Record Climate Summary 9/4/2009 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?ca0192 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix D Noise Modeling Output ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page left blank intentionally. ---PAGE BREAK--- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model The Platinum Triangle - Base Scenario d 24-hour Traffic Volume Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline Noise Level (CNEL or Ldn) at Distance from Roadway Centerline e e Future Future Existing Future No Project Future With Project Change Change p Without With 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 From due to Roadway Segment S Existing Project Project Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Existing Project Anaheim Boulevard Katella Ave to I-5 Freeway 40 19,380 30,590 31,080 73.2 380 176 82 75.2 515 239 111 75.3 521 242 112 2.1 0.1 I-5 Freeway to Cerritos Ave 40 33,160 53,130 55,320 75.5 544 252 117 77.6 745 346 160 77.8 765 355 165 2.2 0.2 Cerritos Ave to Ball Rd 40 26,790 43,930 46,190 74.6 472 219 102 76.8 656 304 141 77.0 678 315 146 2.4 0.2 Ball Rd to Vermont St 35 25,230 37,690 39,160 73.4 390 181 84 75.1 509 236 110 75.3 522 242 113 1.9 0.2 Anaheim Way State College Blvd to Orangewood Ave 45 3,220 13,360 15,130 66.3 132 61 29 72.5 342 159 74 73.1 371 172 80 6.7 0.5 Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave 45 18,190 25,230 26,650 73.9 420 195 90 75.3 522 242 113 75.5 542 251 117 1.7 0.2 Katella Ave to Anaheim Blvd 45 10,730 15,650 18,110 71.6 295 137 64 73.2 380 176 82 73.8 419 194 90 2.3 0.6 Ball Road Walnut St to Disneyland Dr 40 34,020 41,120 42,390 75.7 553 257 119 76.5 628 291 135 76.6 640 297 138 1.0 0.1 Disneyland Dr to Harbor Blvd 40 44,320 56,710 58,690 76.8 660 306 142 77.9 778 361 168 78.0 796 369 171 1.2 0.1 Harbor Blvd to Anaheim Blvd 40 36,890 45,610 47,460 76.0 584 271 126 76.9 672 312 145 77.1 691 321 149 1.1 0.2 Anaheim Blvd to East St 40 35,280 44,140 46,390 75.8 567 263 122 76.8 658 305 142 77.0 680 316 147 1.2 0.2 East St to State College Blvd 40 38,110 44,720 47,540 76.2 597 277 129 76.8 664 308 143 77.1 691 321 149 1.0 0.3 State College Blvd to Sunkist St 40 40,500 46,630 48,590 76.4 621 288 134 77.0 682 317 147 77.2 701 326 151 0.8 0.2 Sunkist St to SR-57 Freeway 40 48,400 58,790 61,800 77.2 700 325 151 78.0 796 370 172 78.3 823 382 177 1.1 0.2 SR-57 Freeway to Main St 40 32,740 59,090 60,250 75.5 539 250 116 78.1 799 371 172 78.1 810 376 174 2.6 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Blvd to Lewis St 40 11,710 26,370 30,130 71.0 272 126 59 74.6 467 217 101 75.1 510 237 110 4.1 0.6 Lewis St to State College Blvd 40 10,030 26,010 29,510 70.4 245 114 53 74.5 462 215 100 75.0 503 234 108 4.7 0.5 State College Blvd to Sunkist St 40 6,180 16,380 19,870 68.3 177 82 38 72.5 340 158 73 73.3 386 179 83 5.1 0.8 Sunkist St to Douglass Rd 40 4,520 22,300 26,820 66.9 144 67 31 73.8 417 194 90 74.6 472 219 102 7.7 0.8 Chapman Avenue State College Blvd to SR-57 Freeway 40 30,740 37,220 38,400 75.2 517 240 111 76.0 587 273 127 76.2 600 278 129 1.0 0.1 SR-57 Freeway to Main St 40 27,260 32,610 33,930 74.7 477 221 103 75.5 538 250 116 75.6 552 256 119 1.0 0.2 The City Drive SR-22 Freeway to Chapman Ave 35 20,980 31,710 33,030 72.6 344 160 74 74.4 454 211 98 74.5 466 216 100 2.0 0.2 Clementine Street Orangewood Ave to Gene Autry Way 40 NA 8,070 9,010 69.4 212 98 46 69.9 228 106 49 0.5 Gene Autry Way to Katella Ave 40 NA 5,530 5,720 67.8 165 76 35 67.9 168 78 36 0.1 Katella Ave to Manchester Ave 40 7,510 8,400 8,470 69.1 202 94 44 69.6 218 101 47 69.6 219 102 47 0.5 0.0 Collins Avenue Eckhoff St to Main St 40 6,620 20,280 20,830 68.5 186 86 40 73.4 392 182 84 73.5 399 185 86 5.0 0.1 Main St to Batavia St 40 10,800 23,270 23,650 70.7 257 119 55 74.0 429 199 93 74.1 434 201 94 3.4 0.1 Batavia St to Glassell St 40 14,710 21,360 21,820 72.0 316 147 68 73.6 406 188 87 73.7 411 191 89 1.7 0.1 Disney Way Harbor Blvd to Clementine St 35 7,770 15,600 17,040 68.3 178 82 38 71.3 283 131 61 71.7 300 139 65 3.4 0.4 Clementine St to Anaheim Blvd 35 13,880 24,690 26,660 70.8 262 121 56 73.3 384 178 83 73.6 404 188 87 2.8 0.3 Douglass Street Katella Ave to Cerritos Ave 35 6,910 24,550 28,540 67.7 164 76 35 73.3 383 178 82 73.9 423 196 91 6.2 0.7 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Ave to Collins Ave 40 10,870 27,340 27,760 70.7 259 120 56 74.7 478 222 103 74.8 483 224 104 4.1 0.1 Gene Autry Way Harbor Blvd to Clementine St 40 NA 22,960 24,940 73.9 426 198 92 74.3 450 209 97 0.4 Clementine St to Haster St 40 NA 27,890 30,800 74.8 484 225 104 75.2 518 240 112 0.4 Haster St to I-5 Freeway 40 NA 32,420 38,780 75.4 536 249 115 76.2 604 280 130 0.8 I-5 Freeway to State College Blvd 40 2,220 32,850 45,660 63.8 90 42 19 75.5 540 251 116 76.9 673 312 145 13.1 1.4 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Ave to Orangewood Ave 40 35,560 48,780 50,300 75.8 570 264 123 77.2 703 326 152 77.4 718 333 155 1.5 0.1 Orangewood Ave to Convention Way 40 35,870 46,890 47,440 75.9 573 266 123 77.1 685 318 148 77.1 690 320 149 1.2 0.1 Convention Way to Katella Ave 40 40,430 49,980 50,350 76.4 621 288 134 77.3 715 332 154 77.4 718 333 155 1.0 0.0 Katella Ave to Disney Way 35 38,410 55,020 56,730 75.2 516 239 111 76.8 655 304 141 76.9 669 310 144 1.7 0.1 Disney Way to Manchester Ave 35 41,340 53,490 54,500 75.5 541 251 117 76.6 643 298 139 76.7 651 302 140 1.2 0.1 Manchester Ave to I-5 Freeway 35 39,450 55,420 57,240 75.3 525 244 113 76.8 658 306 142 76.9 673 312 145 1.6 0.1 I-5 Freeway to Ball Rd 35 44,360 57,660 59,290 75.8 568 263 122 77.0 676 314 146 77.1 689 320 148 1.3 0.1 Ball Rd to Vermont St 35 26,900 37,440 38,240 73.7 407 189 88 75.1 507 235 109 75.2 514 239 111 1.5 0.1 Haster Street I-5 Freeway to Ball Rd 40 18,190 36,460 38,010 72.9 364 169 79 76.0 579 269 125 76.1 596 276 128 3.2 0.2 Ball Rd to Vermont St 40 19,760 37,170 39,830 73.3 385 179 83 76.0 587 272 126 76.3 614 285 132 3.0 0.3 Howell Avenue State College Blvd to Sunkist St 35 4,390 15,580 22,000 65.8 121 56 26 71.3 283 131 61 72.8 356 165 77 7.0 1.5 Sunkist St to Katella Ave 35 5,830 6,380 7,910 67.0 147 68 32 67.4 156 72 34 68.3 180 83 39 1.3 0.9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue Euclid St to Ninth St 40 31,470 49,450 50,900 75.3 525 244 113 77.3 710 329 153 77.4 724 336 156 2.1 0.1 Ninth St to Walnut St 40 29,270 47,260 48,170 75.0 500 232 108 77.1 689 320 148 77.2 697 324 150 2.2 0.1 Walnut St to Disneyland Dr 40 35,240 55,400 56,930 75.8 566 263 122 77.8 766 355 165 77.9 780 362 168 2.1 0.1 Disneyland Dr to Harbor Blvd 40 37,440 64,920 67,110 76.1 590 274 127 78.5 851 395 183 78.6 870 404 187 2.5 0.1 Harbor Blvd to Clementine St 40 39,100 57,480 59,070 76.3 607 282 131 77.9 785 364 169 78.1 799 371 172 1.8 0.1 Clementine St to Anaheim Blvd 40 38,510 57,500 59,650 76.2 601 279 129 77.9 785 364 169 78.1 804 373 173 1.9 0.2 Anaheim Blvd to I-5 Freeway 40 37,830 55,320 57,520 76.1 594 276 128 77.8 765 355 165 77.9 785 364 169 1.8 0.2 Manchester Ave to Anaheim Way 40 35,040 58,160 71,090 75.8 564 262 122 78.0 791 367 170 78.9 904 420 195 3.1 0.9 Anaheim Way to Lewis St 40 35,040 58,160 71,090 75.8 564 262 122 78.0 791 367 170 78.9 904 420 195 3.1 0.9 Lewis St to State College Blvd 40 30,260 48,820 57,860 75.1 512 237 110 77.2 704 327 152 78.0 788 366 170 2.8 0.7 State College Blvd to Sportstown 40 32,800 47,980 51,920 75.5 540 251 116 77.2 696 323 150 77.5 733 340 158 2.0 0.3 Sportstown to Howell Ave 40 34,240 54,380 62,310 75.7 555 258 120 77.7 756 351 163 78.3 828 384 178 2.6 0.6 Howell Ave to Orange Freeway 40 37,990 60,860 71,190 76.1 595 276 128 78.2 815 378 176 78.9 905 420 195 2.7 0.7 Orange Freeway to Main St 40 29,610 54,600 62,900 75.1 504 234 109 77.7 758 352 163 78.3 833 387 180 3.3 0.6 Main St to Batavia St 40 30,280 47,690 51,570 75.2 512 238 110 77.1 693 322 149 77.5 730 339 157 2.3 0.3 Batavia St to Glassell St 40 29,490 46,060 49,250 75.0 503 233 108 77.0 677 314 146 77.3 708 329 152 2.2 0.3 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way to Katella Ave 45 1,440 16,800 25,710 62.8 77 36 17 73.5 398 185 86 75.4 529 245 114 12.5 1.8 Katella Ave to Cerritos Ave 45 7,680 22,360 32,900 70.1 236 110 51 74.8 482 224 104 76.4 623 289 134 6.3 1.7 Cerritos Ave to Ball Rd 45 6,460 20,870 22,950 69.4 211 98 45 74.5 460 214 99 74.9 490 228 106 5.5 0.4 Main Street Chapman Ave to Orangewood Ave 35 20,090 39,050 40,550 72.4 335 155 72 75.3 521 242 112 75.4 535 248 115 3.1 0.2 Orangewood Ave to Collins Ave 40 16,900 28,730 29,410 72.6 347 161 75 74.9 494 229 106 75.0 502 233 108 2.4 0.1 Collins Ave to Katella Ave 40 17,700 30,920 31,360 72.8 358 166 77 75.2 519 241 112 75.3 524 243 113 2.5 0.1 Katella Ave to Taft Ave 40 11,440 21,540 21,730 70.9 267 124 58 73.7 408 189 88 73.7 410 190 88 2.8 0.0 Manchester Avenue Compton Ave to Orangewood Ave 40 6,840 16,590 16,050 68.7 190 88 41 72.5 343 159 74 72.4 335 156 72 3.7 -0.1 Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave 40 11,050 21,540 23,810 70.8 261 121 56 73.7 408 189 88 74.1 436 202 94 3.3 0.4 Katella Ave to Anaheim Blvd 40 1,410 11,500 14,740 61.8 66 31 14 70.9 268 125 58 72.0 317 147 68 10.2 1.1 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Blvd to Haster Ave 40 15,540 20,130 21,480 72.3 328 152 71 73.4 390 181 84 73.7 407 189 88 1.4 0.3 Haster St to Manchester Ave 40 17,950 24,480 25,910 72.9 361 168 78 74.2 444 206 96 74.5 461 214 99 1.6 0.2 Manchester Ave to State College Blvd 40 19,810 28,530 34,410 73.3 386 179 83 74.9 492 228 106 75.7 557 259 120 2.4 0.8 State College Blvd to Rampart St 40 24,490 38,080 50,380 74.2 444 206 96 76.1 596 277 128 77.4 719 334 155 3.1 1.2 Rampart St to SR-57 Freeway 40 23,490 40,050 47,660 74.0 432 201 93 76.4 617 286 133 77.1 692 321 149 3.1 0.8 SR-57 Freeway to Eckhoff St 40 27,720 44,670 49,090 74.8 483 224 104 76.8 663 308 143 77.3 706 328 152 2.5 0.4 Eckhoff St to Main St 40 14,160 17,750 19,610 71.9 308 143 66 72.8 358 166 77 73.3 383 178 83 1.4 0.4 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center to Ball Rd 25 3,880 13,530 13,510 64.1 94 44 20 69.5 216 100 47 69.5 216 100 47 5.4 0.0 Rampart Street Chapman Ave to Orangewood Ave 35 2,770 16,510 22,510 63.8 89 41 19 71.5 294 136 63 72.9 361 168 78 9.1 1.3 State College Boulevar Chapman Ave to I-5 Freeway 40 26,980 42,370 45,860 74.7 474 220 102 76.6 640 297 138 77.0 675 313 145 2.3 0.3 I-5 Freeway to Orangewood Ave 40 21,400 43,240 48,060 73.6 406 188 87 76.7 649 301 140 77.2 696 323 150 3.5 0.5 Orangewood Ave to Gene Autry Way 40 22,160 39,670 46,900 73.8 416 193 90 76.3 613 284 132 77.1 685 318 148 3.3 0.7 Gene Autry Way to Katella Ave 40 20,120 31,040 34,920 73.4 390 181 84 75.3 520 242 112 75.8 563 261 121 2.4 0.5 Katella Ave to Howell Ave 40 23,980 39,840 46,470 74.1 438 203 94 76.3 615 285 132 77.0 681 316 147 2.9 0.7 Howell Ave to Cerritos Ave 40 3,900 4,640 5,180 66.3 131 61 28 67.0 147 68 32 67.5 158 73 34 1.2 0.5 Cerritos Ave to Ball Rd 40 23,320 25,880 28,570 74.0 430 200 93 74.5 461 214 99 74.9 492 229 106 0.9 0.4 Ball Rd to Wagner Ave 40 24,020 33,130 35,100 74.1 439 204 94 75.5 543 252 117 75.8 565 262 122 1.6 0.3 Struck Avenue Katella Ave to Main St 35 6,720 14,100 15,500 67.6 161 75 35 70.8 264 123 57 71.3 282 131 61 3.6 0.4 Sunkist Street Howell Ave to Cerritos Ave 40 3,900 9,950 12,610 66.3 131 61 28 70.3 244 113 53 71.3 285 132 61 5.1 1.0 Cerritos Ave to Ball Rd 40 7,720 11,240 12,000 69.2 206 96 44 70.8 264 123 57 71.1 276 128 59 1.9 0.3 Walnut Avenue Main St to Batavia St 35 8,540 9,630 9,710 68.7 189 88 41 69.2 205 95 44 69.2 206 96 44 0.6 0.0 Batavia St to Glassell St 35 8,090 9,870 9,860 68.4 183 85 39 69.3 208 97 45 69.3 208 97 45 0.9 0.0 Assumptions: Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 meters= 20.0 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes: future 6.1 meters= 20.0 70% day 15% evening (7-10), 15% night (10-7) Noise path decay parameter for hard site Analysis of L.A. County 24-hour traffic counts for selected arterial streets Calculations using methods of Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model , Truck Mix December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Source of standard assumptions: ARB standard fleet mix for air quality analysis Heavy trucks for noise model includes heavy diesel tractor-trailers only Medium trucks for noise model includes buses and bobtail trucks Autos includes cars, vans, pickups and light trucks ---PAGE BREAK--- The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications & Development Department 2009 METROLINK® FACT SHEET The Metrolink Regional System Jun ’09 Jun ‘08 Number of Routes 7 7 Stations in Service 55 55 Route Miles (includes shared miles) 512 512 Route Miles (excludes shared miles) 388 388 Average Trains Operated/Weekday 149 145 Average Trains Operated/Saturday 46 46 Average Trains Operated/Sunday 32 32 Average Weekday Riders on Metrolink trains (Apr thru Jun) 41,982 46,055 Average Weekday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Apr thru Jun) 2,018 1,878 Total Average Weekday Metrolink Riders (Apr thru Jun) 44,000 47,933 Average System Speed (M.P.H. with stops) 41 m.p.h. 41 m.p.h. Metrolink by Route Corridor Jun ’09 Jun ‘08 Ventura County Line (Oxnard to Los Angeles) Includes 11 Burbank/Bob Hope Airport trains Stations 12 12 Route Miles 70.9 70.9 Trains Operated/Day 31  Ave Wkday Riders on Metrolink (Apr thru Jun) 4,369 4,650 31 Ave Wkday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Apr thru Jun) 309 305 Total Ave Weekday Metrolink Riders (Apr thru Jun) 4,678 4,956 Ave Saturday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Apr thru Jun) 99 92 Ave Sunday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Apr thru Jun) 83 76 Average Speed 42 m.p.h. 42 m.p.h. Antelope Valley Line (Lancaster to Los Angeles) Stations 11 10 Route Miles 76.6 76.6 Trains Operated/Weekday 24 24 Trains Operated/Saturday 12 12 Trains Operated Sunday 6 6 Average Weekday Riders (Apr thru Jun) 6,494 7,665 Average Saturday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 2,114 2,540 Average Sunday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 1,062 1,210 Average Speed 41 m.p.h. 41 m.p.h. ---PAGE BREAK--- Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s FACT SHEET –Jun 2009 The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications & Development Department 2009 METROLINK® 2 San Bernardino Line (San Bernardino to Los Angeles) Stations 13 13 Route Miles 56.5 56.5 Trains Operated/Weekday 38 34 Trains Operated/Saturday 20 20 Trains Operated/Sunday 14 14 Average Weekday Riders (Apr thru Jun) 12,541 13,577 Average Saturday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 3,528 4,082 Average Sunday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 2,406 2,566 Average Speed 39 m.p.h. 39 m.p.h. Riverside Line (Riverside to Los Angeles) Stations 7 7 Route Miles 59.1 59.1 Trains Operated/Weekday 12 12 Average Weekday Riders (Apr thru Jun) 5,100 5,340 Average Speed 42 m.p.h. 42 m.p.h. Orange County Line (Oceanside to Los Angeles) Stations 14 13 Route Miles 87.2 87.2 Trains Operated/Weekday 19 19 Trains Operated/Saturday 8 8 Trains Operated/Sunday 8 8 Ave Wkday Riders on Metrolink (Apr thru Jun) 6,987 7,377 Ave Wkday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Apr thru Jun) 1,709 1,572 Total Ave Weekday Metrolink Riders (Apr thru Jun) 8,696 8,949 Average Saturday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 866 1,010 Average Sunday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 682 727 Ave Saturday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Apr thru Jun)1 473 362 Ave Sunday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Apr thru Jun)1 Stations 14 14 499 362 Average Speed 44 m.p.h. 44 m.p.h. Inland Empire-Orange County Line (San Bernardino to Oceanside) Route Miles 100.1 100.1 Trains Operated/Weekday 16 16 Trains Operated/Saturday 6 6 Trains Operated/Sunday 4 4 Average Weekday Riders (Apr thru Jun) 4,224 5,100 Average Saturday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 764 1,002 Average Sunday Service Riders (Apr thru Jun) 424 387 Average Speed 39 m.p.h. 39 m.p.h. ---PAGE BREAK--- Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s FACT SHEET –Jun 2009 The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications & Development Department 2009 METROLINK® 3 91 Line (Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton) Stations 9 8 Route Miles 61.6 61.6 Trains Operated/Day 9 9 Average Weekday Riders (Apr thru Jun) 2,267 2,346 Average Speed 39 m.p.h. 39 m.p.h. Metrolink Fast Facts • Average Number of Auto Trips Removed/Weekday 26,510 • Weekday Riders Who Formerly Drove Alone/Carpooled 67.1percent • Weekday Riders Who Formerly Made the Trip and Drove Alone/Carpooled 89.7 percent • Average Metrolink Commute Trip Length (linked) 36.9 miles • Equivalent Peak Hour Lane Miles on Parallel Freeway Replaced by Metrolink Service up to 1.3 • Percent of work trips destined for Los Angeles Union Station 57.5 percent • Percent of work trips destined for the Los Angeles Central Business District 36.1 percent • Average weight of a Metrolink train 400 tons • Passenger Car Dimensions Length 85’0” Width 9’10” Height 15’11” • Locomotive Dimensions (maximum) Length 68’0” Width 10’7.5” Height 15’5” • Average distance for a Metrolink train to stop 1/3 mile • Percent of Weekday Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor (Latino, Asian, African-American, other) San Bernardino Line 70 percent Riverside Line 78 percent Antelope Valley Line 55 percent Ventura County Line 39 percent Orange County Line 51 percent Inland Empire-Orange County Line 49 percent 91 Line 61 percent System 60 percent • Percent of Weekend Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor (Latino, Asian, African-American, other) San Bernardino Line 79 percent Antelope Valley Line 77 percent Orange County Line 51 percent Inland Empire-Orange County Line 50 percent System 71 percent Source: 2008 Metrolink Customer Satisfaction Survey, 2008 Metrolink Weekend Customer Survey, and SCRRA Budget for FY 2008-09 The Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink Date of Formation August 1991 Form of Government Joint Powers Authority ---PAGE BREAK--- Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s FACT SHEET –Jun 2009 The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications & Development Department 2009 METROLINK® 4 Number of SCRRA Board Members 11 Number of Alternates 9 Number of Member Agencies 5 Number of Ex-Officio Members 3 SCRRA Member Agencies Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Ex-Officio Member Agencies Southern California Association of Governments San Diego Association of Governments State of California SCRRA/Contract Employment Operations 345 Maintenance of Way 143 SCRRA Administration 208 SCRRA Interns 17 TOTAL 713 Operating Route Miles by County in System Excludes Shared Miles Includes Shared Miles Los Angeles County 186.0 220.2 Orange County 67.5 117.6 Riverside County 38.1 58.6 San Bernardino County 38.7 38.7 Ventura County 38.9 38.9 San Diego County 19.0 38.0 TOTAL 388.2 512.0 Metrolink’s 2008-09 Annual Budget Operating Budget $164.4 million Projected percent of operating costs covered by operating revenues 53.2 percent Projected percent of operating costs covered by fares 44.3 percent Metrolink Train Equipment Number of Locomotives 52 Total Number of Commuter Rail Cars 172 Cab Cars (includes 2 leased from Sound Transit + 2 from Altamont Commute Express) 37 Coaches (includes 4 leased from Sound Transit + 2 from Altamont Commute Express + 15 from New Jersey Transit and 10 from Utah Transit Authority) 135 Equipment on Order: Cab cars 57 Coaches 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s FACT SHEET –Jun 2009 The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications & Development Department 2009 METROLINK® 5 Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Total Number of Grade Crossings of All Types in Metrolink System2,3 Number of At-Grade Crossings in System 464 Number of Undergrade Crossings (Railroad Over) in System 160 Number of Overgrade Crossings (Railroad Under) in System 210 Number of Public Crossings in System 699 Number of Pedestrian Crossings in System 37 Number of Private Crossings in System 50 Number of Private Pedestrian Crossings in System 4 Number of Station Crossings in the System 44 Number of SCRRA-owned Crossings in System 545 834 Number of BNSF-owned Crossings in System 144 Number of UPRR-owned Crossings in System 127 Number of NCTD-owned Crossings in System 18 At-Grade Crossings : Metrolink BNSF UPRR NCTD Total 311 70 79 3 Public 256 64 66 3 Pedestrian 10 2 0 Private 29 1 5 0 Pedestrian Private 0 0 0 0 Station 17 3 8 0 Undergrade Crossings (Railroad Over): Metrolink BNSF UPRR NCTD Total 90 42 24 4 Public 62 40 23 1 Pedestrian 11 2 1 1 Private 10 0 0 1 Pedestrian Private 2 0 0 0 Station 5 0 0 1 Overgrade Crossings (Railroad Under): Metrolink BNSF UPRR 2 The Metrolink system operates over rail rights-of-way owned by SCRRA member agencies, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and North County Transit District (NCTD) 3 The list of crossings now includes 48 crossings in two categories not included in the Fact Sheet prior to December 2007. These include four Pedestrian Private crossings and 44 Station crossings. NCTD Total 143 32 24 11 Public 128 27 21 8 Pedestrian 10 0 1 0 Private 1 0 0 3 Pedestrian Private 2 0 0 0 Station 2 5 3 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- User Input Noise Situation Shielding Ldn 65 Contours Numeric Output (in feet) Noise Situation (Pick from List) 1 Horns Existing and Future 1 Dense Urban 1 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 699 Horn Lmax (dBA) @ 100 feet 103 Horns in Future Only 2 Light Urban 2 Future 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 951 Horn Location on Locomotive(Pick from List) 1 No Horns Existing and Future 3 Dense Suburban 3 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 553 Non Train Noise Environment (pick from list) 2 Light Suburban 4 Future 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 765 Shielding (Pick from List) 2 Horn Location on Locomotive Rural 5 Zone Length 1320 Length of Impact Area (pick from list) 1 National Average (50% front, 50% middle) 1 No Shielding 6 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Train Speed (mph) 42 All Front Mounted 2 Future Train Speed (mph) 42 All Middle Mounted 3 Length of Impact Area Impact Zones Numeric Output (in feet) Number of Existing Trains in one Direction 46 User Defined 80 % front mounted horns 4 1/4 mile 1 Impact Distance at X-ing 1435 Number of Future Trains in one Direction 100 20 seconds 2 Severe Impact Distance at X-ing 594 Existing Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.) 28.75 Non Train Noise Environment 15 seconds 3 Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 1182 Future Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.) 62.5 Urban 1 Severe Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 484 Existing Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am) 17.25 Suburban 2 Zone Length 1320 Future Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am) 37.5 Rural 3 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Average Number of Cars 22 User Defined Ldn = 50 dBA 4 Future Average Number of Cars 29 Existing Average Number of Locomotives 2 Future Average Number of Locomotives 2 FRA Grade Crossing Noise Model Ldn 65 Contours -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1320 660 0 660 1320 Distance (ft) Distance (ft) Impact Zones -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1320 660 0 660 1320 Distance (ft) Distance (ft) ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing and Future Train Volumes on the Orange County Line Existing Future Locomotives Cars Metrolink 19 52 1 10 Amtrak 24 36 3 15 Freight 3 12 4 150 46 100 Existing Future Average # Locomotives 2 2 Average # Cars 22 29 Speed 42 mph Source Abbe McClenahan, Orange County Transportation Authority. May 24, 2007. Locomotives, and cars obtained from Rob Harris, Metrolink. [PHONE REDACTED]. Average train Speeds on the Orange County Line obtained from: http://www.metrolinktrains.com/about/?id=6 Future Trains based on a worst-case weekday (see May 8th letter from SCRRA) ---PAGE BREAK--- Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc. version: 7/3/2007 Project: FTA Example 5-1, Part 1 Project Results Summary Existing Ldn: 55 dBA Total Project Ldn: 65 dBA Receiver Parameters Total Noise Exposure: 65 dBA Receiver: Receiver 1 Increase: 10 dB Land Use Category: 2. Residential Impact?: Severe Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value): 55 dBA Distance to Impact Contours Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: Noise Source Parameters Number of Noise Sources: 3 Noise Source Parameters Source 1 Source Type: Stationary Source Specific Source: Bus Transit Center Source 1 Results Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Buses/hr 20 Leq(day): 44.3 dBA 15 Leq(night): 44.3 dBA 8 Ldn: 50.7 dBA Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Buses/hr 20 15 0 Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 350 Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings 0 Adjustments Noise Barrier? No No No No Noise Source Parameters Source 2 Source Type: Stationary Source Specific Source: Park & Ride Lot Source 2 Results Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Autos/hr 1000 Leq(day): 52.9 dBA Avg. Number of Buses/hr 12 Leq(night): 0.0 dBA 100 Ldn: 50.8 dBA Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2): 53.8 dBA Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Autos/hr 1000 Avg. Number of Buses/hr 12 0 Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 350 Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings Adjustments Noise Barrier? No No No No Noise Source Parameters Source 3 Source Type: Stationary Source Specific Source: Layover Tracks (commuter rail) Source 3 Results Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Trains/hr 4 Leq(day): 58.3 dBA Leq(night): 58.3 dBA Ldn: 64.7 dBA Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3): 65.0 dBA Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Trains/hr 4 Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 350 Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings Adjustments Noise Barrier? No No No No ---PAGE BREAK--- Project: FTA Example 5-1, Part 1 Receiver: Receiver 1 Source Distance Project Ldn Existing Ldn Mod. Impact Sev. Impact Impact? 1 Bus Transit Center 350 ft 50.7 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA None 2 Park & Ride Lot 350 ft 50.8 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA None 3 Layover Tracks (commuter r 350 ft 64.7 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Severe Impact 4 ft 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA 5 ft 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA 6 ft 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Combined Sources 65 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Severe Impact Noise Criteria ---PAGE BREAK--- Project: FTA Example 5-1, Part 1 Receiver: Receiver 1 Source Distance Project Ldn Existing Ldn Mod. Impact Sev. Impact Impact? 1 Bus Transit Center 50 ft 71.8 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Severe Impact 2 Park & Ride Lot 50 ft 72.0 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Severe Impact 3 Layover Tracks (commuter r 50 ft 85.8 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Severe Impact 4 ft 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA 5 ft 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA 6 ft 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Combined Sources 86 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 61 dBA Severe Impact Noise Criteria ---PAGE BREAK--- Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc. version: 7/3/2007 Project: FTA Example 5-1, Part 1 Project Results Summary Existing Ldn: 55 dBA Total Project Ldn: 86 dBA Receiver Parameters Total Noise Exposure: 86 dBA Receiver: Receiver 1 Increase: 31 dB Land Use Category: 2. Residential Impact?: Severe Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value): 55 dBA Distance to Impact Contours Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: Noise Source Parameters Number of Noise Sources: 3 Noise Source Parameters Source 1 Source Type: Stationary Source Specific Source: Bus Transit Center Source 1 Results Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Buses/hr 20 Leq(day): 65.4 dBA 15 Leq(night): 65.4 dBA 8 Ldn: 71.8 dBA Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Buses/hr 20 15 0 Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 50 Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings 0 Adjustments Noise Barrier? No No No No Noise Source Parameters Source 2 Source Type: Stationary Source Specific Source: Park & Ride Lot Source 2 Results Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Autos/hr 1000 Leq(day): 74.0 dBA Avg. Number of Buses/hr 12 Leq(night): 0.0 dBA 100 Ldn: 72.0 dBA Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2): 74.9 dBA Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Autos/hr 1000 Avg. Number of Buses/hr 12 0 Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 50 Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings Adjustments Noise Barrier? No No No No Noise Source Parameters Source 3 Source Type: Stationary Source Specific Source: Layover Tracks (commuter rail) Source 3 Results Daytime hrs Avg. Number of Trains/hr 4 Leq(day): 79.4 dBA Leq(night): 79.4 dBA Ldn: 85.8 dBA Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3): 86.2 dBA Nighttime hrs Avg. Number of Trains/hr 4 Distance Distance from Source to Receiver (ft) 50 Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings Adjustments Noise Barrier? No No No No ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix E Public Services Correspondence ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page left blank intentionally. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Electric Utility 1. Will the Anaheim Public Utilities be able to provide electrical service to the proposed project given the current level of facilities and supply? If not, please indicate what improvement will be required to service the project. Upgrades to the existing facilities will be required to accommodate project generated utility demands. Additional distribution circuits, transmission lines and one electrical substation will be required to serve the ultimate project. Distribution and transmission systems will be installed to coincide with street improvements, or as needed by a development, whichever comes first. The substation will be installed when project electrical loads exceed the existing electrical capacity in the project area by 20 megawatts. 2. Please provide consumption factors for residential, commercial and recreational land uses. How much electricity will be required to serve the proposed project? We are unable to determine kWh consumption for these specific residential or commercial units without additional information. Consumption factors for the City are estimated to be approximately 590,000 megawatt hours for residential use and 630,000 megawatt hours for commercial/office use. 3. Please describe the electrical facilities that are currently present in the project vicinity. Is there existing service to the project site? What new facilities will be required to provide electrical service to the project site? There are existing 12kV systems in the area. There is service to the project site, but it is not adequate for the proposed electrical load. The electric utility will construct a new substation, transmission lines and distribution circuits to provide service to the site. 4. What impact will the proposed project, in combination with all the other development projects in the area, have on Anaheim’s ability to provide electrical service? The electric utility will provide service to the entire Platinum Triangle project. The impact will include, but may not be limited to, increasing conductor sizes, locating the conductors underground, installing new high and low voltage conductors and installing new voltage transformation facilities. All installations will be located in City streets and right-of-ways or on customer provided easements. However, these impacts are not considered significant and are within the expansion capabilities of the existing service. The electric utility owns land in the Platinum Triangle. This land will be used for the future electrical substation. 5. What mitigation measures, if any, would you recommend for the proposed project? ---PAGE BREAK--- The owner or developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Business and Community Programs Division in order to review above Title 24 measures prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection to incorporate into the project design energy and water efficiency and sustainability practices. This consultation shall take place during project design to incorporate into the project design energy and water efficiencies and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage air-conditioning, lighting, building envelope options and green building strategies. In order to conserve energy, the owner or developer shall implement energy and water-saving practices in compliance with Title 24, which may include the following:
High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control
Variable air volume (VAV) distribution
Outside air (100%) 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
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 facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods.
Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as o New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems o New Construction – cash incentives ($300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements o Green Building Program – offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance.
Use of High Efficiency toilets (1.28 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 For any buildings requiring an electrical service, the owner or developer shall install an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities distribution system. The underground service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 the Community Facilities District. 6 Please add any comments you may wish to make regarding this project. None ---PAGE BREAK--- Average consumption rate are the following: residential: 49 therms per 30 days Commercial/ Industrial: depends on type of industry. With the proposed change in General Plan Land Use, the increase in use will not affect gas distribution in the area. We have existing natural gas distribution facilities within the proposed area. New distribution lines will be required to fir new facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- No impact anticipated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 3 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 334 for the City of Anaheim Library Questionnaire 1. What public library(s) would serve the proposed project site? The Anaheim Public Library system will serve the proposed project site. The closest physical library facility to the proposed increase in development entities in the Platinum Triangle is the Sunkist Branch at 901 S. Sunkist, Anaheim, CA 92806. Another facility to serve this area is in the construction phase. This will be a joint use facility with the Anaheim City School District slated for 2135 S. Mountain View Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, that will function as a school library during the day and a public library during evenings and weekends. The expansion of the Platinum Triangle from the original plan of 9,500 units to approximately 19,937 units will also necessitate the consideration of physical library service space within the project area. Space for library facilities is determined by per capita. The projected occupancy per dwelling is 1.5. This figure multiplied by the proposed 19,937 units equates to an approximate population of 30,000. Based on the East Anaheim Library model, a 30,000 population size requires the building of physical space for library services of approximately 10,000 square feet. The population in this project site will also have access to virtual Anaheim Library services through the network at the Central Library, 500 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805. These services include Internet based library catalog, book reserves, and full text printable/downloadable databases including Business and Company Resource Center, Health & Wellness Resources, magazines, local and national newspapers and practices tests for school, jobs and military. Live on-line reference service from a librarian is available from the library’s website 24/7. 2. Is the existing amount of library space and number of volumes of books considered adequate for the existing population within the affected library service area? If not, what is the estimated deficit of space and/or volumes? The quality and adequacy of services are measured on a per capita basis. A growth in population reduces the overall availability per capita, of books, media, computers, and space. Given the proposed increase in population, the Library Division may need to propose a physical service space within the project area. The Public Library Facilities Plan for the East Santa Ana Canyon adopted by City Council on June 13, 1989, Resolution No. 89R-235, is the model that was used to devise the initial Platinum Triangle fees. In that Public Library Facilities plan a population of approximately 30,000 triggered the need for a physical service space. At the present time the Library provides a total of 139,500 square feet of Library space in various sized facilities throughout Anaheim to serve 345,556 citizens. An additional population of approximately 30,000 based on 1.5 residents in 19,973 units would warrant a 10,000 square foot facility. The current library fee established for the Platinum Triangle does not include the cost of land. Therefore, a new developer fee will need to be devised. Electronic resources are also impacted by population growth as the licensing fees for these databases, resources, etc. is generally linked to the population of the library’s service area, the City of Anaheim. Increases in population increase the licensing costs of electronic resources and reduce the per capita availability of virtual as well as physical collections, computers, programs, and space. In order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing agreements, additional physical and virtual resources need to be added to the Anaheim Public Library system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 3 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 334 for the City of Anaheim Library Questionnaire 3. What factors are used to determine the amount of library space and number of volumes to serve a given population? Factors determining the service levels of a public library include: 1) Total population; 2) Children – not school age; 3) Student population; 4) Language of households; 5) Income level of households; and 6) Educational level of households. Comparative data for service adequacy is available through the Public Library Data Service statistical reports. Library service indicators are: Factor National Library Norms (HALPR’s index) Anaheim Library System – Sunkist Branch Square Feet per capita .3-.5 Sq. Ft. .2 Sq. Ft. Volumes per square feet owned per capita 4.0-6.2 volumes 4.5 volumes Circulation per capita 4.5 4.04 Electronic Resource Use per capita .9 1.1 Information Assistance per capita 1.1 .79 Based on the Public Library Facilities Plan for the East Santa Ana Canyon (East Anaheim), the general schedule for development of the Public Library Facilities was as follows: When the population in the Area of Benefit reaches 15,000 the Library Division will begin expending funds to accumulate books, educational resources, and computers. When the population in the Area of Benefit reaches 23,000, an architect will be hired and the building process will begin. Based on this model we would propose that the Platinum Triangle project follow the same schedule to plan library space and services for a population of 30,000. 4. What impact would development of the proposed project have on existing and planned library facilities? Additional funds to support increased demand for library services are required to maintain the current level of community support. Initially, service will be provided by the Sunkist Branch Library which will require additional materials and computers. As the population intensifies and usage expands, space in the immediate area will be identified for focused service to the residents. The projected demographics for the new residential population in the Platinum Triangle area indicate a computer literate user base who will most likely utilize remote/virtual resources and delivery/pickup of physical collection items. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 3 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 334 for the City of Anaheim Library Questionnaire 5. What measures are required or recommended to reduce or offset the impacts of this project or the cumulative impacts of this project and other anticipated growth? Population growth associated with new residential development results in an increased demand for library services and facilities that negatively impacts the quality and quantity of library resources per capita. Developer fees are assessed to allow a community to establish a financing mechanism to help to offset the increased service needs that occur when new housing units are built. The Anaheim City Council approved a developer fee for new residential units for the Platinum Triangle in November 2004. In the original plan we were of the understanding that the dwelling type was predominately apartments. We have become aware that there are also condominium/townhome dwellings planned for the area which has the potential for increasing occupancy per dwelling over the 1.5 originally projected. As a result the Platinum Triangle Developer Fees may need to be reassessed to include land costs and also to differentiate between dwelling types. This fee will be reviewed annually and fee adjustments based upon the inflation/deflation costs for library construction, land, library materials, computers and FF&E will be subject to review and approval of the City Council. 6. Please add any other comments you may wish to make regarding this project. The expansion of the Platinum Triangle from a project 9,500 units to 19,500 units has a marked impact on the requirements for maintaining current service levels throughout the City and consequences for diminished per capita resources if a library impact fee is not assessed for this large scale development. Response Prepared By: Carol Stone City Librarian Name Title City of Anaheim, Community Services Department, Library Division 1/09/09 Agency Date ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Please indicate the existing parks and recreation facilities in the project vicinity. The facilities outlined in the original EIR have not changed. 2. Assess the impact the proposed project will make on existing parks and recreation facilities. The existing parks are already impacted with overuse. An additional 30,000 residents (including alternative 1 and 2) will exasperate this situation. The result is scheduled recreational facilities exceeding capacity causing heightened wear and tear on the facilities. All of the recreational facilities in the area are already utilized to capacity and users who want to join a sports group or reserve fields for a Sunday afternoon family picnic are already being turned away. The new residents will have little opportunity to enjoy the reservable recreational facilities (such as ball fields, picnic shelters, volleyball and basketball courts) unless they are willing to make a reservation months in advance. This added demand will cause the recreational facilities to be reserved above capacity without resting the fields or allowing adequate time for renovation and repair. The additional population will likely cause an increase in graffiti, vandalism, and wear and tear. But the landscape will suffer the most. The turfed ball fields cannot be maintained at the level expected by the City of Anaheim due to the over programming that will result from the added residents and added requests for reservations. The turf and landscaped area in the valuable open space will also suffer greatly due to the increased traffic and no time for maintenance when the public is not using the facilities. 3. Are the existing parks and recreational facilities able to accommodate the proposed project? If not, what additional facilities would be needed? No, the existing parks and recreational facilities able not to accommodate the proposed project Parkland calculation 16,548 DU + 1975 DU for alternate 1 + 1450 DU for Alternate 2 = 19,973 DU 1.5 residents per DU = 29,959.5 residents 2 acres of parkland per capita is the city standard. = 60 acres Another 60 acres of parkland are required to meet the needs of the new residents to the area. Please update the impact analysis to reflect these new levels. Some developers will provide pocket parks that will alleviate some of this demand. However, these are not expected to exceed 10 acres combined and these parks will be less than one acres and sometimes less than half an acre and will not contain active recreational amenities such as ball fields. The proposed Platinum Triangle Park at 7.1 acres will still leave a deficit of approximately 43 acres. 4. What impacts will the proposed project, in combination with all the other development projects in the area have on your ability to provide parks and recreation facilities in the project area? The proposed project will bring in residents and users that will exceed the capacity of the parks system. The City of Anaheim will not be able to provide parks or recreational facilities to meet this demand. The City of Anaheim will not be able to maintain the existing parks and recreational facilities with the additional use. 5. Mitigation measures? unknown 6. Other Comments? None ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Police Questionnaire Page 1 of 2 1. Please indicate which police station would serve the proposed project, the station's location, distance to the project site, and staffing. The nearest police facility to the project area is the “Main Station”, located at 425 S. Harbor Boulevard, approximately 3.5 miles away. Most police operations take place at this facility including investigative and detective functions. The “South Station” is located at 1520 S. Disneyland Drive, approximately 3.6 miles away. This location is designed to service the surrounding resort district, including investigative and detective operations. The “West Station” is located at 320 S. Beach Boulevard, approximately 9.8 miles away from the project area. Police services will share this location with a community center. The “East Station” is located at 8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 12.6 miles away. There are currently no follow-up investigative or detective services operating from this facility. The Police Heliport, housing the Department’s three helicopters is located at the Fullerton Municipal Airport, 4011 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, approximately 7.8 miles from the project area. The Anaheim Police Department is currently authorized for 400 officers who are assigned to all of the above locations. All of the stations would provide staff and resources to the project site as needed. 2. What is the response time to the project site? What is the department’s standard for desired response time for emergency and non-emergency calls? Response times for the specific project area are not available. Our current goal for desired response times is as follows (in minutes): Priority 1 7:00 Priority 2 10:00 Priority 3 30:00 2. Given the existing level of staffing and equipment, will the police department be able to provide police services to the proposed project? If not, please indicate what will be required to serve the project. Yes, however the proposed project will reduce service to other areas of the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Police Questionnaire Page 2 of 2 4. What impact will the proposed project, in combination with all the other projects planned in the area, have on the ability of the police department to provide police services in the area? It is estimated that this proposed density increase would generate, on average, in excess of 36,216 calls for service per year. This, in combination with the other proposed development projects in the area for which we already project a considerable increase in calls for service, will reduce or delay our delivery of service throughout the city. Based on a Public Safety Impact Study prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC for the Police Department, the calls generated by this intensification alone would require an increase in staffing of 108.5 officers, 56.7 full-time and 25.9 part-time civilian support personnel if we are to maintain our current levels of service. A staffing increase of that size would necessitate the acquisition of at least 43,189 square feet of additional facility space, 48 new vehicles, and at least $554,218 in assigned equipment. 5. What mitigation measures, if any, would you recommend for the proposed project? Please refer to the Commercial and Residential: Multiple-Family sections of our Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines at the following web address: http://www.anaheim.net/com_dev/ed/police_services/CrimePreventionGuidelines%20.pdf 6. Please add any comments you may wish to make regarding this matter. Maintaining our current high level of service will be a tremendous challenge for the Police Department if these proposed increases are approved. Response Prepared By: Officer Minh Nguyen Police Officer Name Title Anaheim Police Department January 13, 2009 Agency Date ---PAGE BREAK--- PLATINUM TRIANGLE SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE JANUARY 9, 2009 1. Please list the names and locations of the elementary middle and high school campuses that would serve the proposed development, their approximate distance to the project site, and the level of service at which they are presently operating (student capacity compared to current enrollment). The Platinum Triangle is currently within the boundaries of Paul Revere School. However, the District can not say at this time where students will ultimately attend elementary school once the Platinum Triangle builds out. On a district-wide level, the Anaheim City School District (District) continues to be overcrowded. California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) for the District in school year 2008-09 was 19,263. The District’s capacity of approximately 21,000 includes 200 portable classrooms, which were intended to be an interim housing solution and will eventually need to be replaced. Without portable classrooms the District’s capacity is approximately 16,000. 2. Are there any existing shortages in the amount of classroom, athletic, recreational or other facilities available to serve the current number of students? In addition to the District-wide capacity issues discussed above portable classrooms are placed on hard court and playground space originally intended for student recreation. Therefore, the District has an acute shortage of recreational facilities. 3. Please indicate your student generation rates and project the number of elementary school, middle school, and high school students that will be generated by the proposed project. The District, as part of a Platinum Triangle master plan currently being finalized, asked its demographic consultant to look at current student generation rates for residential projects in Southern California that might be similar to the type of residential development that may occur in the Platinum Triangle in terms of cost, scale, first occupancy, and unit structure. The elementary school (K-6) student generation rate based on this study is 0.011, which would result in a total of 208 students based on the proposed density. However, as ---PAGE BREAK--- the student generation rate study itself acknowledges, this data is very new and unreliable for a number of reasons. Therefore, the District considers this number an absolute minimum of students which may be generated and is planning for a far greater number of students. For legal purposes, the District continues to use the student generation rate of 0.3609 calculated for the District’s Fee Justification Report for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development (Report). This student generation rate would result in a total of 6,824 students based on the proposed density. 4. What school impact fees, if any, do you currently charge? The District is currently authorized to collect 50 percent of the current maximum developer fee of $2.97 per square foot for residential development and $0.47 per square foot for commercial/industrial development. 5. Will the proposed project create a need for the expansion of or changes in staffing or facilities, including classrooms, athletic equipment, athletic fields, library space, pools or other educational or recreational facilities? Would this project necessitate an adjustment to existing attendance area boundaries? If so, please give a brief description. Given the overcrowded conditions in the District, the students generated from the Platinum Triangle will require the expansion and/or construction of school facilities, as well as all of the associated ancillary facilities. An attendance boundary change will likely be necessary at some future date. 6. What problem, if any, do you foresee in providing adequate educational, athletic and recreational services and facilities to the project site? What cumulative impacts to the adequacy of school services and facilities do you anticipate as a result of the combined growth for this project and other projects in the same attendance areas? As stated above, the cumulative impacts of the Platinum Triangle on the district will be significant, as the District is already overcrowded and extremely limited in adequate recreational space for its students. An additional consideration if a school facility is not constructed in the Platinum Triangle is that of bussing. There are no existing campuses within walking distance of the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, the District will be forced to bus students from the Platinum Triangle to other schools in the District. Beside being a ---PAGE BREAK--- tremendous cost burden on the District, this bussing will have impacts on traffic in the Platinum Triangle and will contradict the City’s goal of a walkable community. 7. Additional comments: The District understands the legal constraints placed on the CEQA process by SB 50 and the payment of developer fees. However, the District still believes that, as a matter of policy, the City can recognize the importance and potential value of a Platinum Triangle School, not only to house future students, but to act as a resource for the Platinum Triangle community. We are in the process of completing a Master Plan specifically addressing school facility concepts to serve the Platinum Triangle and will share this plan with the City as soon as it is completed. We would very much like to work with the City and do our part to make the Platinum Triangle a model community for all of its future residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Gene Autry Experience EIR Solid Waste Questionnaire Page 1 of 2 1. Who provides solid waste landfill capacity to the City of Anaheim? Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department. 2. What are the disposal sites that are used for solid waste in the City, and what are the life expectancies of these sites? What is the rate of disposal to these sites? Please provide a list with the address and life expectancy of each site. Olinda-Alpha Landfill located at 1942 North Valencia Avenue, Brea, Ca 92823. The landfill is a 565-acre site with 420 acres of permitted area of disposal. It is scheduled to close in 2013. Daily capacity is 8,000 tons per day. Current average is 6,800 tons per day. 3. What additional sites are planned for solid waste disposal in the future? The IWMD is planning for the future expansion of the Olinda-Alpha Landfill until 2021. The Final EIR for this project was recommended for adequacy by the OC Planning Commission on November 17, 2004. Certification of the FEIR and approval of the project by the OC Board of Supervisors is anticipated to occur in Spring 2007. 4. What generation rates are used to estimate solid waste service requirements for various land uses (residential, commercial, industrial) in lbs/day or tons/year? Per Mr. John Arnau, see attached summary from California Integrated Waste Management Board Website (http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/). See generation rates by category, #16) (1lb per 100 sq ft per day.) 5. Do any solid waste service deficiencies currently exist in the project area? Are existing solid waste disposal sites considered adequate to service the project area? No deficiencies currently exist. Therefore, solid waste disposal sites are considered adequate to serve the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Gene Autry Experience EIR Solid Waste Questionnaire Page 2 of 2 6. Could solid waste services be provided to serve future growth in accordance with the project buildout without significantly impacting existing solid waste services? Yes, The IWMD is planning to expand the Olinda-Alpha landfill and plans to have sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth in the City of Anaheim. 7. Please describe what recycling measures, if any, are currently taken by local residents and businesses. Provided by the City of Anaheim 8. Is the County currently meeting AB 939 goals? Yes- 15 years of countywide capacity. 9. What is the rate of disposal for the landfill serving the project area? Average daily disposal is 6,800 tons per day. 10. What is the current capacity of these disposal sites? Estimated remaining is 34 million cubic yards as of June 30, 2006, 11. How will future growth in accordance with the project buildout affect the capacity of these landfills? The IWMD can accommodate the project, both specifically and cumulatively. Response Prepared By: John Arnau [PHONE REDACTED] Administrative. Manager 1 Name Title Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department 11/30/06 Agency Date ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 1 P:\COA-51.0E\Service Service Letters!\Solid Waste\sw gen rates.doc SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Land Use Generation Factor residential 12.23 lbs./household/day industrial park (offices) and general industrial 1 lb./100 s.f./day commercial/retail 0.046 lbs/s.f./day school/university 1 lb./student/day institutional, cultural and museum 3.12 lbs/100 s.f./day Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board, “Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates”, December 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Water Questionnaire Page 1 of 3 P:\COA-51.0E\Service Service Letters!\water\Waterquestionnaire_plat tri EIR_339_011209_FINAL.docP:\COA-51.0E\Service Service Letters!\water\Waterquestionnaire_plat tri EIR_339_011209_FINAL.doc 1. What water service district(s) boundaries is the City located in? Who provides water service to the City? The proposed project is located within the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department water service area. The City obtains its water from its wells in the Orange County groundwater basin and from imported water purchases from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). There are few pockets of small areas within the City limits that are served by other agencies, and areas outside the City limits that are served by the City. In addition, the City maintains a number of interconnections with adjacent water purveyors. 2. Does the District have an adopted Urban Water Management Plan? Yes. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan was updated and adopted in 2005. 3. Are there currently any deficiencies in the water system in the project area? No. The City’s water distribution system is currently adequate in the project area. 4. From what sources does the District obtain its water supply and in what quantities? The City’s obtains its water from its wells in the Orange County groundwater basin, managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and from imported water purchases from MWD. The water supply breakdown from these sources is presented in Table 1. 5. What is the size and location of existing water mains serving the City? What new water lines, if any, are necessary or proposed? The location and size of the City’s major water mains are shown on Figure 1. The locations of proposed and existing mains near the project area are shown on Figures 2a and 3, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Water Questionnaire Page 2 of 3 P:\COA-51.0E\Service Service Letters!\water\Waterquestionnaire_plat tri EIR_339_011209_FINAL.docP:\COA-51.0E\Service Service Letters!\water\Waterquestionnaire_plat tri EIR_339_011209_FINAL.doc 6. What are the average water consumption rates for all land uses within the City? The City uses the following water consumption factors, listed in units of gallons per day (gpd), for conducting network (hydraulic) analysis of its water system: Land Use Classification Average Water Demand Hillside Residential Estate 800 gpd/unit Low Density Residential (Single Family) 600 gpd/unit Low-Medium Density Residential 450 gpd/unit Medium Density Residential (Multi- Family) 300 gallons/unit Commercial Recreational (Hotels/Motels) 180 gpd/room General Commercial 4,000 gallons/day/acre Retail Sales and Service 2,000 gpd/acre Industrial/Manufacturing 3,000 gpd/acre Parks/Landscaped Areas 3,500 gallons/acre Note: The above water consumption factors are provided in our Administrative Procedures and Design Guidelines for localized water system analysis. The guidelines are intended to provide customers with general understanding of our water application approval process and design criteria for new water mains and services. They should be used in conjunction with the Department’s Water Rates, Rules, and Regulations, and Water Services Standard Specifications. The above documents can be found on the Utilities website at the following: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=1101 7. Will any new facilities, such as sizing requirements or new lines, be required to serve future development in accordance with buildout of the project? Yes. Additional facilities to serve future development in accordance with build out of the project will be required. In addition to the proposed mains shown in Figure 2a and the proposed well in Platinum Triangle (Well S-3 on attached Figure 2a), the following improvements will be required: a new transmission main in Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to the 57 Freeway; a new transmission main in Douglas Avenue from Katella to the Anaheim Stadium loop; a new transmission main in State College Boulevard from Orangewood south to the City limits; a new transmission main in the Lewis Street Connector; and one new 3,000 gallon per minute (GPM) water well, at a location to be determined within the Platinum Triangle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Water Questionnaire Page 3 of 3 P:\COA-51.0E\Service Service Letters!\water\Waterquestionnaire_plat tri EIR_339_011209_FINAL.docP:\COA-51.0E\Service Service Letters!\water\Waterquestionnaire_plat tri EIR_339_011209_FINAL.doc 8. Please provide the location of all water wells near the project site and estimates of the amount of water they pump on a or yearly basis. Also please provide available information on whether groundwater usage has increased or decreased in recent years. The City’s water wells are shown in Figure 1, and annual groundwater production totals are presented in Table 1. Overall groundwater usage followed a decreasing trend from 2003 to 2006, as indicated in this table. Although the City’s total water demand stayed relatively constant, groundwater production decreased primarily due to the following factors: reduction in the Basin Pumping Percentage by OCWD following Fiscal Year 2002/03; and the City’s participation in MWD’s in-lieu program (i.e. in surplus years, MWD water is sold at a discounted rate, substituting for groundwater production). The table indicates an increase in groundwater production for Fiscal Years 2006/07 and 2007/08. The increase was a result of OCWD raising the Basin Pumping Percentage in those years. In addition, the year end system report, which shows the production totals from each well in FY 2007/08, is also attached. Please note that the project site is served by a number of sources, including nearby wells, nearby MWD connections, and water “dropped down” from higher pressure zones. 9. Do you anticipate any adverse environmental impacts associated with the current or future provision of water service to the project area? If so, what mitigation or conservation measures would you suggest? Please refer to the results of the Water Supply Assessment that is being prepared for this project. Response Prepared By: Rick Shintaku Water Resources and Planning Manager Name Title City of Anaheim Public Utilities 1/12/09 Agency Date ---PAGE BREAK--- CERRITOS AVENUE BALL ROAD ORANGE AVENUE CHAPMAN AVENUE ORANGEWOOD AVENUE KATELLA AVENUE WEIR CANYON ROAD FAIRMONT BLVD KELLOGG DRIVE LAKEVIEW AVENUE JEFFERSON STREET TUSTIN AVENUE MILLER STREET KRAEMER BLVD HARBOR BLVD EAST STREET LEMON STREET STATE COLLEGE BLVD EUCLID STREET LINCOLN AVENUE CRESCENT AVENUE LA PALMA AVENUE ORANGETHORPE AVENUE BEACH BLVD GILBERT STREET MAGNOLIA AVENUE DALE AVENUE WESTERN AVENUE KNOTT STREET BROOKHURST STREET GYPSUM CANYON ROAD COAL CANYON ROAD HARBOR BLVD EAST STREET LEMON STREET STATE COLLEGE BLVD EUCLID STREET BEACH BLVD GILBERT STREET MAGNOLIA AVENUE DALE AVENUE WESTERN AVENUE KNOTT STREET BROOKHURST STREET ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 " " " " " " " " 41 55 14 36 40 47 39 42 28 27 44 43 45 46 25 49 53 51 52 48 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I 57 I 241 I 91 5 5 I 57 I 55 I 91 I 91 PR-8 PR-5 PR-4 PR-3 PR-2 PR-1 PR-9 PR-36 PR-62 TPR-3 TPR-1 PR-55 PR-57 PR-56 PR-65 PR-58 PR-53 PR-60 PR-52 PR-50 PR-54 PR-45 PR-59 PR-28 PR-32 PR-34 PR-20 PR-19 PR-17 PR-16 PR-15 PR-33 PR-13 PR-31 PR-30 PR-39 PR-35 PR-61 PR-49 PR-48 PR-38 PR-47 PR-11 PR-29 PR-27 PR-10 PR-41 PR-46 PR-44 PR-43 PR-42 PR-40 PR-64 PR-12 PR-63 PR-66 PR-6 PR-21 PR-67 750.1 SANTA ANA RIVER SANTA ANA RIVER OLIVE HILLS RESERVOIR LA PALMA RESERVOIRS LINDA VISTA RESERVOIR WEIR CANYON TANK OAK HILLS TANK HIDDEN CANYON TANK DEER CANYON TANK EASTRIDGE TANK SUMMIT TANK BURRUEL TANK SERRANO TWIN PEAKS TANK WALNUT CANYON RESERVOIR MWD-A7 MWD-A3 MWD-A6 MWD-A1 MWD-A2 MWD-A5 MWD-A8 MWD-A4 INT-7 W / GARDEN GROVE INT-3 INT-1 INT-9 W / ORANGE INT-17 W / ORANGE (ONE WAY TO ANAHEIM ONLY) INT-16 W / ORANGE INT-18 W / ORANGE INT-10 W / FULLERTON INT-19 W / FULLERTON INT-11 W / GOLDEN STATE WATER CO. INT-13 W / GOLDEN STATE WATER CO. INT-15 W / YLWD INT-12 W / YLWD INT-14 W / YORBA LINDA W / GARDEN GROVE (ONE WAY TO ORANGE ONLY) SUMMIT PUMP STATION PARKVIEW PUMP STATION LA PALMA PUMP STATION WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION OLIVE HILLS PUMP STATION VIA ARBOLES PUMP STATION LINDA VISTA PUMP STATION WEIR CANYON PUMP STATION HIDDEN CANYON PUMP STATION SERVED BY Y.L.W.D. SERVED BY G.S.W.C. SERVED BY BUENA PARK SERVED BY CITY OF ORANGE SERVED BY Y.L.W.D. ALLEN McCOLLOCH PIPELINE WEST ORANGE CO FEEDER ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER SECOND LOWER FEEDER EAST ORANGE CO FEEDER NO.2 SANTIAGO LATERAL AUGUST F.LENAIN TREATMENT PLANT ANAHEIM LAKE (O.C.W.D) 335 270 [PHONE REDACTED] 640 750.3 585 555.2 1320 750.2 555.1 445 440 820 900.2 900.2 900.2 475 75 0. 1 900.1 750.3 900.2 455 555.1 555.1 625 1120 555.1 425 425 940 INT-20 W / ORANGE ANAHEIM LAKE (O.C.W.D) THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAJOR WATER FACILITIES REV: November 03, 2008 FILE: MajorWaterFacilities.Mxd --VN N.T.S 220 5 PRESSURE ZONE MAJOR MAIN 14" AND LARGER MWD MAINS ACTIVE WELL PRESSURE REGULATOR INTERTIE PUMP STATION CONNECTION TO MWD SOURCE " 3 ! Æ Legend : Figure 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 57 KATELLA AVE CERRITOS AVE ORANGEWOOD AVE ANAHEIM WAY LEWIS ST HASTER ST STATE COLLEGE BLVD MANCHESTER AVE ANAHEIM BLVD SINCLAIR ST GENE AUTRY WAY SUNKIST ST DOUGLASS RD SANTA CRUZ ST SPINNAKER ST LEATRICE LN CLAUDINA WAY HOWELL AVE WAKEFIELD AVE VERN ST PAGE CT PEARSON AVE DUPONT DR RAMPART ST JETTY DR WILKEN WAY MANCHESTER AVE ARTISAN CT AUBURN WAY CAMPTON AVE NAUTICAL ST WRIGHT CIR STADIUM VIEW AVE 5 LEWIS ST DOUGLASS RD JETTY DR 57 ANAHEIM WAY Legend WaterMain DIAMETER 2 - 6 8 10 12 14 16 - 42 Figure 3 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE LOCATION AND SIZE OF EXISTING WATERMAINS NEAR THE PROJECT AREA ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix F Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page left blank intentionally. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT Prepared for CITY OF ANAHEIM Prepared by August 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a ES.1 Introduction a ES.2 Analysis Scope and Methodology a ES.3 Project Related Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Strategies Intersection Impacts b Arterial Segment b Caltrans Intersection Impacts b Caltrans Freeway Mainline/Ramp Impacts b 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project 1.2 Report Organization 2.0 METHODOLOGY 6 2.1 Model Background 2.2 Model Assumptions Roadway Network 6 Internal Trip Capture 7 Transit Trip Reduction 10 2.3 Level of Service Analysis 13 ICU Analysis 13 Arterial Segment V/C Analysis 13 Caltrans Intersection Analysis 15 Caltrans Freeway and Ramp HCM Analysis 15 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Analysis 16 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 17 Intersection Analysis 17 Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis 19 Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis 23 Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis 23 Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis 24 Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis 26 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis 28 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis 30 Summary 34 4.0 FUTURE NO PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 35 Intersection Analysis 35 Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis 40 Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis 43 Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis 45 Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report ii Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis 48 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis 51 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis 52 Summary 57 5.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 58 Intersection Analysis 58 Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis 63 Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis 66 Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis 68 Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis 69 Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis 71 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis 74 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis 75 Summary 81 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 82 6.1 Intersection Impacts 82 6.2 Arterial Segment 84 6.3 Freeway Facility Impacts 84 Ramp Termini 84 Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing 85 Freeway Ramps 85 Freeway Mainline 86 Freeway Weaving Segments 86 7.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 87 7.1 Community Facilities District and Traffic Fee Program 87 7.2 Fee Assessment and Fair-Share for Improvements 88 7.3 Intersection Improvements 88 7.4 Arterial Segment Improvements 92 7.5 Freeway Ramp Termini Improvements 92 7.6 City of Orange Improvements 95 7.7 Freeway Facility Improvements 96 7.8 Other MitIgation Measures 98 7.9 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations 105 City of Anaheim Intersections 108 City of Orange Facilities 110 Caltrans Mainline Segments, Ramps, and Weaving Segments 111 8.0 CONCLUSION 114 Project Related Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Strategies 114 Intersection Impacts 114 Arterial Segment 114 Caltrans Intersection Impacts 114 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report iii Caltrans Mainline and Ramp Improvements 115 Mitigation Monitoring Program 115 9.0 REFERENCES 121 10.0 GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION 122 11.0 APPENDICES 127 Appendix A: Platinum Triangle Land Use Quantities by TAZ Appendix B: Internal Trip Capture Worksheets Appendix C: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Counts Appendix D: Existing Arterial Segment Traffic Counts Appendix E-1: ICU Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix E-2: ICU Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix E-3: ICU Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix E-4: ICU Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix F: Intersection Lane Configurations Appendix G-1: Intersection Turning Movement Volumes under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix G-2: Intersection Turning Movement Volumes under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix H-1: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix H-2: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix H-3: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix H-4: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix I-1: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix I-2: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix I-3: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix I-4: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix J-1: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix J-2: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix J-3: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix J-4: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix K-1: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix K-2: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix K-3: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix K-4: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix M-1: Caltrans Ramp Termini Queuing Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix M-2: Caltrans Ramp Termini Queuing Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix M-3: Caltrans Ramp Termini Queuing Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix N: Difference Plots outlining AM and PM peak hour volumes under 2025 No Project and With Project scenarios List of Figures Figure 1-1: Regional Context 3 Figure 1-2: The Platinum Triangle Districts 4 Figure 1-3: The Platinum Triangle Traffic Analysis Zones 5 Figure 2-1: Mixed Use Internal Trip Capture by 9 Figure 2-2: Transit Trip Reduction Percentages by TAZ ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report iv Figure 3-1: Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS Figure 4-1: 2030 No Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Figure 5-1: 2030 With Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Figure 7-1: Intersection Mitigation Strategies List of Tables Table 1-1: PTMU Overlay Zone Land Use Development Intensities 2 Table 2-1: Mixed Use Internal Trip Capture Percentages by 8 Table 2-2: Intersection Level of Service Thresholds Table 2-3: Arterial Segment Daily Capacity Assumptions Table 2-4: Caltrans Intersection LOS Criteria Table 2-5: Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp HCM LOS Criteria Table 2-6: Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM LOS Criteria Table 3-1: Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS Table 3-2: Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS Table 3-3: Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Table 3-4: Existing Ramp Termini Intersection LOS Table 3-5: Existing Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Table 3-6: Existing Freeway Ramp HCM LOS Table 3-7: Existing Freeway Mainline HCM Table 3-8: Existing Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS Table 3-9: Existing Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS Table 4-1: 2030 No Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Table 4-2: 2030 No Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS Table 4-3: 2030 No Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour Table 4-4: 2030 No Project Ramp Termini Intersection Table 4-5: 2030 No Project Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Length Analysis Table 4-6: 2030 No Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS Table 4-7: 2030 No Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Table 4-8: 2030 No Project Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS Table 4-9: 2030 No Project Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS Table 5-1: 2030 With Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Table 5-2: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS Table 5-3: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Table 5-4: 2030 With Project Ramp Termini Intersection LOS Table 5-5: 2030 With Project Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Length Analysis Table 5-6: 2030 With Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS Table 5-7: 2030 With Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Table 5-8: 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS Table 5-9: 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS Table 6-1: Project Related Intersection Impacts Table 6-2: City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts Table 6-3: City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts Table 6-4: Project Related Freeway Ramp Termini Impacts Table 7.1: Fair-share Analysis Computational Example Table 7-2: Recommended Intersection Mitigation Table 7-3: Recommended Arterial Segment Mitigation Strategies Table 7-4: Recommended Freeway Ramp Termini Mitigation Strategies Table 7-5: Potential Intersection Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Table 7-6: Potential Arterial Segment Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Table 7-7: Potential Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities Table 7-8: Project Mitigation Measures 107 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study has been prepared to analyze and identify impacts related to the buildout of revised land use development assumptions for the City of Anaheim’s Platinum Triangle, including revised development intensities within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The development intensities currently permitted within the PTMU Overlay Zone allow up to: · 10,266 residential units · 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses · 5,055,550 square feet of office · 0 square feet of institutional uses The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (the “Proposed Project”) will modify and expand the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone and increase development intensities within the overlay zone to up to: · 18,909 residential units · 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses · 14,340,522 square feet of office · 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses This reflects an increase of 8,643 residential units, 2,645,282 square feet of commercial, 9,284,972 square feet of office, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional land uses under buildout of the now revised Proposed Project. This traffic analysis evaluates the proposed development intensities expected throughout the Platinum Triangle and analyzes the potential impacts that result from the implementation the Proposed Project. ES.2 ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The key traffic study components can be summarized as follows: o Analysis of existing and buildout traffic conditions throughout the Platinum Triangle o Peak hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis for study area intersections o Daily and peak hour arterial segment Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio analysis for study area arterial segments o analysis for study area freeway ramp termini intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology o Peak hour HCM analysis for study area freeway segments and ramps o Peak hour HCM weaving analysis o Development of tables and figures to summarize and graphically depict circulation system ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report b performance under existing conditions, 2030 No Project and 2030 With Project conditions o Identification of mitigation measure requirements and summary of levels of service under mitigated conditions ES.3 PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES Intersection Impacts Based upon the ICU methodology established by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the study determined that 30 intersections are impacted by the Proposed Project and require mitigation. Improvements have been proposed for all locations and with the implementation of the mitigation strategies, all intersections within the study area operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS). However, seven of the intersection improvements within the City of Anaheim may not be feasible due to potential constraints and will be included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Proposed Project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will also apply to the six intersections identified as deficient within the City of Orange under the ICU analysis methodology. Additionally, the City of Anaheim has identified intersections where certain heavy left or right turn movements may impede pedestrian flow and further delay traffic. Six intersections in Anaheim are forecast to have heavy right volumes which justify an additional turn lane. There are two intersections with heavy forecast left-turn volumes for which the City has recommended adding a additional left turn lane. Finally, the City has identified four locations where unbalanced share of turning volumes between the AM and PM peak hours or special events justify dynamic lane assignment signs that will allow for some lanes to operate as through lanes during certain times and turn lanes during other times. In place of capacity enhancements these locations would benefit from signage improvements to maximize available capacity. Arterial Segment Impacts Based on the traffic analysis, there are four required arterial segment improvements in the City of Anaheim. One additional segment is recommended for improvement to allow for continuity on a key east-west corridor. There are also six arterial segment improvements required to locations in the City of Orange. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the arterial capacity improvements will be developed for locations in Orange as Anaheim does not have jurisdiction to implement improvements in Orange. Caltrans Intersection Impacts Five Caltrans ramp termini intersections are forecast to have project impacts as identified through peak hour analysis. Three locations were also identified by the ICU analysis as deficient. Proposed improvements have been compared to those strategies identified through the ICU analysis and improvements applied to both the types of analyses. Additional mitigation strategies have been proposed for the two locations identified only through the HCM analysis. Caltrans Freeway Mainline/Ramp Impacts There are several forecast freeway mainline and ramp deficiencies under the 2030 Without and With Proposed Project scenarios. Due to growth in regional background traffic, the forecast volumes are ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report c generally consistent under both With and Without the Proposed Project, with some segments and ramps experiencing a slight increase in peak hour volumes with implementation of the Proposed Project. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements would be required to return the segments to an acceptable LOS. Capacity improvements to the freeway mainline are not a feasible option for the deficient facilities as improvement to acceptable levels of service would result in addition of capacity above and beyond the ultimate concept identified as feasible by Caltrans and would create potential land use compatibility and air quality impacts to residences and businesses now located near mainline facilities. Some of these businesses and residences would potentially have to be condemned and acquired to bring the system up to capacity and because remaining businesses and residences would then be closer to the freeway, such remaining residences and structures would be subject to greater land use incompatibility and air quality impacts. As a result the project is not expected to mitigate the freeway mainline segments to an acceptable LOS. Impacts to freeway ramp facilities are the result of high traffic volumes on the ramps themselves as well as volumes at or exceeding capacity on the freeway mainline adjacent to the ramps. Three freeway ramps operate at a deficient LOS under 2030 With Project conditions in the PM Peak Hour and do not operate at a deficient LOS under 2030 No Project conditions. Due to high forecast volumes, addition of a lane to these ramps does not result in acceptable ramp operates under Proposed Project conditions. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and other operational improvements could improve corridor operations. The City of Anaheim will coordinate with Caltrans to identify potential improvements to implement on the State facilities to improve operations. As part of the Proposed Project approval and certification of the EIR, the City will develop a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the capacity improvements on freeway mainlines and select freeway ramp facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES A General Plan Amendment, amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and Zoning reclassifications have been proposed by the City of Anaheim to modify and expand the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone and increase the permitted residential, office, commercial and institutional development intensities within the Platinum Triangle (herein after also referred to as the “Proposed Project”). Approval of the proposed amendments would result in maximum development intensities of 18,909 dwelling units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses which account for the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Transportation Center (ARTIC) within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Proposed Project also adds two new districts to the PTMU Overlay Zone (the ARTIC and Office Districts) and expands the boundaries of the Katella and Orangewood Districts. There is no proposed development intensity increase for properties within the Platinum Triangle that are outside of the expanded PTMU Overlay Zone. This traffic study analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Project. The future forecast year used by this traffic study for the Proposed Project is 2030. Importantly, this traffic analysis includes the cumulative traffic impacts resulting from the current City of Orange General Plan land use assumptions and the recently-proposed City of Orange General Plan update land use assumptions. As a result, the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Orange General Plan land uses are reflected in this traffic analysis. Another key assumption is the incorporation of the revisions to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Convention Center Expansion being analyzed concurrently with this analysis. Thus, this traffic analysis conservatively includes the City of Orange General Plan intensification project. The study analyzes the potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed revised Platinum Triangle. Potential traffic impacts associated with the redefined development in the Platinum Triangle were evaluated for two key scenarios: No Project and With Project. The No Project scenario represents the currently adopted land use intensities in the Platinum Triangle as well as the proposed Orange General Plan land use assumptions, the proposed revisions to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the Anaheim Convention Center Expansion, and ARTIC as is currently under study for construction. The With Project scenario reflects buildout of the Proposed Project. Table 1-1 displays the PTMU Overlay Zone development intensities for each scenario. Figure 1-1 illustrates the Platinum Triangle from a regional perspective while Figure 1-2 presents the PTMU Overlay Zone boundaries, and the PTMU districts. Figure 1-3 presents the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) traffic analysis zone (TAZ) boundaries within the overlay zone. Land use quantities by TAZ are presented in this report as Appendix A. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 2 Table 1-1: PTMU Overlay Zone Land Use Development Intensities Land Use Adopted (No Project) Proposed Project Increase Residential Units 10,266 18,909 8,643 Commercial Square Feet 2,264,400 4,909,682 2,645,282 Office Square Feet 5,055,550 14,340,522 9,284,972 Institutional Square Feet 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 Source: City of Anaheim 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report summarizes the existing conditions as well as the General Plan buildout of the City of Anaheim’s Platinum Triangle under No Project and With Project conditions. The analysis identifies roadway segments, intersections, freeway mainline segments, and ramps that are currently deficient, forecast to be deficient under future baseline conditions or that will become deficient based on the proposed land use changes. The report is organized as follows: o Chapter 1: Introduction o Chapter 2: Methodology o Chapter 3: Base Year Analysis (2009) o Chapter 4: Traffic Analysis (Future Forecast No Project) o Chapter 5: Traffic Analysis (Future Forecast With Project) o Chapter 6: Project Impacts o Chapter 7: Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategies o Chapter 8: Conclusion o Chapter 9: References o Chapter 10: Glossary of Transportation Terms ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 6 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 MODEL BACKGROUND The analysis was performed by application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to develop future traffic forecast volumes throughout the Platinum Triangle and surrounding study area. ATAM is the traffic forecasting modeling tool for the City of Anaheim and has been certified by the Orange County Transportation Authority as consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). ATAM relies on OCTAM for the regional component of traffic activity and OCTAM is based on and consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional transportation model, and therefore, incorporates adopted regional growth projections. In order to identify trips generated for use in the City of Anaheim’s model ATAM, an employment conversion rate is utilized for office and retail land uses. The rate is based on regional demographic information and converts land use quantities to number of employees. The total trip generation or number of trips is then calculated based on the trip purpose for each employee. Residential units do not require a conversion rate as they translate directly to dwelling units and residential based trips are calculated based on the trip purpose for each dwelling unit. Based on the citywide land use data and regional socioeconomic growth projections, future trip activity is estimated and assigned to the roadway circulation system. The internal trip capture is performed within the model and the outputs post-processed based on established post-processing methodologies. The post-processor applies the model’s projected growth to each turning movement of the existing counts for both 2030 No Project and 2030 With Project scenarios, forecasting a value that reflects future growth. 2.2 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS Roadway Network The base highway network used in this analysis remains consistent with networks adopted for various other traffic studies previously carried out for the City of Anaheim within the Platinum Triangle. The existing and future year local circulation system was refined to provide further detail within the Platinum Triangle to accurately forecast travel activity. In addition, traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were refined and added to more accurately reflect traffic patterns and access of future development throughout the study area. Zonal connectors were reviewed and updated as appropriate to reflect appropriate development access to the surrounding circulation system. The TAZ and zonal connector refinements were incorporated into the No Project and Project alternatives for consistency purposes. The baseline 2030 No Project network is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan circulation network and include the following key assumptions within the immediate project study area: · Orangewood Avenue, widen from State College Boulevard to SR-57 to 6-lane divided facility · Howell Avenue, improve to 4-lane secondary facility · Katella Avenue, widen to 8-lane facility between Sportstown and Walnut Street ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 7 · Walnut Street (Orange), maintain existing classification · Glassell Street/Chapman Avenue (Orange), maintain existing classification through Historic Orange Plaza · Metropolitan Drive (Orange), provide connection between The City Drive and Chapman Avenue at Rampart Street · Main Street (Orange), improve to 6-lane major facility between Collins Avenue and Chapman Avenue · Taft Avenue (Orange), improve to 6-lane major facility between Tustin Avenue and City of Anaheim · Ball Road, improve to 6-lane major facility between Sunkist Street and State College Boulevard · Lewis Street, improve to 4-lane secondary facility between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way · Cerritos Avenue, improve to 4-lane primary facility between State College Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard · Gene Autry Way, extend from current terminus at I-5 HOV ramps westerly to Harbor Boulevard To account for planned projects throughout the study area as development occurs, the localized circulation system was refined to incorporate further network assumptions as appropriate. The following specific circulation system assumptions were incorporated into the network to account for buildout of the study area: · Provision of a connection between Dupont Drive and Rampart Street parallel to Orangewood Avenue to provide additional access throughout the study area · Access provision from the Stadium District to State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way, Orangewood Avenue, and Douglass Road · SR-57 direct connection with ARTIC · SR-57 HOV drop ramps at Cerritos Avenue Internal Trip Capture Due to the nature of the mixed use developments incorporated into the City’s vision for the Platinum Triangle and consistent with other traffic studies in the area, mixed use internal capture rates for each District (refer to Figure 2-1) with the exception of the Office District were incorporated into the trip generation for this analysis. The Office District does not satisfy the criteria for internal capture therefore no internal capture has been assumed for this district. The internal capture rates were estimated based on the recommended Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Multi-Use Development Trip Generation and Internal Capture Summary Methodology documented in Chapter 7 of the Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition (ITE, 2004). ITE trip generation rates and ATAM trip generation rates are derived and applied for stand-alone facilities. These rates are generally developed for suburban settings with limited transit service and free parking. Internally captured trips have the potential to be a significant component in the travel patterns associated with multi-use developments. The internal trip-making characteristics of multi-use sites are directly related to the mix of on-site land uses. The combination of residential, retail and office uses increases the interaction between the various on-site uses, hence reducing the amount of external site vehicular traffic generated as compared to each land use evaluated independently. ITE considers multi-use ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 8 developments as developments consisting of two or more ITE land use classifications between which trips can be made without using the off-site road system. The internal capture rate methodology was applied in ATAM to more accurately account for vehicular trip generation throughout the Platinum Triangle due to the close proximity of residential, commercial, and office uses. The typical trip rates do not account for these internal trips, so an internal capture rate has been defined based on the methodology documented by ITE. Internal capture rates were determined for each individual District based on the proposed land uses within each district. Rates were determined at a District level because internal capture rates generally apply to land uses that promote walking trips, and many of the mixed use Districts are not within walking distance of each other. The methodology evaluates the reasonable share of internal trips that will be attracted between the various District developments to determine district-wide internal capture percentages. These percentages are applied to daily trip generation activity to reflect reduced vehicular trip activity within each District. Table 2-1 presents the percent trip reduction rate for each District. The capture rates range from 5.0 percent to 19.9 percent. Detailed internal trip capture worksheets are included in Appendix B. The areas are reflected on Figure 2-1. Table 2-1: Mixed Use Internal Trip Capture Percentages by District Platinum Triangle District Internal Capture Katella District 14.5% Gene Autry District 15.7% Gateway District 5.0% Orangewood District 8.1% Stadium District 16.6% Arena District 19.9% ARTIC District 7.8% Office District 0% Source: City of Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 10 Several projects have recently applied internal capture rates for mixed-use developments throughout the County. The Huntington Beach Downtown Parking Master Plan concluded that the downtown experienced a 30 to 40 percent overall trip reduction due to mixed-use development. The Anaheim GardenWalk (formerly Pointe Anaheim project) in the City of Anaheim includes hotel, restaurant, retail and entertainment uses totaling 1.5 million square feet. The traffic analysis presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Anaheim, 1999) applied internal capture rates ranging from 20 to 30 percent as well as mode shift ranges from 45 to 55 percent. Based on internal capture rates applied in other studies, a 5 to 20 percent reduction in vehicle activity seems reasonable based on the mix of uses expected to be implemented within the Platinum Triangle. Additionally, recent national studies have developed appropriate internal capture rates for use in transportation projects. One study, the Urban Land Institute’s, “Growing Cooler” has identified internal trip capture advantages to certain types of mixed-use development of up to 20-30 percent. Another study by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) of the Transportation Research Board studied the effects of TOD on housing and travel. The characteristics of certain districts in the Platinum Triangle are above and beyond criteria established in the ITE Guidelines and the internal capture percentages applied to each district are reasonable, and even conservative by some standards. 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 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 (MSEP). 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 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. The ARTIC project is proposed as a world class transit center, as it is anticipated to serve local buses, express buses, BRT routes as well as commuter and intercity rail. As such, the ARTIC District qualifies for a 20 percent vehicle trip reduction as the entire District is within walking distance of the station. All Mixed Use Districts are within walking distance of a proposed BRT corridor, and some are within walking distance of ARTIC. Based on the distance from the high capacity transit, trips generated from certain TAZ’s have received a 3 to 7 percent reduction dependent upon the density of the zone, as outlined in Table B.2 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Although all districts are in relatively close proximity to major transit facilities, the distance between specific developments and transit opportunities do not fall into the 1/4 mile assumed walking distance between the development and the BRT or other high capacity transit opportunities. These developments received no transit reduction Figure 2-2 outlines the transit reductions applied within the Platinum Triangle Zones. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 11 Other proposed transit connections within the Platinum Triangle include the Anaheim Fixed Guideway and high-speed rail/maglev trains. The proposed Anaheim Fixed Guideway is intended to provide connectivity between the Anaheim Resort with the Platinum Triangle with a proposed station at or in close proximity to ARTIC. In addition, ARTIC is proposed to be a transit facility for high- speed rail/maglev train service to Los Angeles and Ontario. These projects are not fully funded and are therefore not included in the transit reduction estimates. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and PTMU Overlay Zone strive to achieve the promotion of accessibility between mixed uses through non-vehicle related trip-making. Co-locating job and housing centers along transit corridors promote sustainable growth. Reducing transportation costs and impacts to the environment result from shorter trips to work and other destinations, opportunities to travel conveniently without having to drive, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, and amenities like restaurants, entertainment and shops within walking distance. Research has documented that mixed-use community residents’ drive as little as one-fifth the distances of their counterparts in conventional sprawl developments. (“Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio- Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco”, John Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David Goldstein, and Peter Haas, Transportation Planning and Technology Journal, Volume 25, Number 1, March 2002). Caltrans’ Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) database documents a 29% reduction in vehicles per household and a 31% reduction in average annual auto mileage per household. The Caltrans website documents five transit oriented development station areas in Los Angeles County and four TOD station areas in San Diego County, with zero TOD station areas in Orange County. The trip reduction strategy used for the Platinum Triangle is based on the recommended Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Multi-Use Development Trip Generation and Internal Capture Summary Methodology documented in Chapter 7 of the Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition (ITE, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 13 2.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS In order to evaluate traffic impacts within the Platinum Triangle and its immediate vicinity, the following level of service (LOS) analyses were performed: § Peak hour arterial signalized intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis § Arterial segment daily analysis § Arterial segment peak hour analysis § Peak hour ramp-termini intersection analysis § Freeway ramp merge-diverge analysis § Freeway mainline segment analysis § Freeway mainline weaving analysis ICU Analysis The City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90, or LOS D, as the lowest acceptable service level at intersections. Intersections that operate at a level of service below LOS D are deemed to be operating at insufficient levels. The City requires study area intersections to be evaluated through an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis that compares forecast peak hour traffic volumes to intersection capacity. A minimum clearance interval of 0.05 in association with lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes was assumed for the ICU calculations. The City of Orange ICU analysis is consistent with the City of Anaheim analysis, as are the LOS thresholds; therefore the same assumptions were applied for intersection in both jurisdictions. Table 2-2 presents the ICU level of service thresholds utilized in this traffic study. A project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the LOS to an unacceptable LOS or an increase in the ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection currently operates at LOS E or F under without project conditions. Table 2-2: Intersection Level of Service Thresholds LOS ICU A < 0.60 B 0.61 – 0.70 C 0.71 – 0.80 D 0.81 – 0.90 E 0.91 – 1.00 F > 1.00 Source: City of Anaheim, City of Orange Peak hour ICU and level of service (LOS) analyses were performed for 103 study intersections - 67 intersections in the City of Anaheim, 5 shared intersections between Anaheim and Orange, and 31 in the City of Orange. Coordination with the City of Orange identified the preferred intersections for analysis within the City of Orange. For purposes of this traffic study, intersections identified for mitigation are those that are operating at a deficient level of service of LOS E or LOS F. Mitigation measures, discussed later in the report are required to bring deficient intersections and roadway segments to an acceptable LOS. Arterial Segment V/C Analysis The arterial roadway criteria for the City of Anaheim involve the use of average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 14 been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for arterials. The City of Orange applies a V/C analysis for daily traffic conditions similar to Anaheim although daily capacities for Orange arterials differ from those recognized by the City of Anaheim. Although the arterial segment V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance, the performance is measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands. To identify deficient arterial segments, the segments that are identified as deficient under daily conditions are evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate the capability of serving forecast peak hour throughput. Arterial segments that operate deficiently under peak hour conditions are candidates for mitigation improvements. Note that the City of Orange does not provide provisions for peak hour segment analysis but rather uses daily V/C analysis as the basis for improvement requirements. The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis identified in Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine level of service under peak hour traffic volumes on deficient daily segments. The peak hour link analysis determines directional AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for each link that exceeds the daily LOS threshold. The peak hour capacity is determined by using Equation 15-7 of the HCM, multiplying the mid-block number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, then multiplied by the percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersection for that arterial segment. The percentage of green time is estimated by dividing the directional V/C ratios by the total V/C ratio at signalized intersections along the arterial segment. The highest resulting percentage is the estimated percentage of green time for that arterial segment. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements should be considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. LOS analysis of forecast daily traffic volumes was applied for the arterial segments throughout the Platinum Triangle and adjacent facilities. The segment analysis assumes roadway capacities for each jurisdiction as applied in the current General Plans for each City as noted in Table 2-3. The capacities in Table 2-3 reflect LOS E capacities and are consistent with those that are applied in daily V/C analysis consistent with methodologies adopted for each jurisdiction. Note that the City of Orange takes advantage of a capacity enhancement for Smart Streets as designated by the Orange County Transportation Authority. For Katella Avenue, Orange increases daily capacity by five percent to account for Smart Street related improvements that enhance throughput along these key corridors. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS or causes an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. Table 2-3: Arterial Segment Daily Capacity Assumptions ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 15 Facility Type Anaheim Orange 8-lane Divided 75,000 75,000 6-lane Divided 56,300 56,300 4-lane Divided 37,500 37,500 4-lane Undivided 25,000 24,000 2-lane Undivided 12,500 12,000 Source: City of Orange, City of Anaheim Caltrans Intersection Analysis Freeway ramp termini intersections were analyzed in (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology per Caltrans requirements. Lane configurations and various other parameters such as signal timing were based on current operating characteristics. Future lane configurations were assumed for the No Project and With Project scenarios per Anaheim General Plan buildout conditions. Table 2-4 presents Caltrans intersection delay and LOS standards. Table 2-4: Caltrans Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Intersection Delay (in Seconds) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 35.0 D > 35.0 and ≤ 55.0 E > 55.0 and ≤ 80.0 F ≥ 80.0 Source: Caltrans, HCM 2000 Caltrans Freeway and Ramp HCM Analysis The freeway mainline and freeway ramp criteria are based on peak hour HCM density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing count data was provided by Caltrans for the freeway mainline volumes. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software (HCS), the electronic version of the HCM for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influential area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps: · Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge; · Determination of the capacity for the segment; and · Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and its level of service The level of service (LOS) for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM. Freeway mainline levels of service are similarly determined from segment density. Table 2-5 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. LOS D (density not to ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 16 exceed 35.0 pc/mi/ln for mainline segments and 35.0 pc/mi/ln for freeway ramps), has been established by Caltrans District 12 as the operating standard for freeway mainline segments and freeway ramps. Caltrans has determined that freeway segments and ramps that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify project related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Table 2-5: Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp HCM LOS Criteria LOS Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 Source: HCM 2000, Exhibit 25-4, Exhibit 23-2 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Weaving analysis uses the most current version of the HCM and provides a density for the weaving area within the freeway segment and corresponding LOS. Table 2-6 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. Table 2-6: Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM LOS Criteria LOS Freeway Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) Multilane and Collector-Distributor Weaving Segments Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 12.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 > 12.0 and ≤ 24.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 > 24.0 and ≤ 32.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 > 32.0 and ≤ 36.0 E >35.0 and ≤ 43.0 >36.0 and ≤ 40.0 F >43.0 >40.0 Source: HCM 2000 Exhibit 24-2 The following sections present the traffic analysis results for the study intersections, arterial segments, freeway ramp termini intersections, and ramp merge-diverge locations and freeway mainline sections reflecting existing conditions, future forecast No Project scenario and With Project implementation of the PTMLUP. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 17 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions analysis establishes the framework for the future forecasts for the Proposed Project. The analysis is based on existing intersection and arterial segment traffic counts, collected by the City on a typical weekday in 2008, and included in Appendix C and Appendix D. The existing conditions analysis reflects these count volumes as well as existing lane configurations for all circulation system elements in the study area. Intersection Analysis Table 3-1 presents ICU and LOS results for the study intersections under existing conditions during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Existing lane geometrics were assumed in the ICU and LOS analyses. The detailed existing ICU worksheets are presented in Appendix E-1. As a result of existing traffic volumes, the following two intersections operate at an unacceptable LOS under existing conditions: · Euclid Street at Katella Avenue · Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road Figure 3-1 presents study intersection LOS under existing conditions (refer to Appendix C for traffic counts). A table summarizing the existing and future lane configurations is included in Appendix F. Table 3-1: Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I-1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 1.02 F I-2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A I-3 Walnut Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.57 A 0.55 A I-4 Walnut Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.44 A 0.53 A I-5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.70 B 0.77 C I-6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.57 A I-7 Harbor Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.56 A 0.58 A I-8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.73 C 0.68 B I-9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.54 A 0.54 A I-10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 0.32 A 0.34 A I-11 Harbor Boulevard / Disney Way Anaheim 0.33 A 0.41 A I-12 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.63 B I-13 Harbor Boulevard / Convention Way Anaheim 0.29 A 0.35 A I-14 Harbor Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.57 A I-15 Clementine Street / Disney Way Anaheim 0.19 A 0.23 A I-16 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.60 A I-17 I-5 Southbound Off Ramp / Disney Way Anaheim 0.20 A 0.24 A I-18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.61 B I-19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.63 B 0.91 E I-20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.71 C I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.44 A 0.59 A I-22 Anaheim Boulevard / Disney Way Anaheim 0.44 A 0.49 A ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 18 Table 3-1: Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I-23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.47 A 0.58 A I-24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-25 Haster Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.65 B I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella A Anaheim 0.55 A 0.52 A I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.46 A 0.50 A I-28 East Street / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.58 A I-29 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.51 A 0.67 B I-30 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.53 A I-31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.31 A I-32 Lewis Street / North Connector Road (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.62 B I-34 Lewis Street / Anaheim Way Anaheim 0.09 A 0.25 A I-35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-36 Lewis Street / Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-37 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.07 A I-38 Lewis Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.48 A I-39 Manchester Avenue / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.52 A 0.37 A I-40 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.36 A 0.50 A I-41 Market Street / Katella Avenue (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-42 Market Street / Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-43 Orange Center Drive / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.30 A 0.38 A I-44 State College Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.47 A 0.42 A I-45 State College Boulevard / Wagner Avenue Anaheim 0.50 A 0.49 A I-46 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.57 A 0.65 B I-47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.46 A 0.40 A I-48 State College Boulevard / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.29 A 0.40 A I-49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.43 A 0.53 A I-50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.26 A 0.33 A I-51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.30 A 0.29 A I-52 State College Boulevard / Artisan Street (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A I-54 State College Boulevard / Orange Center Drive Anaheim/ Orange 0.21 A 0.21 A I-55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.33 A 0.28 A I-56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.43 A 0.28 A I-57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Ave. Orange 0.71 C 0.66 B I-58 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.82 D 0.79 C I-59 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.25 A 0.41 A I-60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.37 A I-61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.55 A I-62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.41 A I-63 Dupont Drive / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.44 A 0.51 A I-64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.51 A 0.44 A I-65 Rampart Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.31 A 0.31 A I-66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.43 A 0.41 A I-67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 0.69 B 0.57 A I-68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.36 A 0.40 A I-69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.40 A 0.40 A ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 19 Table 3-1: Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I-70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.52 A 0.49 A I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.61 B 0.68 B I-72 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.48 A 0.59 A I-73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.41 A 0.49 A I-74 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.28 A 0.34 A I-75 Eckhoff Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.47 A I-76 Eckhoff Street / Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.56 A 0.69 B I-77 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.68 B 0.73 C I-78 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.50 A 0.50 A I-79 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.53 A 0.48 A I-80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.57 A I-81 Main Street / Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.54 A 0.58 A I-82 Main Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.52 A 0.67 B I-83 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.65 B 0.67 B I-84 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.50 A 0.50 A I-85 Batavia Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.40 A 0.41 A I-86 Batavia Street / Walnut Avenue Orange 0.51 A 0.46 A I-87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.55 A 0.60 A I-88 Glassell Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.58 A 0.52 A I-89 Glassell Street / Walnut Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.75 C I-90 Santiago Boulevard / Meats Avenue Orange 0.72 C 0.65 B I-91 Clementine Street / Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-92 Clementine Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.33 A 0.33 A I-93 Flower Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.38 A 0.49 A I-94 Harbor Boulevard / Chapman Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.61 B I-95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.43 A 0.46 A I-96 Rampart Street / Town Center Place (South) Anaheim 0.14 A 0.18 A I-97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive Orange 0.57 A 0.58 A I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.29 A 0.41 A I-99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.40 A 0.39 A I-100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.54 A 0.52 A I-101 State College Boulevard / Winston Road Anaheim 0.38 A 0.39 A I-102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.52 A 0.55 A I-103 The City Drive / Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.47 A 0.37 A Source: City of Anaheim Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis · Table 3-2 presents average daily traffic (ADT) and LOS for study area arterial segments under existing conditions. The analysis is based on existing traffic counts, collected by the City on a typical weekday in 2008 and 2009. Refer to Appendix D for traffic counts. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 21 Table 3-2: Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Count Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A - 1 Anaheim Boulevard Katella Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 19,380 6D 56,300 0.34 A A - 2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 33,160 6D 56,300 0.59 A A - 3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 26,790 4D 37,500 0.71 C A - 4 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 25,230 4D 37,500 0.67 B A - 5 Anaheim Way State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Orange 3,220 3D 28,150 0.11 A A - 6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 18,190 3D 28,150 0.65 B A - 7 Anaheim Way Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 10,730 3D 28,150 0.38 A A - 8 Ball Road Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 34,020 6D 56,300 0.60 A A - 9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 44,320 6D 56,300 0.79 C A - 10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 36,890 6D 56,300 0.66 B A - 11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 35,280 6D 56,300 0.63 B A - 12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 38,110 6D 56,300 0.68 B A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 40,500 4D 37,500 1.08 F A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 48,400 6D 56,300 0.86 D A - 15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 32,740 6D 56,300 0.58 A A - 16 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Lewis Street Anaheim 11,710 4U 25,000 0.47 A A - 17 Cerritos Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 10,030 4U 25,000 0.40 A A - 18 Cerritos Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 6,180 4U 25,000 0.25 A A - 19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 4,520 4U 25,000 0.18 A A - 20 Chapman Avenue State College Boulevard SR-57 Freeway Orange 30,740 6D 56,300 0.55 A A - 21 Chapman Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 27,260 6D 56,300 0.48 A A - 22 The City Drive SR-22 Freeway Chapman Avenue Orange 20,980 8D 75,000 0.28 A A - 23 Clementine Street Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim NA NA NA NA NA A - 24 Clementine Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim NA NA NA NA NA A - 25 Clementine Street Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim 7,510 4U 25,000 0.30 A A - 26 Collins Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 6,620 4U 24,000 0.28 A A - 27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 10,800 4U 24,000 0.45 A A - 28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 14,710 4U 24,000 0.61 B A - 29 Disney Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 7,770 6D 56,300 0.14 A A - 30 Disney Way Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 13,880 6D 56,300 0.25 A A - 31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 6,910 4U 25,000 0.28 A A - 32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 10,870 2D 18,750 0.58 A A - 33 Gene Autry Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim NA NA NA NA NA A - 34 Gene Autry Way Clementine Street Haster Street Anaheim NA NA NA NA NA A - 35 Gene Autry Way Haster Street I-5 Freeway Anaheim NA NA NA NA NA A - 36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 2,220 4U 25,000 0.09 A A - 37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 35,560 6D 56,300 0.63 B A - 38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 35,870 6D 56,300 0.64 B A - 39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 40,430 6D 56,300 0.72 C A - 40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 38,410 6D 56,300 0.68 B A - 41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 41,340 6D 56,300 0.73 C A - 42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 39,450 7D 65,625 0.60 A A - 43 Harbor Boulevard I-5 Freeway Ball Road Anaheim 44,360 8D 75,000 0.59 A A - 44 Harbor Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 26,900 6D 56,300 0.48 A A - 45 Haster Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 18,190 4U 25,000 0.73 C A - 46 Haster Street Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 19,760 4U 25,000 0.79 C A - 47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 4,390 4U 25,000 0.18 A A - 48 Howell Avenue Sunkist Street Katella Avenue Anaheim 5,830 4U 25,000 0.23 A A - 49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 31,470 6D 56,300 0.56 A A - 50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 29,270 6D 56,300 0.52 A ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 22 Table 3-2: Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS, Continued ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Count Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A - 51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 35,240 6D 56,300 0.63 B A - 52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 37,440 6D 56,300 0.67 B A - 53 Katella Avenue Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 39,100 6D 56,300 0.69 B A - 54 Katella Avenue Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 38,510 6D 56,300 0.68 B A - 55 Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Anaheim 37,830 6D 56,300 0.67 B A - 56 Katella Avenue I-5 Freeway Lewis Street Anaheim 35,040 6D 56,300 0.62 B A - 57 Katella Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 30,260 6D 56,300 0.54 A A - 58 Katella Avenue State College Boulevard Sportstown Anaheim 32,800 6D 56,300 0.58 A A - 59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 34,240 6D 56,300 0.61 B A - 60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 37,990 6D 56,300 0.67 B A - 61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 29,610 6D 56,300 0.53 A A - 62 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 30,280 6D 59,115 0.51 A A - 63 Katella Avenue* Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 29,490 6D 59,115 0.50 A A - 64 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 1,440 2U 12,500 0.12 A A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 7,680 4U 25,000 0.31 A A - 66 Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 6,460 4U 25,000 0.26 A A - 67 Main Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Orange 20,090 4U 24,000 0.84 D A - 68 Main Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 16,900 4U 24,000 0.70 B A - 69 Main Street Collins Avenue Katella Avenue Orange 17,700 4U 24,000 0.74 C A - 70 Main Street Katella Avenue Taft Avenue Orange 11,440 4U 24,000 0.48 A A - 71 Manchester Avenue Compton Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 6,840 3D 28,150 0.24 A A - 72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 11,050 3D 28,150 0.39 A A - 73 Manchester Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 1,410 3D 28,150 0.05 A A - 74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 15,540 4U 25,000 0.62 B A - 75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 17,950 4U 25,000 0.72 C A - 76 Orangewood Avenue** Manchester Avenue State College Boulevard Anaheim/ Orange 19,810 6D 56,300 0.35 A A - 77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 24,490 4U 25,000 0.98 E A - 78 Orangewood Avenue** Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim/ Orange 23,490 4U 25,000 0.94 E A - 79 Orangewood Avenue SR-57 Freeway Eckhoff Street Orange 27,720 4D 37,500 0.74 C A - 80 Orangewood Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 14,160 4D 37,500 0.0. 38 A A - 81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 3,880 2U 12,500 0.31 A A - 82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,770 2U 12,500 0.22 A A - 83 State College Boulevard Chapman Avenue I-5 Freeway Orange 26,980 8D 75,000 0.36 A A - 84 State College Boulevard I-5 Freeway Orangewood Avenue Orange 21,400 8D 75,000 0.29 A A - 85 State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim 22,160 6D 56,300 0.39 A A - 86 State College Boulevard Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 20,120 6D 56,300 0.36 A A - 87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 23,980 6D 56,300 0.43 A A - 88 State College Boulevard Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 23,440 6D 56,300 0.42 A A - 89 State College Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 23,320 6D 56,300 0.41 A A - 90 State College Boulevard Ball Road Wagner Avenue Anaheim 24,020 6D 56,300 0.43 A A - 91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street Orange 6,720 2U 12,000 0.56 A A - 92 Sunkist Street Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 3,900 4U 25,000 0.16 A A - 93 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 7,720 4U 25,000 0.31 A A - 94 Walnut Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 8,540 2U 12,000 0.71 C A - 95 Walnut Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 8,090 2U 12,000 0.67 B Source: City of Anaheim NA-Not Applicable Notes: * Smart Street segments in Orange include a 5% capacity enhancement Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 23 Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis Table 3-3 reports the AM and PM peak hour arterial segment LOS for the deficient arterial segments in Anaheim. The table indicates that there are no capacity inadequacies for any of the arterial segments during either the AM or PM peak hour. Table 3-3: Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid- Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS AM Peak Hour A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 2,640 4D 3,268 0.81 D A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 3,420 6D 4,902 0.70 B A - 77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 2,070 4U 4,940 0.42 A A - 78 Orangewood Avenue Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim/Orange 1,930 4U 4,940 0.39 A PM Peak Hour A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 2,900 4D 3,648 0.79 C A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 3,370 6D 5,472 0.62 B A - 77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 2,280 4U 5,852 0.39 A A - 78 Orangewood Avenue Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim/Orange 2,130 4U 5,852 0.36 A Source: City of Anaheim Note: Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Table 3-4 presents the results of peak hour delays and levels of service for the ramp termini intersections under Existing conditions. Detailed analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H-1. The analysis indicates that all of the Caltrans Ramp intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS in either peak hour. Under all scenarios, freeway ramp termini intersections were evaluated according to both ICU and HCM methodology. The analysis under existing conditions is generally consistent in terms of LOS with the ICU analysis for the ramp termini intersections with the exception of the one deficient location for which the deficiency is generally the result of operational issues, such as insufficient or excessive signal timings for pedestrian crossings. Table 3-4: Existing Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ID Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS I - 9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 10.8 B 14.4 B I - 10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 7.9 A 7.5 A I - 17 I-5 Southbound Off Ramp / Disney Way 26.2 C 25.5 C I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 15.4 B 25.8 C I - 22 Anaheim Boulevard / Disney Way 33.7 C 19.2 B ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 24 Table 3-4: Existing Ramp Termini Intersection LOS, Continued ID Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 27.5 C 15.9 B I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 17.9 B 20.2 C I - 37 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 6.0 A 6.3 A I - 55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 12.8 B 12.5 B I - 56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 17.4 B 12.5 B I - 66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 19.3 B 21.4 C I - 67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 32.1 C 17.6 B I - 68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 10.4 B 7.5 A I - 69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 11.3 B 8.5 A I - 70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 15.6 B 8.3 A I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 19.4 B 28.7 C I - 95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 41.7 D 42.4 D I - 97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 28.5 C 29.6 C I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 38.4 D 29.6 C I - 99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 19.1 B 19.7 B I - 100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 36.4 D 36.1 D Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Table 3-5 presents the off-ramp queue and control delay determined by for the study area off-ramp termini intersections under Existing conditions. Detailed queuing analysis worksheets are included in Appendix M-1. The analysis indicates that no Caltrans Ramp intersections have a queue length that is greater than the existing off-ramp storage length. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 25 Table 3-5: Existing Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ID Ramp Termini Intersection Off-Ramp # of Lanes Off-Ramp Storage Length (feet) Off-Ramp Queue Length Off-Ramp Control Delay (sec) Deficient Storage Length AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R I - 9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 400 1,280 20 10 40 60 12.2 18.5 15.9 31.7 No I - 10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 2 1 1,240 190 60 60 32.3 32.3 No I - 17 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way 1.33 0.33 1.33 940 380 380 100 100 0 150 150 0 43.5 43.3 8.2 61.2 63.0 9.9 No I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 720 720 1,710 40 0 0 40 0 64.0 27.4 4.9 60.9 23.9 No I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 3 0.5 1,540 1,060 130 120 210 220 20.4 17.5 25.6 20.9 No I - 37 I-5 HOV NB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 2 1,510 No I-5 HOV SB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 2 1,340 0 0 4.9 6.7 No I - 55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 2 1,580 690 690 70 70 0 70 70 0 52.7 48.6 7.9 54.5 49.8 8.7 No I - 56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 1.5 0.5 2 2,960 2,190 1,590 40 230 130 100 140 90 29.3 47.5 35.1 46.4 52.3 32.1 No I - 66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1 1 1,030 680 180 240 280 30 28.9 42.7 53.0 10.7 No I - 67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 0.5 1.5 1,290 570 390 400 250 250 35.3 45.0 39.5 46.4 No I - 68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 1,030 590 70 50 50 40 18.4 20.5 18.8 19.1 No I - 69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 930 600 80 70 60 60 19.5 23.1 18.8 23.4 No I - 70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 650 350 130 190 20 0 38.9 56.4 21.9 17.2 No I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,050 630 340 210 110 0 140 60 247 66.3 33.4 8.4 68.5 26.0 23.9 No I - 95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 2 1 1,080 220 220 0 230 0 46.7 9.8 46.0 7.4 No I - 97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 1.33 0.33 1.33 870 650 400 160 170 150 150 56.4 58.5 58.1 58.4 No I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 2 0 2 900 230 70 0 140 0 53.4 9.9 53.0 6.4 No I - 99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 1 1 1,240 760 20 0 10 0 14.8 3.5 13.8 3.0 No I - 100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 0.5 0.5 1 580 1,000 210 60 120 90 36.5 12.7 47.6 30.7 No ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 26 Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis Table 3-6 summarizes HCM analysis results for the study area ramps for the AM and PM peak hours. The HCM reports a density based on the existing freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. Detailed HCM analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I-1. According to the analysis, the following freeway ramps are deficient under either the AM or PM peak hours: · I-5 Northbound Connector from SR-22 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound Connector to SR-22 Westbound (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Ball Road Westbound (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound On-Ramp from Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive (PM Peak Hour) Based on the existing conditions analysis, several ramps currently operate at a deficient level of service and as a result are expected to continue to operate at deficient conditions under future With and Without Project conditions. There are currently no plans to address each of the current deficiencies on the State Highway System and as a result, these existing and cumulative impacts will carry forward into the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 27 Table 3-6: Existing Freeway Ramp HCM LOS ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R - 1 I-5 NB Connector from SR-22 EB* 2 4,570 1,800 27.6 C 7,250 2,520 > Capacity F R - 2 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 6,370 270 23.2 C 9,770 370 33.6 D R - 3 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard 2 6,100 520 10.1 B 9,400 410 20.5 C R - 4 I-5 NB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way/Disney Way 1 710 10 6.5 A 1,170 20 10.3 B R - 5 I-5 NB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 5,580 210 19.3 B 8,990 380 30.0 D R - 6 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue** 2 5,190 710 21.2 C 8,030 1,120 32.8 D R - 7 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 4,480 230 19.9 B 6,910 320 28.0 C R - 8 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 4,710 200 21.1 C 7,230 280 30.9 D R - 9 I-5 NB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 700 10 14.6 B 1,150 40 22.6 C R - 10 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 4,910 320 22.2 C 7,510 930 > Capacity F R - 11 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 5,160 760 23.1 C 8,120 930 33.2 D R - 12 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 4,400 230 19.6 B 7,190 530 32.2 D R - 13 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 6,420 540 25.1 C 7,880 640 30.7 D R - 14 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 5,880 1,120 32.4 D 7,240 790 34.6 D R - 15 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Disney Way/Anaheim Boulevard 1 7,000 450 26.6 C 8,030 440 30.2 D R - 16 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue** 2 5,590 540 22.8 C 6,930 200 28.3 D R - 17 I-5 SB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way 1 1,090 70 10.2 B 630 20 5.8 A R - 18 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,050 380 23.2 C 6,730 530 30.5 D R - 19 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,430 310 24.0 C 7,260 370 31.1 D R - 20 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 6,060 440 21.5 C 7,720 620 28.3 D R - 21 I-5 SB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 1,020 20 20.2 C 610 20 13.1 B R - 22 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,620 280 24.4 C 7,100 390 30.7 D R - 23 I-5 SB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard 1 5,900 170 18.7 B 7,490 290 23.5 C R - 24 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 6,070 430 19.1 B 7,780 600 23.7 C R - 25 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 WB 1 6,500 840 26.8 C 8,380 1,180 35.2 E R - 26 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 EB 2 5,660 850 9.8 A 7,200 1,190 14.2 B R - 27 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 3,430 120 22.9 C 4,800 170 30.2 D R - 28 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue WB 1 5,540 230 17.6 B 8,440 330 23.8 C R - 29 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue EB 1 5,340 200 19.1 B 8,160 280 27.1 C R - 30 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 5,770 630 25.1 C 8,770 280 32.5 D R - 31 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue WB 1 5,410 160 18.9 B 8,760 280 29.3 D R - 32 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue EB 1 5,140 270 19.1 B 8,490 270 28.2 D R - 33 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 4,750 740 21.9 C 7,790 560 30.6 D R - 34 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 4,310 150 19.6 B 7,680 240 32.8 D R - 35 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 4,010 300 19.8 B 7,230 450 33.0 D R - 36 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 4,590 850 25.0 C 7,950 670 38.9 E R - 37 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 4,220 300 20.5 C 7,890 340 > Capacity F R - 38 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 3,740 480 20.3 C 7,280 610 34.5 D R - 39 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 6,580 1,510 31.8 D 7,370 920 31.2 D R - 40 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 5,070 220 23.0 C 6,450 410 29.7 D R - 41 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 5,290 630 27.4 C 6,860 530 32.3 D ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 28 Table 3-6: Existing Freeway Ramp HCM LOS, Continued ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R - 42 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 6,360 870 33.0 D 7,380 690 36.5 E R - 43 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 5,490 240 24.7 C 6,690 460 31.1 D R - 44 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 5,730 160 24.9 C 7,150 360 31.9 D R - 45 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 6,350 710 26.4 C 7,750 730 31.5 D R - 46 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,640 200 19.3 B 7,020 570 25.8 C R - 47 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 5,840 450 24.4 C 7,590 640 30.4 D R - 48 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 1,157 380 16.3 B 1,621 530 21.9 C R - 49 SR-22 EB Off-Ramp to Fairview Street 1 5,890 200 25.4 C 8,000 280 34.7 D R - 50 SR-22 EB On-Ramp from Fairview Street 1 5,690 870 29.2 D 7,720 1,220 > Capacity F R - 51 SR-22 EB Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street** 3 6,090 4,470 23.9 C 8,310 6,260 > Capacity F R - 52 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive 1 4,470 290 27.4 C 6,260 410 36.5 E R - 53 SR-22 EB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 1,832 1,500 17.4 B 2,816 2,100 27.2 C R - 54 SR-22 WB Connector to I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 3,670 1,400 9.8 A 4,880 1,960 16.8 B R - 55 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from The City Drive 1 2,100 320 23.2 C 2,940 440 31.5 D R - 56 SR-22 WB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 3,690 2,100 23.2 C 5,390 2,940 34.4 D R - 57 SR-22 WB Off-Ramp to Haster Street 2 6,110 600 10.7 B 8,770 840 17.6 B R - 58 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from Haster Street 1 5,510 430 25.0 C 7,930 600 34.8 D * Major Merge Analysis Utilized to calculate density Major Diverge Analysis Utilized to calculate density Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis Table 3-7 summarizes HCS analysis results for the densities and levels of service for study area mainline segments for the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed HCM mainline analysis worksheets are included in Appendix J-1. Consistent with the existing ramp analysis, several segments currently operate at deficient levels of service. According to the analysis the following freeway mainline segments are deficient under either the AM or PM peak hours: · I-5 Southbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Eastbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Westbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Eastbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 29 Table 3-7: Existing Freeway Mainline HCM LOS ID Freeway Segment Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F - 1 I-5 between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street 5,370 17.8 B 7,800 26.7 D 5,530 15.3 B 7,460 20.7 C F - 2 I-5 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 5,630 18.7 C 8,560 30.5 D 6,120 20.3 C 7,890 27.1 D F - 3 I-5 between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue 5,630 18.7 C 8,890 32.5 D 6,370 27.5 D 7,910 40.2 E F - 4 I-5 between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard 5,780 19.2 C 9,200 34.5 D 6,420 21.4 C 7,880 27.1 D F - 5 I-5 between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue 5,160 17.1 B 8,120 28.3 D 5,590 18.5 C 6,930 23.2 C F - 6 I-5 between Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard 5,190 17.2 B 8,030 25.9 C 6,060 20.1 C 7,720 26.4 D F - 7 I-5 between State College Boulevard and SR-22 6,100 16.7 B 9,400 26.6 D 7,000 19.2 C 8,940 24.9 C F - 8 I-5 between SR-22 and 17th Street 7,570 20.7 C 11,520 36.5 E 9,630 27.2 D 12,560 44.8 E F - 9 I-5 between 17th Street and Grand Avenue 8,130 22.3 C 11,680 37.6 E 8,670 23.9 C 11,840 38.7 E F - 10 I-5 between Grand Avenue and 4th Street 7,970 21.8 C 11,240 34.8 D 8,580 22.3 C 11,930 39.4 E F - 11 I-5 between 4th Street and SR-55 7,960 21.8 C 10,980 33.3 D 7,690 21.0 C 10,930 33.1 D F - 12 SR-57 between SR-22 and Orangewood Avenue 5,770 16.3 B 8,770 25.2 C 5,530 18.7 C 7,050 24.2 C F - 13 SR-57 between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue 4,750 16.1 B 7,790 27.4 D 6,350 21.5 C 7,750 27.2 D F - 14 SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Ball Road 4,590 19.4 C 7,950 42.7 E 6,360 28.2 D 7,380 36.1 E F - 15 SR-57 between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 4,670 19.7 C 8,380 > 45.0 F 6,580 22.4 C 7,370 25.5 C F - 16 SR-57 between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue 4,930 16.7 B 8,640 32.0 D 6,520 18.4 C 7,390 20.9 C F - 17 SR-22 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 5,140 20.5 C 7,030 29.8 D 4,860 19.3 C 6,970 29.5 D F - 18 SR-22 between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard 5,410 21.6 C 7,300 31.7 D 5,190 20.7 C 7,540 33.5 D F - 19 SR-22 between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street 5,890 23.7 C 8,000 37.6 E 5,510 22.0 C 7,960 37.2 E F - 20 SR-22 between Fairview Street/Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 6,090 19.4 C 8,310 27.5 D 6,110 19.4 C 8,770 29.7 D F - 21 SR-22 between I-5 and Main Street 3,330 27.6 D 4,920 19.6 C 3,670 14.6 B 4,880 19.4 C F - 22 SR-22 between Main Street and Glassell Street 3,110 12.4 B 5,120 20.4 C 3,790 15.1 B 4,540 18.1 C F - 23 SR-22 between Glassell Street and SR-55 2,600 8.3 A 4,510 14.4 B 3,300 13.1 B 3,750 14.9 B Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 30 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis Tables 3-8 and 3-9 summarize HCS analysis results for the weaving areas for the study area freeways for the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed HCM weaving analysis worksheets are included in Appendix K-1. Under the existing conditions scenario, there are several deficient freeway segments identified in the weaving analysis. The segments identified as follows: · I-5 Northbound between Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-99 Eastbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Fairview Street/Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector / Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector (AM and PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 31 Table 3-8: Existing Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS ID Weaving Segment Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 1 I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp Not Applicable I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off- Ramp W - 2 I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp W - 3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 4,980 10 430 210 20.6 B W - 4 I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 5,070 10 430 270 21.4 B I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp Not Applicable W - 5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 5,260 30 510 620 27.6 C W - 6 I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 4,100 20 740 300 20.9 B I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp Not Applicable W - 7 I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 4,280 10 700 200 19.3 B I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp 5,330 20 420 290 20.0 C W - 8 I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 3,330 90 180 1,710 22.7 B I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 4,830 10 830 160 24.3 C W - 9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 4,870 30 780 630 25.0 C W - 10 I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 5,960 10 630 240 28.4 C I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp 7,170 30 320 510 34.1 D W - 11 I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 5,830 20 460 460 27.0 C I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 6,250 30 480 470 31.6 C W - 12 I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 5,880 20 350 390 26.4 C I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp 6,260 20 570 300 26.2 C W - 13 I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 3,780 110 600 2,140 31.0 C I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 4,090 30 1,670 620 28.8 C W - 14 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 3,960 10 620 220 18.9 B SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 4,890 10 440 190 23.5 B W - 15 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 3,860 10 730 150 18.7 B SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 5,490 10 700 150 26.6 C W - 16 SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 3,600 10 840 140 17.8 B SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 4,890 30 840 600 33.0 D W - 17 SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp W - 18 SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 3,640 20 970 300 19.7 B SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 3,650 60 680 1,040 26.7 C W - 19 SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 32 Table 3-8: Existing Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS, Continued ID Weaving Segment Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 20 SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 3,990 20 850 330 24.6 C W - 21 SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp W - 22 SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collect/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp 790 40 4,430 830 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp 5,210 20 580 300 21.7 B W - 23 SR-22 EB Collect/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off- Ramp 4,030 20 150 450 34.9 D SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp 5,511 10 540 280 29.6 C W - 24 SR-22 EB Collect/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector 3,020 40 1,460 710 > Capacity F W - 25 SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp 1,360 80 470 1,420 20.1 B SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 1,750 30 1,370 520 20.6 B W - 26 SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 2,060 30 460 560 17.3 B SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp 2,700 20 630 440 21.0 B W - 27 SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 33 Table 3-9: Existing Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS ID Weaving Segment Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 1 I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp Not Applicable I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off- Ramp W - 2 I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp W - 3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 7,990 20 590 290 33.6 D W - 4 I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 8,210 20 600 370 35.5 D I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp Not Applicable W - 5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 6,390 50 590 850 35.8 D W - 6 I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 6,310 50 880 880 36.7 E I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp Not Applicable W - 7 I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 6,550 20 1,100 360 31.5 C I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp 6,750 20 600 350 32.4 D W - 8 I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 5,380 130 240 2,390 37.2 E I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 5,990 10 1,170 280 33.6 D W - 9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 7,600 50 1,080 870 > Capacity F W - 10 I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 9,120 20 880 330 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp 9,260 40 450 710 > Capacity F W - 11 I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 8,430 30 640 640 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 8,490 40 670 660 > Capacity F W - 12 I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 8,310 30 490 540 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp 8,700 20 800 420 37.7 E W - 13 I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 5,170 160 830 2,990 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 5,870 50 2,330 860 > Capacity F W - 14 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 6,720 20 260 310 28.1 C SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 5,870 30 610 540 33.5 D W - 15 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 6,960 10 550 270 30.6 C SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 6,680 20 710 340 32.8 D W - 16 SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 7,050 10 660 230 39.3 E SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 6,190 30 660 500 37.0 E W - 17 SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp W - 18 SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 6,840 20 1,360 420 36.0 E SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 3,680 80 950 1,450 34.1 D W - 19 SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp W - 20 SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 5,850 20 1,200 470 37.6 E ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 34 Table 3-9: Existing Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS, Continued ID Weaving Segment Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 21 SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp W - 22 SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collect/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp 890 60 6,200 1,160 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp 7,510 20 820 420 32.4 D W - 23 SR-22 EB Collect/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp 5,640 30 210 620 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp 7,941 20 750 390 > Capacity F W - 24 SR-22 EB Collect/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector 4,210 50 2,050 1,000 > Capacity F W - 25 SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp 2,160 110 660 1,990 32.2 D SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 2,190 40 1,920 730 29.9 C W - 26 SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 3,650 40 640 790 30.7 C SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp 3,020 30 880 610 27.8 C W - 27 SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans Summary As noted in the analysis above, the local circulation system in the Platinum Triangle generally operates at an acceptable LOS. The regional circulation State Highway System has several components that currently operate at a deficient LOS. Locations that are deficient under existing conditions will be considered when determining future project related impacts and mitigation measures. The existing conditions assessment for the base year 2008 existing conditions provides the framework for applying the General Plan future forecasts to both the No Project and With Project scenarios. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 35 4.0 FUTURE NO PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The analysis for the future forecast scenarios was performed through the application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to develop future traffic forecast volumes throughout the Platinum Triangle study area. The forecasts that represent 2030 conditions are based on citywide land use data and regional socioeconomic growth projections. These forecasts incorporate the following future key project assumptions: · Currently adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan · City of Orange General Plan Update · Revisions to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, including the Anaheim Convention Center Expansion · Disneyland Resort Specific Plan · ARTIC as is currently incorporated into the General Plan · Relocation of Kaiser Permanente hospital Future trip activity was estimated and assigned to the circulation system based on the existing City of Anaheim General Plan. Intersection Analysis The intersection analysis considers the effect that growth within the study area will have on the future circulation system. Table 4-1 presents ICU and LOS results for the study intersections under 2030 No Project forecast conditions during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Future General Plan lane geometrics were assumed in the intersection analysis. Figure 4-1 presents the 2030 No Project conditions study intersection LOS. The detailed 2030 No Project ICU worksheets are presented in Appendix E-2. Tables summarizing the General Plan lane geometrics and the No Project AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes are include in Appendix F and Appendix G-1, respectively. Under these conditions, the following intersections are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS: · Ninth Street at Katella Avenue · Disneyland Drive at Ball Road · Disneyland Drive/West Street at Katella Avenue · Harbor Boulevard at Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue · Haster Street at Gene Autry Way · Lewis Street at Katella Avenue · Market Street at Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard/The City Drive at Chapman Avenue (Orange) · Rampart Street at Orangewood Avenue · Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps (Orange) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 36 · Main Street at Collins Avenue (Orange) · The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard (Orange) Table 4-1: 2030 No Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.90 D I - 2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.92 E 0.88 D I - 3 Walnut Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.70 B 0.68 B I - 4 Walnut Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.84 D 0.85 D I - 5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.86 D 0.91 E I - 6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.92 E I - 7 Harbor Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.72 C 0.76 C I - 8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 1.05 F 0.91 E I - 9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.71 C 0.76 C I - 10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 0.57 A 0.48 A I - 11 Harbor Boulevard / Disney Way Anaheim 0.46 A 0.79 C I - 12 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.89 D I - 13 Harbor Boulevard / Convention Way Anaheim 0.51 A 0.74 C I - 14 Harbor Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.82 D 0.85 D I - 15 Clementine Street / Disney Way Anaheim 0.55 A 0.52 A I - 16 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.63 B 0.81 D I - 17 I-5 Southbound Off Ramp / Disney Way Anaheim 0.39 A 0.38 A I - 18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 0.82 D I - 19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.84 D 0.98 E I - 20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.72 C 0.99 E I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.65 B 0.87 D I - 22 Anaheim Boulevard / Disney Way Anaheim 0.67 B 0.77 C I - 23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.84 D 0.87 D I - 24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.86 D 0.98 E I - 25 Haster Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.71 C 0.79 C I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.71 C 0.66 B I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.74 C 0.82 D I - 28 East Street / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.76 C 0.62 B I - 29 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.76 C I - 30 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.75 C 0.87 D I - 31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.72 C 0.81 D I - 32 Lewis Street / North Connector Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.44 A I - 33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.67 B 0.95 E I - 34 Lewis Street / Anaheim Way Anaheim 0.31 A 0.56 A I - 35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim 0.58 A 0.79 C I - 36 Lewis Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.49 A 0.65 B I - 37 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.40 A 0.63 B I - 38 Lewis Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.59 A 0.56 A I - 39 Manchester Avenue / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.76 C 0.77 C I - 40 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.61 B 0.64 B I - 41 Market Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.68 B 0.81 D I - 42 Market Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.37 A 0.63 B I - 43 Orange Center Drive / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.70 B 0.76 C ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 37 Table 4-1: 2030 No Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 44 State College Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.74 C 0.61 B I - 45 State College Boulevard / Wagner Avenue Anaheim 0.65 B 0.65 B I - 46 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.68 B 0.82 D I - 47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.82 D 0.81 D I - 48 State College Boulevard / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.68 B I - 49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.80 C 0.80 C I - 50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.66 B 0.80 C I - 51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.78 C 0.75 C I - 52 State College Boulevard / Artisan Street Anaheim 0.73 C 0.66 B I - 53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.83 D 0.83 D I - 54 State College Boulevard / Orange Center Drive Anaheim/ Orange 0.69 B 0.57 A I - 55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.69 B 0.69 B I - 56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.90 D 0.78 C I - 57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.84 D 0.93 E I - 58 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.81 D 0.84 D I - 59 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.69 B 0.70 B I - 60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.59 A 0.79 C I - 61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.82 D I - 62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.61 B 0.72 C I - 63 Dupont Drive / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.65 B I - 64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.71 C 0.99 E I - 65 Rampart Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.64 B 0.79 C I - 66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.67 B 0.67 B I - 67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 0.82 D 0.80 C I - 68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.60 A 0.65 B I - 69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.63 B 0.62 B I - 70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.76 C 0.75 C I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.79 C 0.94 E I - 72 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.82 D 0.83 D I - 73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.90 D I - 74 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.66 B 0.80 C I - 75 Eckhoff Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.64 B 0.76 C I - 76 Eckhoff Street / Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.71 C I - 77 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.69 B 0.79 C I - 78 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.74 C 0.77 C I - 79 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.76 C 0.65 B I - 80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.94 E I - 81 Main Street / Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.59 A 0.73 C I - 82 Main Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.66 B 0.79 C I - 83 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.86 D 0.83 D I - 84 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.73 C 0.73 C I - 85 Batavia Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.84 D 0.84 D I - 86 Batavia Street / Walnut Avenue Orange 0.79 C 0.82 D I - 87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.75 C 0.89 D I - 88 Glassell Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.75 C 0.71 C I - 89 Glassell Street / Walnut Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.71 C I - 90 Santiago Boulevard / Meats Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.70 B ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 38 Table 4-1: 2030 No Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 91 Clementine Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.53 A 0.79 C I - 92 Clementine Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.71 C I - 93 Flower Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.54 A 0.72 C I - 94 Harbor Boulevard / Chapman Avenue Anaheim 0.67 B 0.76 C I - 95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.59 A 0.68 B I - 96 Rampart Street / Town Center Place (South) Anaheim 0.42 A 0.55 A I - 97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive Orange 0.61 B 0.68 B I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.65 B 0.89 D I - 99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.61 B 0.59 A I - 100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.77 C 0.78 C I - 101 State College Boulevard / Winston Road Anaheim 0.50 A 0.52 A I - 102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.97 E 1.03 F I - 103 The City Drive / Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.78 C 0.66 B ---PAGE BREAK--- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L ao lo A Nd b CT o ao melbNfu C ir B a o V4 VO VN NMP VT VU NMO VV VP NMM VS CeAmjAN Asb dbNb ArTov tv dAoabN dolsb Bisa oa NMN BofpTli pT dAoabN dolsb Bisa BAii oa tbpT pT pTATb Cliibdb Bisa BAii oa NfNTe pT eAoBlo Bisa brCifa pT sbojlNT Asb bApT pT iA sbTA Asb plrTe pT ANAebfj Bisa tAiNrT pT TAcT Asb oAjmAoT pT hATbiiA Asb Asb ibtfp pT ibtfp pT CboofTlp Asb CliifNp Asb eApTbo pT tAdNbo Asb Teb CfTv ao jAfN pT pTorCh Asb jbjlov iN bChelcc pT pT diAppbii pT jbjlov iN pT tAiNrT Asb BATAsfA pT dATbtAv ao t cibTCebo Asb tv cfobBoANa pT alrdiApp oa pT ANAebfj tv eltbii Asb jAohbT pT jAfNmiACb ao ao tv CboofTlp Asb hATbiiA Asb AoTfpAN pT CeAmjAN Asb jANCebpTbo Asb T V S N O 4 U R P 44 TV T4 TO SR S4 SP SO R4 RO RM 4P 4O 4N PO OU NU NS UT UU UV SS ST SU TN TM TR TS SV SN 4U SM RS RR TP RV RP U4 TU UO RT UR UM US UN TT NT ON OT OM NM OO NP NO OS NN NR N4 OR O4 OP PM PP 4V RN PN 4T 4M PU PV 4S 4R RU NV OV UP cigure 4-N: O0P0 ko Project Peak eour Intersection iOS M M M M L L L L PR PS P4 PT ? ê ? ê ? l M L pANTf Adl B isa jbATp Asb ? k A N A e b f j Cl N Nb C T lo dbNb ArTov tv ANAebfj tv pA NTA ANA ofsbo dAoabN dolsb ANAebfj pANTA ANA loANdb INSET els oAjmp NORTH ORANGE ibtfp pT j b T o l m lifTAN ao VM VR LEGEND AM LOS PM LOS jajor ooadway oailroad L Acceptable ilp L aeficient ilp M Acceptable ilp M aeficient ilp tater Area Adjacent Area City of Anaheim µ els iane deneral murpose iane INSET M MKO MK4 jiles mlatinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 40 Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis Table 4-2 presents 2030 No Project average daily traffic (ADT) and LOS for all study area arterial segments. There are four segments in the City of Orange operating at LOS E or F, deficient under the City of Orange guidelines. Segments operating at LOS D, E, or F under daily conditions within the City of Anaheim are further analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions in the following section. One roadway segment is divided into two segments, as the current Circulation Element designation has different lane assumptions for different parts of the overall segment. If a deficient segment under daily conditions is also deficient under the AM and PM peak hour conditions then improvements will be necessary to return the segment to an acceptable LOS under peak hour conditions. The table indicates that the following arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS under future forecast No Project daily conditions: · Anaheim Boulevard from I-5 to Cerritos Avenue · Anaheim Way from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue · Ball Road from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard · Ball Road from Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard · Ball Road from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street · Ball Road from Sunkist Street to SR-57 · Ball Road from SR-57 to Main Street (City of Orange segment) · Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douglass Road · Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment) · Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Eckhoff Street from Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue (City of Orange segment) · Harbor Boulevard from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue · Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Convention Way · Harbor Boulevard from Convention Way to Katella Avenue · Harbor Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Disney Way · Harbor Boulevard from Disney Way to Manchester Avenue · Harbor Boulevard from Manchester Avenue to I-5 · Katella Avenue from Euclid Street to Ninth Street · Katella Avenue from Ninth Street to Walnut Street · Katella Avenue from Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive · Katella Avenue from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard · Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way · Katella Avenue from Sportstown to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue from Howell Avenue to SR-57 · Katella Avenue from SR-57 to Main Street · Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street · Orangewood Avenue from Haster Street to Manchester Boulevard · Phoenix Club Drive from Honda Center to Ball Road · Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 41 Table 4-2: 2030 No Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A - 1 Anaheim Boulevard Katella Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 30,590 6D 56,300 0.54 A A - 2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 53,130 6D 56,300 0.94 E A - 3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 43,930 6D 56,300 0.78 C A - 4 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 37,690 6D 56,300 0.67 B A - 5 Anaheim Way State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Orange 13,360 3D 28,150 0.47 A A - 6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 25,230 3D 28,150 0.90 D A - 7 Anaheim Way Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 15,650 3D 28,150 0.56 A A - 8 Ball Road Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 41,120 6D 56,300 0.73 C A - 9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 56,710 6D 56,300 1.01 F A - 10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 45,610 6D 56,300 0.81 D A - 11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 44,140 6D 56,300 0.78 C A - 12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 44,720 6D 56,300 0.79 C A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 46,630 6D 56,300 0.83 D A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 58,790 6D 56,300 1.04 F A - 15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 59,090 6D 56,300 1.05 F A - 16 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Lewis Street Anaheim 26,370 4D 37,500 0.70 B A - 17 Cerritos Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 26,010 4D 37,500 0.69 B A - 18 Cerritos Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 16,380 4U 25,000 0.66 B A - 19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 22,300 4U 25,000 0.89 D A - 20 Chapman Avenue State College Boulevard SR-57 Freeway Orange 37,220 6D 56,300 0.66 B A - 21 Chapman Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 32,610 6D 56,300 0.58 A A - 22 The City Drive SR-22 Freeway Chapman Avenue Orange 31,710 8D 75,000 0.42 A A - 23 Clementine Street Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim 8,070 4U 25,000 0.32 A A - 24 Clementine Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 5,530 4U 25,000 0.22 A A - 25 Clementine Street Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim 8,400 4U 25,000 0.34 A A - 26 Collins Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 20,280 4U 24,000 0.85 D A - 27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 23,270 4U 24,000 0.97 E A - 28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 21,360 4U 24,000 0.89 D A - 29 Disney Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 15,600 6D 56,300 0.28 A A - 30 Disney Way Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 24,690 4U 25,000 0.44 A A - 31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 24,550 4U 25,000 0.98 E A - 32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 27,340 4U 24,000 1.14 F A - 33 Gene Autry Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 22,960 6D 56,300 0.41 A A - 34 Gene Autry Way Clementine Street Haster Street Anaheim 27,890 6D 56,300 0.50 A A - 35 Gene Autry Way Haster Street I-5 Freeway Anaheim 32,420 6D 56,300 0.58 A A - 36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 32,850 6D 56,300 0.58 A A - 37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 48,780 6D 56,300 0.87 D A - 38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 46,890 6D 56,300 0.83 D A - 39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 49,980 6D 56,300 0.89 D A - 40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 55,020 6D 56,300 0.98 E A - 41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 53,490 7D 65,625 0.95 E A - 42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 55,420 8D 75,000 0.84 D A - 43 Harbor Boulevard I-5 Freeway Ball Road Anaheim 57,660 6D 56,300 0.77 C A - 44 Harbor Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 37,440 6D 56,300 0.67 B A - 45 Haster Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 36,460 6D 56,300 0.65 B A - 46 Haster Street Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 37,170 4U 25,000 0.66 B A - 47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 15,580 4U 25,000 0.62 B A - 48 Howell Avenue Sunkist Street Katella Avenue Anaheim 6,380 6D 56,300 0.26 A A - 49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 49,450 6D 56,300 0.88 D ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 42 Table 4-2: 2030 No Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS, Continued ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A - 50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 47,260 6D 56,300 0.84 D A - 51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 55,400 6D 56,300 0.98 E A - 52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 64,920 8D 75,000 0.87 D A - 53 Katella Avenue Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 57,480 8D 75,000 0.77 C A - 54 Katella Avenue Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 57,500 8D 75,000 0.77 C A - 55 Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Anaheim 55,320 8D 75,000 0.74 C A - 56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 58,160 6D 56,300 1.03 F A - 56b Katella Avenue Anaheim Way Lewis Street Anaheim 58,160 8D 75,000 0.78 C A - 57 Katella Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 48,820 8D 75,000 0.65 B A - 58 Katella Avenue State College Boulevard Sportstown Anaheim 47,980 8D 75,000 0.64 B A - 59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 54,380 6D 56,300 0.97 E A - 60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 60,860 6D 56,300 1.08 F A - 61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 54,600 6D 56,300 0.97 E A - 62 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 47,690 6D 59,115 0.81 D A - 63 Katella Avenue* Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 46,060 6D 59,115 0.78 C A - 64 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 16,800 4D 37,500 0.45 A A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 22,360 4U 25,000 0.89 D A - 66 Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 20,870 4D 37,500 0.56 A A - 67 Main Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Orange 39,050 6D 56,300 0.69 B A - 68 Main Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 28,730 6D 56,300 0.51 A A - 69 Main Street Collins Avenue Katella Avenue Orange 30,920 4D 37,500 0.82 D A - 70 Main Street Katella Avenue Taft Avenue Orange 21,540 4D 37,500 0.57 A A - 71 Manchester Avenue Compton Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 16,590 3D 28,150 0.59 A A - 72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 21,540 3D 28,150 0.77 C A - 73 Manchester Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 11,500 3D 28,150 0.41 A A - 74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 20,130 4U 25,000 0.81 D A - 75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 24,480 4U 25,000 0.98 E A - 76 Orangewood Avenue** Manchester Avenue State College Boulevard Anaheim/ Orange 28,530 6D 56,300 0.51 A A - 77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 38,080 6D 56,300 0.68 B A - 78 Orangewood Avenue** Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim/ Orange 40,050 6D 56,300 0.71 C A - 79 Orangewood Avenue SR-57 Freeway Eckhoff Street Orange 44,670 6D 56,300 0.79 C A - 80 Orangewood Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 17,750 6D 56,300 0.31 A A - 81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 13,530 2U 12,500 1.08 F A - 82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 16,510 4U 25,000 0.66 B A - 83 State College Boulevard Chapman Avenue I-5 Freeway Orange 42,370 8D 75,000 0.56 A A - 84 State College Boulevard I-5 Freeway Orangewood Avenue Orange 43,240 8D 75,000 0.58 A A - 85 State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim 39,670 8D 75,000 0.53 A A - 86 State College Boulevard Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 31,040 6D 56,300 0.55 A A - 87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 39,840 6D 56,300 0.71 C A - 88 State College Boulevard Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 27,860 6D 56,300 0.49 A A - 89 State College Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 25,880 6D 56,300 0.46 A A - 90 State College Boulevard Ball Road Wagner Avenue Anaheim 33,130 6D 56,300 0.59 A A - 91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street Orange 14,100 2U 12,000 1.18 F A - 92 Sunkist Street Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 9,950 4U 25,000 0.40 A A - 93 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 11,240 4U 25,000 0.45 A A - 94 Walnut Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 9,630 2U 12,000 0.80 C A - 95 Walnut Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 9,870 2U 12,000 0.82 D Note: *Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken NA - Not Applicable Smart Street segment in Orange include a 5% capacity enhancement ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 43 Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis Table 4-3 reports the AM and PM peak hour arterial segment LOS for the deficient arterial segments located in Anaheim forecast under daily 2030 No Project conditions identified above. The table indicates that one arterial segment is projected to operate deficiently during the PM peak hour: · Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 44 Table 4-3: 2030 No Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS AM Peak Hour A - 2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 3,270 6D 5,814 056 A A - 6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 1,670 3D 3,420 0.49 A A - 9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 3,620 6D 5,700 0.64 B A - 10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 2,680 6D 5,700 0.47 A A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 3,100 6D 4,674 0.66 B A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,250 6D 5,130 0.83 D A - 19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 2,070 4U 2,356 0.88 D A - 31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 1,860 4U 2,660 0.70 B A - 37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,530 6D 3,876 0.65 B A - 38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 2,560 6D 5,586 0.46 A A - 39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 2,740 6D 5,586 0.49 A A - 40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 2,950 6D 6,042 0.49 A A - 41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 3,050 6D 6,042 0.50 A A - 42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 3,150 7D 8,911 0.35 A A - 49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 3,570 6D 5,814 0.61 B A - 50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 2,790 6D 7,068 0.39 A A - 51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 3,650 6D 7,068 0.52 A A - 52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 3,490 8D 9,272 0.38 A A –56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 3,662 0 6D 6,498 0.56 A A - 59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 2,800 6D 7,638 0.37 A A - 60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 3,690 6D 7,638 0.48 A A - 61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 4,070 6D 5,244 0.78 C A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,190 4U 3,268 0.49 A A - 74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 1,110 4U 3,800 0.29 A A - 75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 1,610 4U 4,408 0.58 A A - 81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 890 2U 1,482 0.60 A PM Peak Hour A - 2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 4,790 6D 5,814 0.82 D A - 6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 3,300 3D 3,800 0.87 D A - 9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 4,020 6D 4,788 0.84 D A - 10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 2,970 6D 4,674 0.64 B A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 3,540 6D 5,700 0.62 B A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,420 6D 7,068 0.63 B A - 19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 2,280 4U 3,268 0.70 B A - 31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 1,940 4U 2,736 0.71 C A - 37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 3,250 6D 4,560 0.71 C A - 38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 3,120 6D 4,560 0.68 B A - 39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 3,500 6D 3,990 0.88 D A - 40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 3,470 6D 5,130 0.68 B A - 41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 3,630 6D 5,130 0.71 C A - 42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 3,630 7D 9,709 0.37 A A - 49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 4,150 6D 5,700 0.73 C A - 50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 4,200 6D 7,866 0.53 A A - 51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 4,470 6D 7,866 0.57 A A - 52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 5,240 8D 6,384 0.82 D A –56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 4,590 6D 7,980 0.58 A A - 59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 3,670 6D 7,752 0.47 A A - 60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,040 6D 7,752 0.52 A A - 61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 4,660 6D 5,700 0.82 D A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,680 4U 2,660 1.01 F A - 74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 1,520 4U 3,800 0.40 A A - 75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 1,720 4U 4,788 0.36 A A - 81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 1,160 2U 1,482 0.78 C Note: Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 45 Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Table 4-4 presents the HCM results of peak hour delays and levels of service for the ramp termini intersections under 2030 No Project conditions. Detailed analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H-2. The analysis indicates that the following one Caltrans Ramp intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS in either peak hour. · SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive (PM Peak Hour) The ramp termini intersections have previously been evaluated based on the ICU methodology and in general the analysis LOS results are consistent. However, for two locations, the ramp termini intersections of SR-22 Westbound at Metropolitan Drive (I-98) and Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps (I-71), operate at different levels of service when comparing the ICU and HCM analysis. Intersection #98, SR-22 Westbound at Metropolitan Drive is deficient only under the HCM analysis indicating that the deficiency is generally the result of operational issues, such as insufficient or excessive signal timings for pedestrian crossings. Intersection #71, Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps is forecast to operate at LOS E under P.M. peak hour ICU analysis while the analysis resulted in a forecast P.M. peak hour LOS D condition. The coordination of signals under the future conditions analysis reduces the delay and provides a better LOS. Table 4-4: 2030 No Project Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ID Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS I - 9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 10.5 B 21.6 C I - 10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 15.2 B 7.8 A I - 17 I-5 Southbound Off Ramp / Disney Way 22.5 C 20.7 C I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 11.1 B 49.9 D I - 22 Anaheim Boulevard / Disney Way 23.5 C 29.6 C I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 26.8 C 24.9 C I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 16.3 B 27.7 C I - 37 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 30.0 C 19.6 B I - 55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 21.8 C 22.7 C I - 56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 54.1 D 20.0 B I - 66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 16.3 B 16.7 B I - 67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 24.7 C 20.4 C I - 68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.0 B 12.2 B I - 69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 24.9 C 11.4 B I - 70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 13.2 B 6.5 A I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 25.0 C 52.8 D I - 95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 29.0 C 36.4 D I - 97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 24.3 C 27.0 C I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 46.5 D 65.1 E I - 99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 4.9 A 4.3 A I - 100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 43.9 D 42.4 D Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Table 4-5 presents the off-ramp queue and control delay determined by for the study area off-ramp termini intersections under 2030 No Project conditions. Detailed queuing analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 46 worksheets are included in Appendix M-2. The analysis indicates that no Caltrans Ramp intersections are forecast to have a queuing length that is greater than the off-ramp storage length. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 47 Table 4-5: 2030 No Project Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Length Analysis ID Ramp Termini Intersection Off-Ramp # of Lanes Off-Ramp Storage Length (feet) Off-Ramp Queue Length Off-Ramp Control Delay (sec) Deficient Storage Length AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R I - 9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 400 1,280 70 110 120 240 22.5 33.7 24.5 51.9 No I - 10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 2 1 1,240 190 140 100 56.9 46.2 No I - 17 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way 1.33 0.33 1.33 940 380 380 210 220 170 180 60.5 62.5 56.5 58.3 No I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 720 720 1,710 100 10 50 100 20 71.9 18.9 25.8 60.5 18.6 No I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 3 0.5 1,540 1,060 300 260 510 570 42.7 35.5 69.2 60.0 No I - 37 I-5 HOV NB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 1 2 n/a 1,510 10 0 40 0 33.0 16.4 46.1 10.9 No I-5 HOV SB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 2 1 1,340 n/a 240 0 130 0 50.6 24.6 59.4 11.4 No I - 55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 2 1,580 690 690 180 190 70 80 81 150 69.8 59.3 20.7 49.8 47.3 48.6 No I - 56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 1.5 0.5 2 2,960 2,190 1,590 30 950 110 70 590 90 17.5 124.8 20.0 20.5 59.9 20.6 No I - 66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,030 680 240 240 230 210 45.9 58.0 47.6 54.4 No I - 67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1 2 1,290 570 520 350 370 250 43.5 28.0 55.7 39.2 No I - 68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 1,030 590 250 250 190 180 41.2 49.9 47.4 52.6 No I - 69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1 2 930 600 250 260 170 230 45.9 43.5 42.8 49.9 No I - 70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 650 350 130 210 50 50 38.6 64.6 39.8 43.2 No I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,050 630 340 230 200 120 240 180 247 75.3 61.1 34.9 116.8 90.1 76.0 No I - 95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 2 1 1,080 220 200 20 240 0 29.2 6.2 34.1 5.3 No I - 97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 1.33 0.33 1.33 870 650 400 180 190 160 170 62.1 63.3 57.6 59.5 No I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 2 0 2 900 320 150 200 420 30 32.5 22.3 102.7 8.0 No I - 99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 1 1 1,240 760 60 40 0 63.1 15.2 60.9 17.8 No I - 100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 0.5 0.5 1 580 1,000 270 40 130 110 87.4 15.3 50.3 26.9 No ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 48 Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis Table 4-6 summarizes HCM analysis results for the study area ramps for the AM and PM peak hours. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, a 2-lane on or off-ramp should be provided where volumes exceed 1,500 vehicles per hour during either the AM or PM peak hour. The Southbound SR-57 Off- Ramp to Ball Road forecast volume exceeds this criteria during the AM peak hour under No Project conditions and should be monitored; however there is no difference between the No Project and With Project volumes at this location, therefore the project has no responsibility for improvements at this location. Detailed analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I-2. According to the analysis, the following freeway ramps are deficient under either the AM or PM peak hour 2030 No Project conditions: · I-5 Northbound Connector from SR-22 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound Connector to SR-22 Westbound (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (AM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Off-Ramp to Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound On-Ramp from Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound On-Ramp from Haster Street (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 49 Table 4-6: 2030 No Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R - 1 I-5 NB Connector from SR-22 EB* 2 5,320 1,850 28.9 D 9,250 2,790 > Capacity F R - 2 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,170 340 25.0 C 12,040 420 > Capacity F R - 3 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard 2 6,830 1,130 11.9 B 11,620 840 > Capacity F R - 4 I-5 NB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way/Disney Way 1 1,400 50 12.4 B 1,950 140 17.4 B R - 5 I-5 NB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 5,700 230 18.9 B 10,780 430 > Capacity F R - 6 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue** 2 5,810 950 22.5 C 9,360 1,600 36.2 E R - 7 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 4,860 370 21.3 C 7,760 520 32.5 D R - 8 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,230 260 22.4 C 8,280 400 33.9 D R - 9 I-5 NB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way** 1 1,170 170 22.9 C 1,710 810 36.7 E R - 10 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,490 440 24.1 C 8,680 1,140 > Capacity F R - 11 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 5,780 800 24.2 C 9,920 1,010 37.8 E R - 12 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 4,980 290 21.1 C 8,910 700 > Capacity F R - 13 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 7,760 670 28.9 D 8,830 690 32.5 D R - 14 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 7,090 1,260 29.1 D 8,140 990 29.7 D R - 15 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Disney Way/Anaheim Boulevard 1 8,350 660 30.8 D 9,130 530 32.7 D R - 16 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue 2 6,130 750 29.6 D 7,770 360 37.6 E R - 17 I-5 SB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way 1 2,760 620 24.7 C 2,690 380 24.1 C R - 18 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,380 430 23.6 C 7,410 560 31.6 D R - 19 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,810 900 28.8 D 7,970 700 34.6 D R - 20 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 6,470 630 22.6 C 8,640 840 30.9 D R - 21 I-5 SB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 2,070 220 21.0 C 2,260 270 23.0 C R - 22 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,840 680 27.2 C 7,800 820 35.0 E ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 50 Table 4-6: 2030 No Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS, Continued ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R - 23 I-5 SB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard 1 6,520 230 19.9 B 8,620 320 26.0 C R - 24 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 6,750 480 20.1 C 8,940 670 25.1 C R - 25 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 WB 1 7,230 880 28.0 D 9,610 1,320 38.1 E R - 26 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 EB 2 6,350 1,040 11.1 B 8,290 1,330 16.1 B R - 27 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 3,790 160 23.2 C 5,150 180 29.8 D R - 28 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue WB 1 6,270 260 17.8 B 9,710 420 25.2 C R - 29 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue EB 1 5,790 220 19.0 B 9,410 300 28.7 D R - 30 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 6,270 710 25.2 C 10,130 310 34.3 D R - 31 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue WB 1 5,860 220 19.2 B 10,120 660 34.0 D R - 32 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue EB 1 5,560 300 19.0 B 9,820 300 30.1 D R - 33 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 5,320 970 23.2 C 9,020 750 33.0 D R - 34 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 4,750 220 16.6 B 8,760 500 28.2 D R - 35 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 4,350 400 17.0 B 8,270 490 26.4 C R - 36 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 4,780 910 22.0 C 9,300 860 34.5 D R - 37 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 4,390 420 17.3 B 9,090 900 32.5 D R - 38 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 3,870 520 16.7 B 8,440 650 28.3 D R - 39 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 8,430 1,770 36.5 E 8,250 1,150 32.6 D R - 40 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 6,660 240 26.8 C 7,100 500 30.3 D R - 41 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 6,900 670 31.0 D 7,600 560 32.5 D R - 42 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 8,140 1,020 38.2 E 8,360 790 37.9 E R - 43 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 7,120 260 28.5 D 7,570 500 26.0 C R - 44 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 7,380 180 28.7 D 8,070 460 33.3 D R - 45 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 7,980 870 30.3 D 8,980 860 33.5 D R - 46 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 7,110 230 28.2 D 8,120 650 35.0 D R - 47 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,340 530 26.4 C 8,770 680 31.9 D R - 48 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 1,340 430 17.1 B 1,660 600 21.2 C R - 49 SR-22 EB Off-Ramp to Fairview Street 1 6,970 230 29.2 D 8,530 300 35.8 E R - 50 SR-22 EB On-Ramp from Fairview Street 1 6,740 980 32.8 D 8,230 1,360 > Capacity F R - 51 SR-22 EB Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street** 3 6,990 5,010 33.1 D 8,680 6,690 > Capacity F R - 52 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive 1 5,010 330 29.2 D 6,690 460 > Capacity F R - 53 SR-22 EB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 2,680 2,090 25.5 C 3,030 2,950 34.0 D R - 54 SR-22 WB Connector to I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,340 1,830 13.8 B 6,470 2,300 22.2 C R - 55 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from The City Drive 1 2,000 380 22.2 C 2,480 470 26.9 C R - 56 SR-22 WB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,660 2,000 24.1 C 7,200 2,480 33.0 D R - 57 SR-22 WB Off-Ramp to Haster Street 2 7,040 640 11.7 B 10,150 870 20.9 C R - 58 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from Haster Street 1 6,400 550 28.2 D 9,280 790 > Capacity F * Major Merge Analysis Utilized to calculate density pc/mi/ln - Passenger Cars per Mile per Lane Major Diverge Analysis Utilized to calculate density ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 51 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis Table 4-7 summarizes HCS analysis results for the densities and levels of service for study area mainline segments for the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed analysis worksheets are included in Appendix J-2. According to the analysis the following freeway mainline segments are deficient under either the AM or PM peak hours of which eleven segments perform deficiently also under existing conditions (indicated by · I-5 Northbound between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)* · I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour)* · I-5 Southbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (AM and PM Peak Hour)* · I-5 Northbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)* · I-5 Southbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)* · I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour)* · I-5 Northbound between 4th Street and SR-55 (PM Peak Hour)* · SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (AM and PM Peak Hour)* · SR-57 Northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)* · SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street (PM Peak Hour)* · SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street (PM Peak Hour)* · SR-22 Westbound between Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 (PM Peak Hour) Table 4-7: 2030 No Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS ID Freeway Segment Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F - 1 I-5 between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street 6,020 18.9 C 9,820 35.3 E 6,950 18.2 C 7,690 20.2 C F - 2 I-5 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,300 19.8 C 10,230 38.4 E 7,110 22.5 C 8,840 29.5 D F - 3 I-5 between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue 6,300 19.8 C 10,600 41.7 E 7,670 33.7 D 8,860 > 45.0 F F - 4 I-5 between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard 6,460 20.3 C 11,010 > 45.0 F 7,760 24.8 C 8,830 29.5 D F - 5 I-5 between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue 5,780 18.2 C 9,920 36.0 E 6,130 19.3 C 7,770 24.9 C F - 6 I-5 between Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard 5,810 18.3 C 9,360 32.3 D 6,470 20.3 C 8,640 28.6 D F - 7 I-5 between State College Boulevard and SR-22 6,830 17.7 B 11,620 33.8 D 8,180 21.3 C 10,020 26.6 D ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 52 Table 4-7: 2030 No Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS, Continued ID Freeway Segment Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F - 8 I-5 between SR-22 and 17th Street 8,350 21.6 C 14,380 > 45.0 F 12,120 36.3 E 14,470 > 45.0 F F - 9 I-5 between 17th Street and Grand Avenue 8,760 22.8 C 13,700 > 45.0 F 10,230 27.5 D 12,870 41.5 E F - 10 I-5 between Grand Avenue and 4th Street 8,620 22.4 C 13,310 > 45.0 F 9,950 26.5 D 12,710 40.2 E F - 11 I-5 between 4th Street and SR-55 8,580 22.3 C 13,030 42.8 E 8,900 23.2 C 11,600 33.4 D F - 12 SR-57 between SR-22 and Orangewood Avenue 6,270 16.2 B 10,130 27.1 D 7,010 21.8 C 8,300 26.5 D F - 13 SR-57 between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue 5,320 16.5 B 9,020 29.8 D 7,980 25.2 C 8,980 29.6 D F - 14 SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Ball Road 4,780 14.8 B 9,300 31.3 D 8,140 36.8 E 8,360 39.0 E F - 15 SR-57 between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 5,230 16.2 B 10,010 35.6 E 8,430 27.1 D 8,250 26.3 D F - 16 SR-57 between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue 5,090 15.8 B 10,640 40.6 E 9,060 23.6 C 8,720 22.7 C F - 17 SR-22 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,700 26.7 D 8,090 36.0 E 5,640 21.8 C 8,580 40.9 E F - 18 SR-22 between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard 7,130 29.0 D 8,630 41.6 E 6,210 24.3 C 9,240 > 45.0 F F - 19 SR-22 between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street 6,970 28.1 D 8,530 40.4 E 6,370 25.0 C 9,390 > 45.0 F F - 20 SR-22 between Fairview Street/Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 6,990 21.6 C 8,680 28.0 D 7,040 21.8 C 10,150 36.3 E F - 21 SR-22 between I-5 and Main Street 4,860 18.7 C 6,090 23.7 C 4,340 16.7 B 6,470 25.5 C F - 22 SR-22 between Main Street and Glassell Street 4,210 16.2 B 6,360 25.0 C 4,400 17.0 B 5,870 22.8 C F - 23 SR-22 between Glassell Street and SR-55 3,320 10.2 A 5,310 16.4 B 4,440 17.1 B 5,180 20.0 C Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis Tables 4-8 and 4-9 summarize HCS analysis results for the weaving areas for the study area freeways for the AM and PM peak hours. Under the 2030 No Project scenario, there are several freeway weaves identified as being deficient in either the AM or PM peak hours. Detailed HCM weaving analysis worksheets for this alternative are included in Appendix K-2. The deficient segments are as follows: · I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 53 · I-5 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 Southbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off- Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 Eastbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Eastbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector / Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 Southbound Connector (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between SR-57 Southbound Connector and Town and Country Road Off- Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 Northbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 54 · SR-22 Eastbound between Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) Table 4-8: 2030 No Project Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 1 I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp 2,980 Not Applicable I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 3,390 W - 2 I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 2,890 I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,000 5,610 10 460 220 21.9 B W - 4 I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,680 5,610 20 540 290 22.9 B I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 6,400 40 630 690 32.8 D W - 6 I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,080 4,130 40 760 850 24.0 C I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 7 I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,350 4,640 10 940 220 20.9 B I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,870 4,990 50 580 850 26.5 C W - 8 I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,720 3,880 90 250 1,760 24.1 C I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 1,510 5,720 10 870 220 27.4 C W - 9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 1,740 4,880 60 870 1,150 27.8 C W - 10 I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 1,530 6,470 10 1,250 280 34.1 D I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp 1,510 9,060 30 440 570 > Capacity F W - 11 I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 2,110 6,300 20 510 470 27.7 C I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,260 7,360 30 630 510 36.5 E W - 12 I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 1,820 6,350 20 370 440 27.2 C I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp 2,500 7,350 20 600 320 28.8 C W - 13 I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 1,750 4,040 120 670 2,320 32.0 D I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 1,580 4,830 40 1,860 690 31.8 C W - 14 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 4,270 10 700 250 18.9 B SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,140 6,260 10 520 220 28.1 C W - 15 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 4,140 10 960 210 19.7 B SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,780 6,940 10 860 170 31.5 C W - 16 SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 3,660 10 900 210 17.0 B SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 6,480 30 990 640 38.8 E W - 17 SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 4,950 Not Applicable SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 W - 18 SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 2,250 3,630 20 1,050 390 18.8 B SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 5,540 60 780 1,170 34.0 D W - 19 SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 3,370 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 5,270 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 55 Table 4-8: 2030 No Project Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS, Continued ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 20 SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,640 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,260 4,850 20 940 400 28.6 C W - 21 SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off-Ramp 2,770 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 22 SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp 2,350 1,050 50 4,960 930 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp 2,390 6,040 20 620 360 24.4 B W - 23 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp 970 4,520 30 160 490 38.6 E SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp 1,430 6,130 30 1,160 530 39.6 E W - 24 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector 850 3,370 40 1,640 800 > Capacity F W - 25 SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp 1,180 1,590 100 1,180 1,990 33.0 D SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 1,810 1,780 40 1,790 730 25.5 C W - 26 SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 1,250 2,830 40 620 720 24.0 C SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp 1,270 3,040 30 810 520 24.9 C W - 27 SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp 2,780 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 3,040 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 56 Table 4-9: 2030 No Project Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 1 I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp 2,980 Not Applicable I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 3,390 W - 2 I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 2,890 I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,000 9,640 20 640 300 38.2 E W - 4 I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,680 9,830 20 690 470 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 7,170 50 640 970 38.6 E W - 6 I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,080 7,830 60 950 1,080 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 7 I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,350 7,350 20 1,580 410 36.2 E I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,870 7,120 20 820 680 36.1 E W - 8 I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,720 6,960 140 280 2,650 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 1,510 6,730 20 1,300 300 36.1 E W - 9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 1,740 8,930 90 1,180 1,780 > Capacity F W - 10 I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 1,530 11,360 20 1,430 380 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp 1,510 10,480 50 660 870 > Capacity F W - 11 I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 2,110 9,970 40 700 710 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,260 9,180 40 780 730 > Capacity F W - 12 I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 1,820 9,950 30 500 610 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp 2,500 9,280 30 810 470 38.1 E W - 13 I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 1,750 6,400 180 930 3,350 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 1,580 6,210 50 2,440 970 > Capacity F W - 14 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 7,730 20 290 400 30.0 C SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,140 7,000 30 650 620 36.6 E W - 15 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 7,640 30 720 630 34.0 D SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,780 7,680 20 840 440 37.0 E W - 16 SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 7,970 30 830 470 33.8 D SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 7,040 30 760 530 38.5 E W - 17 SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 4,950 Not Applicable SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 W - 18 SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 2,250 8,460 40 1,480 660 > Capacity F SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 4,570 90 980 1,630 36.5 E W - 19 SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 3,370 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 5,270 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 57 Table 4-9: 2030 No Project Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS, Continued ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 20 SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,640 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,260 7,430 30 1,220 560 > Capacity F W - 21 SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off-Ramp 2,770 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 22 SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp 2,350 6,930 70 390 1,290 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp 2,390 8,830 20 850 450 36.4 E W - 23 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp 970 8,430 40 220 690 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp 1,430 9,020 40 1,210 660 > Capacity F W - 24 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector 850 7,090 60 2,290 1,100 > Capacity F W - 25 SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp 1,180 1,480 150 1,660 2,800 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 1,810 3,090 60 2,240 1,080 > Capacity F W - 26 SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 1,250 4,210 70 750 1,330 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp 1,270 3,870 40 1,130 830 37.5 E W - 27 SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp 2,780 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 3,040 Summary As demonstrated in the traffic analysis, the performance of circulation system in the Platinum Triangle study area is forecast to deteriorate under 2030 No Project conditions when compared with existing conditions. The following section analyzes the study under the 2030 buildout conditions, with the application of the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 58 5.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The analysis for the 2030 with project scenario was performed through the application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to develop future traffic forecast volumes throughout the Platinum Triangle and surrounding study area with the buildout land uses assumed from the full buildout of the Proposed Project. Based on the citywide land use data and regional socioeconomic growth projections, future trip activity with implementation of the Proposed Project is estimated and assigned to the circulation system. External to the Platinum Triangle throughout the City of Anaheim, adopted land uses are assumed. For the City of Orange, Proposed Project land uses under the current General Plan Update (October 2008) have been incorporated into ATAM. Intersection Analysis The intersection analysis describes the effect of future growth on the study area intersections, with the Proposed Project. Table 5-1 presents ICU and LOS results for the study intersections under 2030 With Project conditions during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Figure 5-1 presents the study intersection locations and LOS under future forecast With Project conditions. As both the No Project and With Project 2030 analysis reflect the circulation system buildout, future lane geometrics were assumed in the ICU and LOS analyses. The detailed ICU worksheets for the With Project conditions are presented in Appendix E-3. Tables summarizing the Adopted General Plan lane geometrics and the With Project AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes are included in Appendix F and Appendix G-2, respectively. Under these conditions, the following intersections are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS, including six intersections located within the City of Orange and one shared intersection between Anaheim and Orange: · Euclid Street at Katella Avenue · Ninth Street at Katella Avenue · Disneyland Drive at Ball Road · Disneyland Drive/West Street at Katella Avenue · Harbor Boulevard at Ball Road · Harbor Boulevard at Katella Avenue · Anaheim Boulevard at Vermont Avenue · Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue · Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 NB Ramps · Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street at Katella Avenue · Haster Street at Gene Autry Way · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue · Lewis Street at Cerritos Avenue · Lewis Street at Katella Avenue · Lewis Street at Anaheim Connector (future) · State College Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue · State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 59 · State College Boulevard at Gateway Center Drive · State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way · State College Boulevard at Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim/Orange) · State College Boulevard/The City Drive at Chapman Avenue (Orange) · Sunkist Street at Howell Avenue · Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue · Sportstown at Katella Avenue · Rampart Street at Orangewood Avenue · Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps (Orange) · Douglass Road at Katella Avenue · Main Street at Collins Avenue (Orange) · Glassell Street at Katella Avenue (Orange) · The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard (Orange) Table 5-1: 2030 With Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.87 D 0.94 E I - 2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.97 E I - 3 Walnut Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.73 C 0.72 C I - 4 Walnut Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 0.88 D I - 5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.87 D 0.92 E I - 6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.96 E 0.94 E I - 7 Harbor Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.78 C I - 8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 1.10 F 0.96 E I - 9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.74 C 0.79 C I - 10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 0.61 B 0.51 A I - 11 Harbor Boulevard / Disney Way Anaheim 0.51 A 0.86 D I - 12 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.81 D 0.94 E I - 13 Harbor Boulevard / Convention Way Anaheim 0.61 B 0.81 D I - 14 Harbor Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.90 D I - 15 Clementine Street / Disney Way Anaheim 0.57 A 0.57 A I - 16 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.66 B 0.90 D I - 17 I-5 Southbound Off Ramp / Disney Way Anaheim 0.50 A 0.45 A I - 18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.92 E 0.89 D I - 19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.88 D 1.01 F I - 20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 1.03 F I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.66 B 0.95 E I - 22 Anaheim Boulevard / Disney Way Anaheim 0.71 C 0.85 D I - 23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.92 E I - 24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.95 E 1.16 F I - 25 Haster Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.79 C 0.83 D I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.77 C 0.80 C ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 60 Table 5-1: 2030 With Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.90 D I - 28 East Street / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.78 C 0.64 B I - 29 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.86 D 0.81 D I - 30 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.79 C 0.90 D I - 31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.95 E I - 32 Lewis Street / North Connector Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.50 A I - 33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 1.28 F I - 34 Lewis Street / Anaheim Way Anaheim 0.41 A 0.89 D I - 35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim 0.74 C 1.07 F I - 36 Lewis Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.64 B 0.84 D I - 37 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.53 A 0.76 C I - 38 Lewis Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.62 B 0.60 A I - 39 Manchester Avenue / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.76 C 0.81 D I - 40 Anaheim Way / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.66 B I - 41 Market Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.74 C 0.86 D I - 42 Market Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.42 A 0.69 B I - 43 Orange Center Drive / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.74 C 0.77 C I - 44 State College Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.76 C 0.65 B I - 45 State College Boulevard / Wagner Avenue Anaheim 0.70 B 0.68 B I - 46 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.73 C 0.90 D I - 47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.96 E 0.87 D I - 48 State College Boulevard / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.67 B 0.82 D I - 49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.99 E I - 50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 1.04 F 1.19 F I - 51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 1.02 F 0.84 D I - 52 State College Boulevard / Artisan Street Anaheim 0.73 C 0.70 B I - 53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.91 E 0.97 E I - 54 State College Boulevard / Orange Center Drive Anaheim/ Orange 0.72 C 0.59 A I - 55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.77 C 0.74 C I - 56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.90 D 0.80 C I - 57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E I - 58 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.86 D 0.89 D I - 59 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.79 C 0.76 C I - 60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.69 B 0.93 E I - 61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.62 B 0.95 E I - 62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.77 C 0.98 E I - 63 Dupont Drive / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.65 B I - 64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.78 C 1.13 F I - 65 Rampart Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.73 C 0.84 D I - 66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.68 B 0.73 C I - 67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 0.85 D 0.88 D ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 61 Table 5-1: 2030 With Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.68 B 0.73 C I - 69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.71 C 0.69 B I - 70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.78 C 0.81 D I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.84 D 1.04 F I - 72 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.82 D 0.87 D I - 73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.04 F 1.09 F I - 74 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.81 D I - 75 Eckhoff Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.66 B 0.76 C I - 76 Eckhoff Street / Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.90 D 0.90 D I - 77 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.69 B 0.88 D I - 78 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.80 C 0.81 D I - 79 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.80 C 0.67 B I - 80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E I - 81 Main Street / Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.65 B 0.78 C I - 82 Main Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.88 D I - 83 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.86 D I - 84 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.77 C 0.77 C I - 85 Batavia Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.86 D 0.86 D I - 86 Batavia Street / Walnut Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.85 D I - 87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.77 C 0.92 E I - 88 Glassell Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.76 C 0.74 C I - 89 Glassell Street / Walnut Avenue Orange 0.69 B 0.72 C I - 90 Santiago Boulevard / Meats Avenue Orange 0.86 D 0.70 B I - 91 Clementine Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.58 A 0.85 D I - 92 Clementine Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.61 B 0.76 C I - 93 Flower Street / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.56 A 0.78 C I - 94 Harbor Boulevard / Chapman Avenue Anaheim 0.69 B 0.83 D I - 95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.60 A 0.73 C I - 96 Rampart Street / Town Center Place (South) Anaheim 0.69 B 0.89 D I - 97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive Orange 0.61 B 0.73 C I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.69 B 0.90 D I - 99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.63 B 0.65 B I - 100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.78 C 0.83 D I - 101 State College Boulevard / Winston Road Anaheim 0.55 A 0.58 A I - 102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.97 E 1.09 F I - 103 The City Drive / Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.78 C 0.66 B ---PAGE BREAK--- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L ao lo A Nd b CT o ao melbNfu C ir B a o V4 VO VN NMP VT VU NMO VV VP NMM VS CeAmjAN Asb dbNb ArTov tv dAoabN dolsb Bisa oa NMN BofpTli pT dAoabN dolsb Bisa BAii oa tbpT pT pTATb Cliibdb Bisa BAii oa NfNTe pT eAoBlo Bisa brCifa pT sbojlNT Asb bApT pT iA sbTA Asb plrTe pT ANAebfj Bisa tAiNrT pT TAcT Asb oAjmAoT pT hATbiiA Asb Asb ibtfp pT ibtfp pT CboofTlp Asb CliifNp Asb eApTbo pT tAdNbo Asb Teb CfTv ao jAfN pT pTorCh Asb jbjlov iN bChelcc pT pT diAppbii pT jbjlov iN pT tAiNrT Asb BATAsfA pT dATbtAv ao t cibTCebo Asb tv cfobBoANa pT alrdiApp oa pT ANAebfj tv eltbii Asb jAohbT pT jAfNmiACb ao ao tv CboofTlp Asb hATbiiA Asb AoTfpAN pT CeAmjAN Asb jANCebpTbo Asb T V S N O 4 U R P 44 TV T4 TO SR S4 SP SO R4 RO RM 4P 4O 4N PO OU NU NS UT UU UV SS ST SU TN TM TR TS SV SN 4U SM RS RR TP RV RP U4 TU UO RT UR UM US UN TT NT ON OT OM NM OO NP NO OS NN NR N4 OR O4 OP PM PP 4V RN PN 4T 4M PU PV 4S 4R RU NV OV UP cigure 5-1W O0P0 tith Project Peak eour Intersection iOS M M M M L L L L PR PS P4 PT ? ê ? ê ? l M L pANTf Adl B isa jbATp Asb ? k A N A e b f j Cl N Nb C T lo dbNb ArTov tv ANAebfj tv pA NTA ANA ofsbo dAoabN dolsb ANAebfj pANTA ANA loANdb INSET els oAjmp NORTH ORANGE ibtfp pT j b T o l m lifTAN ao VM VR LEGEND AM LOS PM LOS jajor ooadway oailroad L Acceptable ilp L aeficient ilp M Acceptable ilp M aeficient ilp tater Area Adjacent Area City of Anaheim µ els iane deneral murpose iane INSET M MKO MK4 jiles mlatinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 63 Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis Table 5-2 presents 2030 With Project average daily traffic (ADT) and LOS for all study area arterial segments. There are six segments in the City of Orange operating at LOS E or F, the threshold for deficiency within the City of Orange. Segments operating at LOS D, E, or F under daily conditions within the City of Anaheim are further analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions in the following section. The table indicates that the following arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS under future forecast With Project conditions: · Anaheim Boulevard from I-5 to Cerritos Avenue · Anaheim Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road · Anaheim Way from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue · Ball Road from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard · Ball Road from Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard · Ball Road from Anaheim Boulevard to East Street · Ball Road from East Street to State College Boulevard · Ball Road from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street · Ball Road from Sunkist Street to SR-57 · Ball Road from SR-57 to Main Street (City of Orange segment) · Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douglass Road · Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment) · Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street (City of Orange segment) · Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Eckhoff Street from Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue (City of Orange segment) · Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard · Harbor Boulevard from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue · Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Convention Way · Harbor Boulevard from Convention Way to Katella Avenue · Harbor Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Disney Way · Harbor Boulevard from Disney Way to Manchester Avenue · Harbor Boulevard from Manchester Avenue to I-5 · Howell Avenue from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street · Katella Avenue from Euclid Street to Ninth Street · Katella Avenue from Ninth Street to Walnut Street · Katella Avenue from Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive · Katella Avenue from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard · Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way · Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Street · Katella Avenue from Sportstown to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue from Howell Avenue to SR-57 · Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment) · Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Manchester Avenue from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue · Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street · Orangewood Avenue from Haster Street to Manchester Boulevard · Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Rampart Street ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 64 · Orangewood Avenue from Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway · Phoenix Club Drive from Honda Center to Ball Road · Rampart Street from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue · State College Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Howell Avenue · Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment) Table 5-2: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A - 1 Anaheim Boulevard Katella Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 31,080 6D 56,300 0.55 A A - 2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 55,320 6D 56,300 0.98 E A - 3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 46,190 6D 56,300 0.82 D A - 4 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 39,160 6D 56,300 0.70 B A - 5 Anaheim Way State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Orange 15,130 3D 28,150 0.54 A A - 6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 26,650 3D 28,150 0.95 E A - 7 Anaheim Way Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 18,110 3D 28,150 0.64 B A - 8 Ball Road Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 42,390 6D 56,300 0.75 C A - 9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 58,690 6D 56,300 1.04 F A - 10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 47,460 6D 56,300 0.84 D A - 11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 46,390 6D 56,300 0.82 D A - 12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 47,540 6D 56,300 0.84 D A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 48,590 6D 56,300 0.86 D A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 61,800 6D 56,300 1.10 F A - 15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 60,250 6D 56,300 1.07 F A - 16 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Lewis Street Anaheim 30,130 4D 37,500 0.80 C A - 17 Cerritos Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 29,510 4D 37,500 0.79 C A - 18 Cerritos Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 19,870 4U 25,000 0.79 C A - 19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 26,820 4U 25,000 1.07 F A - 20 Chapman Avenue State College Boulevard SR-57 Freeway Orange 38,400 6D 56,300 0.68 B A - 21 Chapman Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 33,930 6D 56,300 0.60 A A - 22 The City Drive SR-22 Freeway Chapman Avenue Orange 33,030 8D 75,000 0.44 A A - 23 Clementine Street Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim 9,010 4U 25,000 0.36 A A - 24 Clementine Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 5,720 4U 25,000 0.23 A A - 25 Clementine Street Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim 8,470 4U 25,000 0.34 A A - 26 Collins Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 20,830 4U 24,000 0.87 D A - 27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 23,650 4U 24,000 0.99 E A - 28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 21,820 4U 24,000 0.91 E A - 29 Disney Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 17,040 6D 56,300 0.30 A A - 30 Disney Way Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 26,660 6D 56,300 0.47 A A - 31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 28,540 4U 25,000 1.14 F A - 32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 27,760 4U 24,000 1.16 F A - 33 Gene Autry Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 24,940 6D 56,300 0.44 A A - 34 Gene Autry Way Clementine Street Haster Street Anaheim 30,800 6D 56,300 0.55 A A - 35 Gene Autry Way Haster Street I-5 Freeway Anaheim 38,780 6D 56,300 0.69 B A - 36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 45,660 6D 56,300 0.81 D A - 37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 50,300 6D 56,300 0.89 D A - 38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 47,440 6D 56,300 0.84 D A - 39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 50,350 6D 56,300 0.89 D A - 40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 56,730 6D 56,300 1.01 F A - 41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 54,500 6D 56,300 0.97 E ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 65 Table 5-2: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS, Continued ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A - 42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 57,240 7D 65,625 0.87 D A - 43 Harbor Boulevard I-5 Freeway Ball Road Anaheim 59,290 8D 75,000 0.79 C A - 44 Harbor Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 38,240 6D 56,300 0.68 B A - 45 Haster Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 38,010 6D 56,300 0.68 B A - 46 Haster Street Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 39,830 6D 56,300 0.71 C A - 47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 22,000 4U 25,000 0.88 D A - 48 Howell Avenue Sunkist Street Katella Avenue Anaheim 7,910 4U 25,000 0.32 A A - 49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 50,900 6D 56,300 0.90 D A - 50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 48,170 6D 56,300 0.86 D A - 51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 56,930 6D 56,300 1.01 F A - 52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 67,110 8D 75,000 0.89 D A - 53 Katella Avenue Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 59,070 8D 75,000 0.79 C A - 54 Katella Avenue Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 59,650 8D 75,000 0.80 C A - 55 Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Anaheim 57,520 8D 75,000 0.77 C A - 56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 71,090 6D 56,300 1.26 F A - 56b Katella Avenue Anaheim Way Lewis Street Anaheim 71,090 8D 75,000 0.95 E A - 57 Katella Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 57,860 8D 75,000 0.77 C A - 58 Katella Avenue State College Boulevard Sportstown Anaheim 51,920 8D 75,000 0.69 B A - 59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 62,310 6D 56,300 1.11 F A - 60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 71,190 6D 56,300 1.26 F A - 61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 62,900 6D 56,300 1.12 F A - 62 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 51,570 6D 59,115 0.87 E A - 63 Katella Avenue* Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 49,250 6D 59,115 0.83 D A - 64 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 25,710 4D 37,500 0.69 B A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 32,900 4U 25,000 1.32 F A - 66 Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 22,950 4D 37,500 0.61 B A - 67 Main Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Orange 40,550 6D 56,300 0.72 C A - 68 Main Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 29,410 6D 56,300 0.52 A A - 69 Main Street Collins Avenue Katella Avenue Orange 31,360 4D 37,500 0.84 D A - 70 Main Street Katella Avenue Taft Avenue Orange 21,730 4D 37,500 0.58 A A - 71 Manchester Avenue Compton Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 16,050 3D 28,150 0.57 A A - 72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 23,810 3D 28,150 0.85 D A - 73 Manchester Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 14,740 3D 28,150 0.52 A A - 74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 21,480 4U 25,000 0.86 D A - 75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 25,910 4U 25,000 1.04 F A - 76 Orangewood Avenue** Manchester Avenue State College Boulevard Anaheim/ Orange 34,410 6D 56,300 0.61 B A - 77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 50,380 6D 56,300 0.89 D A - 78 Orangewood Avenue** Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim/ Orange 47,660 6D 56,300 0.85 D A - 79 Orangewood Avenue SR-57 Freeway Eckhoff Street Orange 49,090 6D 56,300 0.87 D A - 80 Orangewood Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 19,610 6D 56,300 0.35 A A - 81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 13,510 2U 12,500 1.08 F A - 82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 22,510 4U 25,000 0.90 D A - 83 State College Boulevard Chapman Avenue I-5 Freeway Orange 45,860 8D 75,000 0.61 B A - 84 State College Boulevard I-5 Freeway Orangewood Avenue Orange 48,060 8D 75,000 0.64 B A - 85 State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim 46,900 8D 75,000 0.63 B ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 66 Table 5-2: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS, Continued ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A - 86 State College Boulevard Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 34,920 6D 56,300 0.62 B A - 87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 46,470 6D 56,300 0.83 D A - 88 State College Boulevard Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 31,130 6D 56,300 0.55 A A - 89 State College Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 28,570 6D 56,300 0.51 A A - 90 State College Boulevard Ball Road Wagner Avenue Anaheim 35,100 6D 56,300 0.62 B A - 91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street Orange 15,500 2U 12,000 1.29 F A - 92 Sunkist Street Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 12,610 4U 25,000 0.50 A A - 93 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 12,000 4U 25,000 0.48 A A - 94 Walnut Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 9,710 2U 12,000 0.81 D A - 95 Walnut Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 9,860 2U 12,000 0.82 D Note: * Smart Street segments in Orange include a 5% capacity enhancement Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken NA - Not Applicable Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis Table 5-3 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS for the deficient arterial segments forecast under 2030 With Project conditions identified above in the City of Anaheim. The table indicates that there are four segments projected to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hour: · Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douglass Road · Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way Table 5-3: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS AM Peak Hour A - 2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 3,320 6D 5,586 0.59 A A - 3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 2,870 6D 5,586 0.51 A A - 6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 1,820 3D 4,370 0.42 A A - 9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 3,780 6D 5,358 0.71 C A - 10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 2,750 6D 5,358, 0.51 A A - 11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 3,200 6D 4,788 0.67 B A - 12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 3,310 6D 4,674 0.71 C A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 3,250 6D 4,674 0.70 B A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,520 6D 7,286 0.62 B A - 19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 2,380 4U 2,584 0.92 E A - 31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,150 4U 1,824 1.18 F A - 36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 3,300 6D 4,560 0.72 C A - 37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,550 6D 5,358 0.48 A A - 38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 2,560 6D 5,814 0.44 A A - 39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 2,730 6D 5,814 0.47 A A - 40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 2,990 6D 6,042 0.49 A A - 41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 3,140 6D 6,042 0.52 A A - 42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 3,280 7D 8,911 0.37 A A - 47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 1,720 4U 2,508 0.69 B ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 67 Table 5-3: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS, Continued ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS AM Peak Hour A - 49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 3,550 6D 5,358 0.81 D A - 50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 2,780 6D 7,980 0.53 A A - 51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 3,730 6D 10,640 0.43 A A - 52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 3,590 8D 7,600 0.71 C A - 56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 5,360 6D 5,586 0.96 E A - 56b Katella Avenue Anaheim Way Lewis Street Anaheim 5,360 8D 7,448 0.72 C A - 59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 4,020 6D 7,524 0.53 A A - 60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,530 6D 7,524 0.60 A A - 61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 4,960 6D 6,384 0.78 C A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,970 4U 3,040 0.99 E A - 72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 2,100 3D 2,508 0.84 D A - 74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 1,200 4U 3,800 0.32 A A - 75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 2,000 4U 5,168 0.39 A A - 77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 3,280 6D 6,156 0.53 A A - 78 Orangewood Avenue Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 3,730 6D 6,612 0.56 A A - 81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 1,140 2U 1,482 0.77 C A - 82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,010 4U 2,964 0.68 B A - 87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 2,490 6D 3,762 0.66 B PM Peak Hour A - 2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 5,090 6D 5,700 0.89 D A - 3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 4,300 6D 7,902 0.88 D A - 6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 3,610 3D 4,180 0.86 D A - 9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 4,100 6D 5,130 0.80 C A - 10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 3,100 6D 3,990 0.78 C A - 11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 3,550 6D 6,156 0.58 A A - 12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 3,520 6D 6,156 0.57 A A - 13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 3,800 6D 5,814 0.65 B A - 14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,770 6D 7,296 0.65 B A - 19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 2,570 4D 3,268 0.79 C A - 31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,290 4U 2,508 0.91 E A - 36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 4,210 6D 5,358 0.79 C A - 37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 3,390 6D 3,876 0.87 D A - 38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 3,260 6D 4,446 0.73 C A - 39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 3,580 6D 4,104 0.87 D A - 40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 3,560 6D 4,902 0.73 C A - 41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 3,730 6D 4,902 0.76 C A - 42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 3,810 7D 9,975 0.38 A A - 47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 2,130 4U 2,812 0.76 C A - 49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 4,320 6D 5,358 0.81 D A - 50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 4,260 6D 7,980 0.53 A A - 51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 4,540 6D 10,640 0.43 A A - 52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 5,380 8D 7,600 0.71 C A - 56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 5,360 6D 5,586 0.96 E A - 56b Katella Avenue Anaheim Way Lewis Street Anaheim 5,360 8D 7,448 0.72 C ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 68 Table 5-3: 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS, Continued ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS PM Peak Hour A - 59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 4,020 6D 7,524 0.53 A A - 60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,530 6D 7,524 0.60 A A - 61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 4,960 6D 6,384 0.78 C A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 3,020 4U 3,040 0.99 E A - 72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 2,100 3D 2,508 0.84 D A - 74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 1,520 4U 3,800 0.40 A A - 75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 2,000 4U 5,168 0.39 A A - 77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 3,280 6D 6,156 0.53 A A - 78 Orangewood Avenue Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 3,730 6D 6,612 0.56 A A - 81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 1,140 2U 1,482 0.77 C A - 82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,010 4U 2,964 0.68 B A - 87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 4,390 6D 5,928 0.74 C NA - Not Applicable Note: Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Table 5-4 below presents the results of peak hour delays and levels of service for the ramp termini intersections under the future forecast With Project conditions. Detailed analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H-3. The table indicates that five Caltrans ramp intersections operate at an unacceptable LOS in either the AM or PM peak hour: · Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 NB Ramps (PM peak hour) · Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue (PM peak hour) · Anaheim Way (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue (PM peak hour) · Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps (PM peak hour) · SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive (PM Peak Hour) The ramp termini intersections have previously been evaluated based on the ICU methodology and in general the analysis LOS results are consistent. However, two ramp termini intersections in particular operate at different levels of service when comparing the ICU and HCM analysis: Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue, SR-22 Westbound at Metropolitan Drive (I-98). These intersections are deficient only under the HCM analysis indicating that the deficiency is generally the result of operational issues, such as insufficient or excessive signal timings for pedestrian crossings. For these deficient locations, improvement strategies for the above locations will be applied for both analysis methodologies. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 69 Table 5-4: 2030 With Project Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ID Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS I-9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 11.0 B 21.8 C I-10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 8.8 A 9.4 A I-17 I-5 Southbound Off Ramp / Disney Way 21.7 C 16.9 B I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 10.5 B 83.1 F I-22 Anaheim Boulevard / Disney Way 25.4 C 46.3 D I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 40.8 D 75.7 E I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 24.6 C 88.9 F I-37 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 35.5 D 18.5 B I-55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 32.1 C 27.2 C I-56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 54.1 D 24.2 C I-66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 15.6 B 14.7 B I-67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 24.9 C 24.8 C I-68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 11.4 B 11.9 B I-69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 19.9 B 10.9 B I-70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 12.4 B 9.4 A I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 30.0 C 81.1 F I-95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 23.2 C 29.6 C I-97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 23.9 C 31.2 C I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 51.9 D 68.2 E I-99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 5.1 A 4.6 A I-100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 47.9 D 54.5 D Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Table 5-5 presents the off-ramp queue and control delay determined by for the study area off-ramp termini intersections under 2030 With Project conditions. Detailed queuing analysis worksheets are included in Appendix M-3. The analysis indicates that no Caltrans Ramp intersections are forecast to have a queuing length that is greater than the off-ramp storage length. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 70 Table 5-5: 2030 With Project Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Length Analysis ID Ramp Termini Intersection Off-Ramp # of Lanes Off-Ramp Storage Length (feet) Off-Ramp Queue Length Control Delay (sec) Deficient Storage Length AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R I - 9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 400 1,280 80 120 160 320 23.0 35.6 30.2 60.9 No I - 10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 2 1 1,240 190 140 120 56.9 56.9 No I - 17 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way 1.33 0.33 1.33 940 380 380 230 240 200 200 61.4 66.5 56.3 57.5 No I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 720 720 1,710 100 10 200 100 70 68.7 19.1 79.1 39.4 26.9 No I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 3 0.5 1,540 1,060 330 320 670 690 48.7 41.2 111.9 111.1 No I - 37 I-5 HOV NB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 1 2 n/a 1,510 20 0 40 0 29.5 12.6 46.2 8.8 No I-5 HOV SB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 2 1 1,340 n/a 290 10 170 0 48.2 12.2 67.7 13.4 No I - 55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 2 1,580 690 690 230 240 150 80 84 160 103.6 86.0 40.5 54.0 50.4 64.4 No I - 56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 1.5 0.5 2 2,960 2,190 1,590 50 1,000 110 70 620 100 18.2 128.3 20.0 20.5 66.1 21.2 No I - 66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,030 680 240 240 230 220 45.9 58.2 45.0 56.7 No I - 67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1 2 1,290 570 540 370 410 240 47.3 29.9 67.0 35.8 No I - 68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 1,030 590 250 250 200 200 41.9 51.3 49.5 59.2 No I - 69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1 2 930 600 240 310 170 240 41.3 48.8 43.9 53.6 No I - 70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 650 350 140 210 70 70 39.7 68.0 50.7 60.8 No I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,050 630 340 240 200 150 310 270 247 91.2 72.5 47.6 162.2 139.5 127.2 No I - 95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 2 1 1,080 220 200 60 240 0 29.2 11.5 34.1 5.3 No I - 97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 1.33 0.33 1.33 870 650 400 180 190 160 170 62.1 63.3 57.6 59.5 No I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 2 0 2 900 320 160 300 420 30 30.8 28.8 102.7 8.1 No I - 99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 1 1 1,240 760 70 0 40 0 63.3 14.4 60.9 17.8 No I - 100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 0.5 0.5 1 580 1,000 270 50 130 350 87.4 16.2 50.3 129.4 No ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 71 Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis Table 5-6 summarizes HCM analysis results for the study area ramps for the AM and PM peak hours. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, a 2-lane on or off-ramp should be provided where volumes exceed 1,500 vehicles per hour during either the AM or PM peak hour. The Southbound SR-57 Off- Ramp to Ball Road forecast volume exceeds this criteria during the AM peak hour and should be monitored; however there is no difference between the No Project and With Project volumes at this location, therefore the project has no responsibility for improvements at this location. Detailed analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I-3. According to the analysis the following freeway ramps are deficient under either the AM or PM peak hour 2030 With Project conditions: · I-5 Northbound Connector from SR-22 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound Connector to SR-22 Westbound (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (AM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Off-Ramp to Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound On-Ramp from Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound On-Ramp from Haster Street (PM Peak Hour) As compared to the No Project scenario, there are three additional deficient ramps under the With Project scenario, the Southbound I-5 On-ramp from Katella Avenue, the Northbound SR-57 Off- Ramp to Ball Road and the Southbound SR-57 On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue, all under PM Peak Hour conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 72 Table 5-6: 2030 With Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R - 1 I-5 NB Connector from SR-22 EB* 2 5,320 2,020 30.2 D 9,390 2,800 > Capacity F R - 2 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,170 340 25.0 C 12,190 420 > Capacity F R - 3 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard 2 6,830 1,350 13.4 B 11,770 890 > Capacity F R - 4 I-5 NB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way/Disney Way 1 1,520 110 13.5 B 2,050 160 18.3 B R - 5 I-5 NB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 5,700 230 18.9 B 10,880 440 > Capacity F R - 6 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue** 2 5,810 1,050 22.5 C 9,460 1,740 36.6 E R - 7 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 4,860 370 21.3 C 7,760 570 32.9 D R - 8 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,230 260 22.4 C 8,290 410 34.1 D R - 9 I-5 NB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 1,250 220 24.6 C 1,800 930 39.1 E R - 10 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,490 440 24.1 C 8,700 1,290 > Capacity F R - 11 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 5,780 820 24.3 C 10,090 1,010 38.4 E R - 12 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 4,980 290 21.1 C 9,080 740 > Capacity F R - 13 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 7,870 700 29.4 D 8,830 700 32.6 D R - 14 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 7,170 1,260 29.3 D 8,140 1,020 30.0 D R - 15 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Disney Way/Anaheim Boulevard 1 8,430 730 31.4 D 9,150 590 33.1 D R - 16 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue** 2 6,230 940 30.1 D 7,770 410 37.6 E R - 17 I-5 SB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way 1 2,910 800 26.1 C 2,690 450 24.1 C R - 18 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,380 440 23.7 C 7,410 590 31.8 D R - 19 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,810 960 29.3 D 7,970 810 > Capacity F R - 20 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 6,470 640 22.7 C 8,640 870 31.0 D R - 21 I-5 SB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 2,170 240 22.0 C 2,370 330 24.3 C R - 22 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,840 700 27.3 C 7,800 900 35.6 E R - 23 I-5 SB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard 1 6,530 240 20.0 B 8,670 320 26.2 C R - 24 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 6,770 480 20.1 C 8,990 670 25.2 C R - 25 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 WB 1 7,250 950 28.4 D 9,610 1,320 38.1 E R - 26 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 EB 2 6,350 1,060 11.2 B 8,290 1,350 16.2 B R - 27 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 3,890 160 23.7 C 5,340 180 30.6 D R - 28 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue WB 1 6,170 260 17.6 B 9,780 430 25.5 C R - 29 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue EB 1 5,950 220 19.4 B 9,460 320 29.1 D ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 73 Table 5-6: 2030 With Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS, Continued ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R - 30 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 6,430 720 25.8 C 10,210 320 34.6 D R - 31 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue WB 1 6,010 340 19.9 B 10,240 690 34.7 D R - 32 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue EB 1 5,710 300 19.4 B 9,890 350 30.8 D R - 33 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 5,320 970 23.2 C 9,180 770 33.7 D R - 34 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 4,750 240 16.8 B 8,910 520 28.8 D R - 35 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 4,350 400 17.0 B 8,410 500 27.0 C R - 36 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 5,140 910 22.3 C 9,840 980 36.9 E R - 37 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 4,750 420 18.2 B 9,510 900 33.9 D R - 38 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 4,230 520 17.6 B 8,860 650 29.7 D R - 39 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 8,720 1,770 37.4 E 8,250 1,210 32.9 D R - 40 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 6,950 240 27.8 C 7,100 520 30.5 D R - 41 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 7,190 670 32.0 D 7,600 580 32.7 D R - 42 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 8,490 1,100 40.1 E 8,360 800 37.9 E R - 43 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 7,390 260 29.4 D 7,570 510 32.0 D R - 44 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 7,650 180 29.6 D 8,070 510 33.7 D R - 45 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 7,980 870 30.3 D 9,160 930 34.4 D R - 46 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 7,110 250 28.4 D 8,230 700 > Capacity F R - 47 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,360 530 26.5 C 8,930 680 32.4 D R - 48 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 1,370 430 17.3 B 1,790 600 22.3 C R - 49 SR-22 EB Off-Ramp to Fairview Street 1 7,130 260 30.0 D 8,530 300 35.8 E R - 50 SR-22 EB On-Ramp from Fairview Street 1 6,870 980 33.2 D 8,230 1,360 > Capacity F R - 51 SR-22 EB Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street** 3 7,000 5,010 33.2 D 9,110 6,690 > Capacity F R - 52 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive 1 5,010 330 29.2 D 6,690 460 > Capacity F R - 53 SR-22 EB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 2,900 2,090 26.6 C 3,230 2,950 35.0 D R - 54 SR-22 WB Connector to I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,460 1,940 14.8 B 6,630 2,400 23.2 C R - 55 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from The City Drive 1 2,000 380 22.2 C 2,570 490 27.9 C R - 56 SR-22 WB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,720 2,000 24.3 C 7,280 2,570 33.9 D R - 57 SR-22 WB Off-Ramp to Haster Street 2 7,040 650 11.7 B 10,340 870 21.5 C R - 58 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from Haster Street 1 6,400 550 28.2 D 9,470 810 > Capacity F * Major Merge Analysis Utilized to calculate density Major Diverge Analysis Utilized to calculate density ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 74 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis Table 5-7 summarizes 2030 AM and PM peak hour With Project HCM analysis results for study area mainline segments. Detailed HCM worksheets for the 2030 With Project scenario are included in Appendix J-3. The following freeway mainline segments are deficient under either the AM or PM peak hours: · I-5 Northbound between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (AM and PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between 4th Street and SR-55 (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 (PM Peak Hour) When comparing the No Project and With Project scenarios, there are no additional deficiencies under With Project conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 75 Table 5-7: 2030 With Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS ID Freeway Segment Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F - 1 I-5 between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street 6,020 18.9 C 10,040 36.9 E 7,200 18.9 C 8,010 21.0 C F - 2 I-5 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,300 19.8 C 10,420 40.0 E 7,360 23.4 C 8,840 29.5 D F - 3 I-5 between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue 6,300 19.8 C 10,830 44.1 E 7,830 35.1 E 8,860 > 45.0 F F - 4 I-5 between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard 6,460 20.3 C 11,240 > 45.0 F 7,870 25.3 C 8,830 29.5 D F - 5 I-5 between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue 5,780 18.2 C 10,090 37.3 E 6,230 19.6 C 7,770 24.9 C F - 6 I-5 between Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard 5,810 18.3 C 9,460 32.9 D 6,470 20.3 C 8,640 28.6 D F - 7 I-5 between State College Boulevard and SR-22 6,830 17.7 B 11,770 34.6 D 8,210 21.4 C 10,020 26.9 D F - 8 I-5 between SR-22 and 17th Street 8,470 22.0 C 14,590 > 45.0 F 12,120 36.3 E 14,900 > 45.0 F F - 9 I-5 between 17th Street and Grand Avenue 8,800 22.9 C 13,780 > 45.0 F 10,230 27.5 D 13,220 44.4 E F - 10 I-5 between Grand Avenue and 4th Street 8,640 22.4 C 13,380 > 45.0 F 9,950 26.5 D 13,050 42.9 E F - 11 I-5 between 4th Street and SR- 55 8,590 22.3 C 13,070 43.1 E 8,900 23.2 C 11,890 34.9 D F - 12 SR-57 between SR-22 and Orangewood Avenue 6,430 16.6 B 10,210 27.4 D 7,010 21.8 C 8,550 27.6 D F - 13 SR-57 between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue 5,320 16.5 B 9,180 30.6 D 7,980 25.2 C 9,160 30.5 D F - 14 SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Ball Road 5,140 15.9 B 9,840 34.5 D 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E F - 15 SR-57 between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 5,230 16.2 B 10,390 38.5 E 8,720 28.4 D 8,250 26.3 D F - 16 SR-57 between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue 5,090 15.8 B 10,940 43.6 E 9,410 24.7 C 8,720 22.7 C F - 17 SR-22 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,870 27.6 D 8,090 36.0 E 5,640 21.8 C 8,720 42.6 E F - 18 SR-22 between Euclid Street and Harbor Blvd. 7,310 30.2 D 8,630 41.6 E 6,210 24.3 C 9,490 > 45.0 F F - 19 SR-22 between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street 7,130 29.0 D 8,530 40.4 E 6,370 25.0 C 9,590 > 45.0 F F - 20 SR-22 between Fairview Street/Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 7,000 21.7 C 9,110 30.0 D 7,040 21.8 C 10,340 37.7 E F - 21 SR-22 between I-5 and Main Street 4,980 19.2 C 6,090 23.7 C 4,460 17.2 B 6,630 26.3 D F - 22 SR-22 between Main Street and Glassell Street 4,290 16.5 B 6,360 25.0 C 4,580 17.6 B 5,880 22.8 C F - 23 SR-22 between Glassell Street and SR-55 3,490 10.8 A 5,580 17.2 B 4,440 17.1 B 5,210 20.1 C Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis Tables 5-8 and 5-9 summarize HCM analysis results for the weaving areas for the study area freeways for the AM and PM peak hours. Under the 2030 With Project scenario, there are several freeway weaves identified as being deficient in either the AM or PM peak hours. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for proposed capacity or operational improvements to the freeway mainline segments or ramps, which may improve the weaving LOS. Detailed HCM weaving analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 76 worksheets for the 2030 With Project scenario are included in Appendix K-3. The deficient weaving segments are as follows: · I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Northbound between SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · I-5 Southbound between First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 Southbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off- Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 Eastbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Eastbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 77 · SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector / Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 Southbound Connector (AM and PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between SR-57 Southbound Connector and Town and Country Road Off- Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 Northbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) · SR-22 Eastbound between Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) Within the deficient weaving segments identified above, the following two freeway weaving segments become deficient under the With Project scenario and are not deficient under the No Project scenario: · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 78 Table 5-8: 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 1 I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp 2,980 Not Applicable I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off- Ramp 3,390 W - 2 I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 2,890 I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,000 5,600 10 460 230 21.9 B W - 4 I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,680 5,610 20 540 290 22.9 B I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 6,490 40 660 680 32.9 D W - 6 I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,080 4,110 40 780 850 24.1 C I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 7 I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,350 4,540 10 1,040 220 21.1 B I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,870 4,920 50 590 910 26.8 C W - 8 I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,720 3,720 100 240 1,920 24.6 C I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 1,510 5,660 10 940 230 27.7 C W - 9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 1,740 5,050 60 840 1,110 27.9 C W - 10 I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 1,530 6,620 10 1,170 240 33.6 D I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp 1,510 9,110 30 440 520 > Capacity F W - 11 I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 2,110 6,330 20 510 470 27.8 C I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,260 7,370 30 610 520 36.5 E ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 79 Table 5-8: 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving AM Peak Hour HCM LOS, Continued ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 12 I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 1,820 6,370 20 370 440 27.3 C I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp 2,500 7,370 20 580 320 28.8 C W - 13 I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 1,750 4,090 120 670 2,280 31.9 C I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 1,580 4,830 40 1,860 690 31.8 C W - 14 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 4,390 10 710 250 19.4 B SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,140 6,240 10 520 240 28.2 C W - 15 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 4,030 20 950 320 20.0 B SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,780 6,940 10 860 170 31.5 C W - 16 SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 4,000 10 900 230 18.3 B SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 6,750 30 1,070 640 > Capacity F W - 17 SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 4,950 Not Applicable SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 W - 18 SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 2,250 3,620 20 1,050 400 18.8 B SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 5,830 60 860 1,090 35.2 D W - 19 SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 3,370 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 5,270 W - 20 SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,640 SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,260 4,930 20 880 380 28.6 C W - 21 SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off-Ramp 2,770 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 22 SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp 2,350 1,060 50 4,960 930 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp 2,390 6,030 20 630 360 24.5 C W - 23 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off- Ramp 970 4,520 30 160 490 38.6 E SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp 1,430 6,170 30 1,230 490 > Capacity F W - 24 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector 850 3,370 40 1,640 800 > Capacity F W - 25 SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp 1,180 1,700 100 1,190 1,990 33.8 D SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 1,810 1,810 40 1,900 710 26.5 C W - 26 SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 1,250 2,970 30 650 640 24.1 C SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp 1,270 3,170 30 840 540 26.2 C W - 27 SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp 2,780 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 3,040 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 80 Table 5-9: 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 1 I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp 2,980 Not Applicable I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 3,390 W - 2 I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 2,890 I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,000 9,860 20 650 300 39.1 E W - 4 I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,680 10,070 20 680 470 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 7,150 50 650 980 38.7 E W - 6 I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,080 7,850 60 950 1,230 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 7 I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,350 7,300 20 1,720 420 37.0 E I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,870 6,980 20 850 790 36.7 E W - 8 I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,720 7,080 140 280 2,660 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 1,510 6,730 20 1,300 300 36.1 E W - 9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 1,740 9,150 100 1,060 1,850 > Capacity F W - 10 I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 1,530 11,580 20 1,380 350 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp 1,510 10,860 40 680 840 > Capacity F W - 11 I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 2,110 10,030 40 700 710 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,260 9,490 40 800 690 > Capacity F W - 12 I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 1,820 9,960 30 550 610 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp 2,500 9,530 30 850 470 39.3 E W - 13 I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 1,750 6,430 180 930 3,350 > Capacity F I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 1,580 6,440 50 2,470 970 > Capacity F W - 14 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 7,780 20 300 410 30.3 C SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 1,140 7,210 40 640 660 38.0 E W - 15 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 7,750 30 740 660 34.8 D SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,780 7,750 30 900 480 38.2 E W - 16 SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 8,370 30 950 490 36.2 E SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 7,010 30 770 550 38.6 E W - 17 SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 4,950 Not Applicable SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 W - 18 SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 2,250 8,690 30 1,600 620 > Capacity F SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 4,570 90 980 1,630 36.5 E W - 19 SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 3,370 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp 5,270 W - 20 SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,640 SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 2,260 7,600 30 1,270 590 > Capacity F ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 81 Table 5-9: 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour HCM LOS, Continued ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C W - 21 SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off-Ramp 2,770 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 2,540 W - 22 SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp 2,350 1,130 70 6,620 1,290 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp 2,390 9,000 20 850 470 37.2 E W - 23 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp 970 6,010 40 220 690 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp 1,430 9,180 40 1,210 670 > Capacity F W - 24 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector 850 4,410 60 2,290 1,110 > Capacity F W - 25 SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp 1,180 1,490 150 1,650 2,800 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 1,810 3,120 60 2,340 1,110 > Capacity F W - 26 SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 1,250 4,240 70 750 1,300 > Capacity F SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp 1,270 4,000 40 1,050 790 35.5 D W - 27 SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp 2,780 Not Applicable SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 3,040 Summary As demonstrated in the traffic analysis, the circulation system in the Platinum Triangle study area is forecast to deteriorate under both the 2030 buildout No Project and With Project scenarios. The increased intensities of the buildout of the Proposed Project contribute to deficiencies when compared to the current General Plan buildout. Under the City of Anaheim’s traffic analysis guidelines, project related significant impacts would require mitigation to an acceptable LOS. Chapter 6 identifies project related impacts while Chapter 7 demonstrates that the proposed improvements allow the system to operate at an acceptable LOS. Detailed mitigation ICU worksheets and analysis worksheets for intersections are included in Appendix E-4 and H-4, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 82 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 6.1 INTERSECTION IMPACTS According to the ICU traffic analysis, 30 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F under the buildout of the Proposed Project. One additional intersection, Harbor Boulevard at Katella Avenue, operates at LOS E, but this intersection is identified in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) as a CMP location. Per CMP guidelines, intersections, major regional arterials, and Caltrans facilities operating at LOS E identified within the CMP are considered acceptable under CMP Guidelines and pursuant to the City of Anaheim traffic study guidelines. Thus, no mitigation measures are proposed for this location. Study area intersections are presented in Table 6-1 and intersections with a project related impact are identified. Mitigation measures for deficient intersections are addressed in Chapter 7.0. Table 6-1: Project Related Intersection Impacts ID Intersection Jurisdiction 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project Project Related Impact AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 1.02 F 0.85 D 0.90 D 0.87 D 0.94 E Yes I - 2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.92 E 0.88 D 0.95 E 0.97 E Yes I - 5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.70 B 0.77 C 0.86 D 0.91 E 0.87 D 0.92 E Yes I - 6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.63 B 0.60 A 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.96 E 0.94 E Yes I - 8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.73 C 0.68 B 1.05 F 0.91 E 1.10 F 0.96 E Yes I - 18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.82 D 0.92 E 0.89 D Yes I - 19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.63 B 0.91 E 0.88 D 0.92 E 0.88 D 1.01 F Yes I - 20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.71 C 0.74 C 0.99 E 0.86 D 1.03 F Yes I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I- 5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.41 A 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.87 D 0.66 B 0.95 E Yes I - 23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.47 A 0.58 A 0.84 D 0.87 D 0.90 D 0.92 E Yes I - 24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Not Applicable 0.86 D 0.98 E 0.95 E 1.16 F Yes I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.46 A 0.50 A 0.74 C 0.82 D 0.95 E 0.90 D Yes I - 31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.31 A 0.72 C 0.81 D 0.85 D 0.95 E Yes I - 33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.62 B 0.67 B 0.95 E 0.85 D 1.28 F Yes I - 35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim Not Applicable 0.58 A 0.79 C 0.74 C 1.07 F Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 83 Table 6-1: Project Related Intersection Impacts, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project Project Related Impact AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.81 D 0.82 D 0.96 E 0.87 D Yes I - 49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.43 A 0.53 A 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.94 E 0.99 E Yes I - 50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.26 A 0.33 A 0.66 B 0.80 C 1.04 F 1.19 F Yes I - 51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.30 A 0.29 A 0.78 C 0.75 C 1.02 F 0.84 D Yes I - 53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.91 E 0.97 E Yes I - 57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.66 B 0.84 D 0.93 E 0.88 D 0.96 E Yes I - 60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.37 A 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.69 B 0.93 E Yes I - 61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.51 A 0.55 A 0.78 C 0.62 B 0.93 E Yes I - 62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.41 A 0.61 B 0.72 C 0.77 C 0.98 E Yes I - 64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.51 A 0.44 A 0.71 C 0.99 E 0.78 C 1.13 F Yes I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.61 B 0.68 B 0.79 C 0.94 E 0.84 D 1.04 F Yes I - 73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.85 D 0.90 D 1.04 F 1.09 F Yes I - 80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.57 A 0.85 D 0.94 E 0.88 D 0.96 E Yes I - 87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.55 A 0.60 A 0.75 C 0.89 D 0.77 C 0.92 E Yes I - 102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.42 A 0.48 A 0.86 D 0.93 E 0.88 D 0.96 E Yes * CMP Intersection ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 84 6.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT IMPACTS Based on the arterial segment traffic analysis, there are four arterial segments with significant impacts with implementation of the Proposed Project within the City of Anaheim. Table 6-2 displays the deficient arterial segments in Anaheim. These arterial segments will require mitigation to operate at an acceptable LOS through upgrading segment classification to provide additional capacity. Table 6- 3 presents the six arterial segments in Orange that have a project related impact based on the City of Orange criteria. Table 6-2: City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts ID Arterial From To 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project Project Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS A - 18 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road 4,520 0.18 A 22,300 0.89 D 26,860 1.07 F Yes A -31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 6,910 0.28 A 24,550 0.98 E 28,540 1.14 F Yes A - 56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way 35,040 0.62 B 58,160 1.03 F 71,090 1.26 F Yes A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 7,680 0.31 A 22,360 0.89 D 32,900 1.26 F Yes Table 6-3: City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts ID Arterial From To 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project Project Impact ADT V./C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS A - 15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 32,740 0.58 A 59,090 1.05 F 60,250 1.07 F Yes A - 27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 10,800 0.45 A 23,270 0.97 E 23,650 0.99 E Yes A - 28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street 14,710 0.61 B 21,360 0.89 D 21,820 0.91 E Yes A - 32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue 10,870 0.58 A 27,340 1.14 F 27,760 1.16 F Yes A - 62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 30,280 0.54 A 47,690 0.85 D 51,570 0.92 E Yes A - 91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street 6,720 0.56 A 14,100 1.18 F 15,500 1.29 F Yes 6.3 FREEWAY FACILITY IMPACTS Ramp Termini Under future No Project conditions many Caltrans facilities operate at a deficient level of service. The implementation of the Platinum Triangle Overlay Zone results in continued deficient operations on the freeway ramp facilities within the study area. Table 6-4 displays the freeway ramp termini locations where implementation of the Proposed Project results in deficient operations as compared to acceptable operations under No Project conditions. Three locations, I-21, Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 Northbound Ramps, I-27, Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue, and I-71, Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps correlate to intersection deficiencies already identified through the ICU analysis. Improvements to these intersections should mitigate the identified deficiencies under both the capacity (ICU) and operational analysis methodology. Additionally, Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue was not previously identified as deficient under the ICU analysis but is deficient under the HCM analysis under With Project conditions and acceptable under No Project conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 85 These locations will have to be improved to operate at an acceptable LOS. Mitigation strategies will be addressed in Chapter 7.0. Table 6-4: Project Related Freeway Ramp Termini Impacts ID Intersection 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 15.4 B 25.8 C 11.1 B 49.9 D 10.5 B 83.1 F Project I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 27.5 C 15.9 B 26.8 C 24.9 C 40.8 D 75.7 E Project I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 17.9 B 20.2 C 16.3 B 27.7 C 24.6 C 88.9 F Project I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 19.4 B 28.7 C 25.0 C 52.8 D 30.0 C 81.1 F Project I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 38.4 D 29.6 C 46.5 D 65.1 E 51.9 D 62.8 E Cumulative Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing According to the analysis, there are no off-ramps where the expected queuing length from the With Project scenario is longer than the ramp capacity, therefore there are no adverse impacts to the mainline as a result of off-ramp intersection queues and no deficiencies requiring mitigation. There was one location where as a result of ramp termini intersection delay, a mitigation strategy was proposed on the off-ramp itself which did not adversely impact the queue length. Detailed queuing analysis worksheets for mitigated intersections are included in Appendix M-4. Freeway Ramps Based on the analysis, there are three ramps that become deficient under the With Project scenario: · I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) As many ramps operate at a deficient level of service under No Project condition, these deficiencies are cumulative impacts outside of the responsibility of the Proposed Project. In addition, freeway ramp performance is directly related to the performance of the mainline segments for freeways, and as such, mitigation to increase ramp capacity likely would not mitigate cumulative traffic deficiencies, as the mainline volumes would still result in deficient operations. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 86 Freeway Mainline There are no freeway segments that are forecast to be deficient under 2030 With Project conditions but were not deficient under 2030 No Project conditions. Caltrans currently does not have any additional improvements identified or planned for the identified deficient segments on the I-5, SR-57, and SR-22 freeways. According to the most current Route Concept Reports for I-5 and SR-22, and consistent with the future proposed improvements to SR-57, improvements to these facilities are contingent on the availability of revenue from regional, state, and federal transportation funding sources. In addition, the City does not have jurisdiction over the State Highway System and, therefore, cannot directly implement mitigation measures associated with project related impacts on mainline segments. The next section will discuss mitigation strategies in further detail and the potential for inclusion of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the Environmental Document for State Highway System impacts. Freeway Weaving Segments Due to the high forecast mainline traffic activity, most freeway weaving segments are deficient under the 2030 No Project scenario. Two weaving segments become deficient under 2030 With Project conditions that were not forecast to be deficient under 2030 No Project conditions: · I-5 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) It should be noted that one weaving segment improves to acceptable levels under 2030 With Project conditions. Since freeway weaving segment operations are dependent upon mainline and ramp capacities, reducing congestion on these facilities contributes to higher weaving speeds and could lead to an improved weaving LOS. Improving weaving facilities through the addition of auxiliary lanes within the weaving area could provide additional capacity and reduce the weaving density. Operational improvements through improved signage or other ITS measures may also be developed in consultation with Caltrans in order to improve the weaving LOS. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 87 7.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 7.1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND TRAFFIC FEE PROGRAM The City of Anaheim has historically utilized a variety of strategies to provide improvements to the citywide circulation system. The City currently has a traffic fee program in place to fund General Plan improvements assumed under buildout No Project and With Project conditions. The City has a long-standing policy that as development occurs throughout the City, traffic studies are prepared to demonstrate the need for implementation of the improvements identified in the General Plan, and developer fees and other local dedicated taxes will contribute to those improvements as needed. The fee, initially developed in 1993 and updated as needed to include new facilities and updated Capital Improvement Programs, provides a proper nexus between increased development in the City and associated traffic impacts to the citywide circulation system. Developers contribute fees to the City, which uses the fund to implement circulation improvements in the City or as the City of Anaheim’s local match for leveraging funding from OCTA and Caltrans for circulation system improvements. Hence, the general plan improvements assumed in the buildout of the Platinum Triangle, prior to the approval of this plan, are expected to be paid for and implemented through the City’s existing traffic impact fee program. Additionally, the City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. All projects, regardless of size, are required to contribute to the CFD. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle, including transportation. Nearly all of the mitigation measures in this study within the Platinum Triangle and the City of Orange are already identified within the CFD. The CFD is programmed to provide funding for improvements in the Platinum Triangle identified previously and this study has identified additional improvements that will need to funded on a fair-share basis. Under this Traffic Study and EIR, the City will provide fair-share funding for all of the intersection improvements in the City of Orange and the additional deficient intersections within the City of Anaheim not currently identified within the CFD, as well as fair-share funding to implement appropriate Caltrans facility improvements. If the costs of identified improvements cannot be covered by the total funding allocation under the existing CFD, other fee programs or update of the existing fee programs may have to be implemented to complete the recommended improvements. For locations within the City of Anaheim and Orange, the fair-shares for improvements will dictate the fair-share cost, priorities, and timeframe of the improvements. For intersections or arterial segments where the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project contributes a higher share of traffic to the buildout of the area, those improvements will be a higher priority. The City has proposed improvement strategies that return all intersections to an acceptable LOS under the 2030 With Project scenario. The fair-share calculations identify that the Proposed Project contributes a range of 7% to 44% of trips to study area intersections. The Proposed Project would contribute that percentage toward the costs of the recommended improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 88 Intersection and arterial segment improvements in the City of Orange will have fees contributed to them by the Proposed Project, commensurate with the fair-share analysis. Although these improvements will be overridden in the EIR because Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the facilities, the project will be responsible for contributions for the appropriate fair-share toward the recommended improvements. Those specific improvements and fair-shares for facilities in the City of Orange and Caltrans facilities are discussed later in this chapter. 7.2 FEE ASSESSMENT AND FAIR-SHARE FOR IMPROVEMENTS The City of Anaheim has applied a fair-share methodology to evaluate the financial responsibility of mitigating Platinum Triangle project impacts. The methodology is consistent with that outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Appendix directing users to use a formula to calculate equitable share responsibility for the traffic impacts of proposed projects. For impacts that are located in adjacent cities where the intersection becomes deficient under the With Project condition, a fair-share to an improvement cost that achieves acceptable performance is warranted. The fair-share calculation is based on the difference between the Future With Project and Future No Project total intersection entering volumes divided by the total growth entering volume from Existing to Future With Project conditions. The fair-share proportion is based on the value associated with the peak hour for which the deficiency has been identified. A computational example of the fair-share analysis is provided in Table 7.1. Table 7.1: Fair-share Analysis Computational Example Sample Intersection EXISTING NO PROJECT Difference from Existing Difference from No Project Fair- share ICU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR TOTAL AM 0.53 152 64 71 31 128 35 25 1268 171 76 602 30 2,653 PM 0.53 174 143 61 21 82 37 61 830 209 97 1375 54 3,144 POST-2030 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AM 0.92 250 70 390 30 140 40 30 2410 250 240 690 30 4,570 1,917 PM 0.88 470 160 410 20 90 40 60 1050 [PHONE REDACTED] 60 5,380 2,236 POST-2030 WITH PROJECT AM 0.95 250 70 390 30 140 40 30 2530 260 260 690 30 4,720 2,067 150 7.3% PM 0.97 550 160 410 20 90 40 60 1070 [PHONE REDACTED] 60 5,610 2,466 230 9.3% The example above indicates that the project’s fair-share on the proposed improvement at this intersection is 9.3%. Raw model roadway link difference plots showing the volume differences between the No Project and With Project scenarios are included in Appendix N. It should be noted, however, that fair-shares are calculated based on post-processed volumes, not raw model volumes. 7.3 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS In summary, throughout the study area, 30 intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under 2030 With Project conditions. Included in the 30 intersections are three Caltrans ramp termini intersections. As a general rule, mitigation measures for arterials or intersections begin with identification of any measures that might have been recommended as part of other traffic studies in the area or were proposed under previous analyses, particularly those contained in the previously certified EIR prepared for the Platinum Triangle, EIR No. 332. These mitigation measures are then ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 89 applied to determine whether they result in roadway segment or intersection operation within acceptable thresholds. If mitigation measures were not previously identified either as part of a traffic study or planned future improvements, mitigation is achieved by identifying new improvements that will provide adequate capacity for the critical movement for an intersection or for arterial segments. Critical movements are conflicting intersection turning movements that are identified to have the highest ICU for opposing movements; i.e., each of the approaches at a four-legged intersection will contain a critical movement that conflicts with an opposing movement. Since the combination of the ICU values for each critical movement defines the ICU, providing additional through lanes or turning lanes is dependent upon whether the critical movement is a through or turn (left or right) movement. The decision of whether additional lanes should be auxiliary lanes that just add capacity to the intersection without widening the street segment or extended to adjacent intersections is dependent upon the performance, proximity, and improvement needs of adjacent intersections. Mitigation measures are further analyzed for feasibility. A preliminary feasibility assessment is reliant upon potential cost-effectiveness and right-of-way acquisition. Right-of-way acquisitions are least preferred because they incur relocation and compensation costs for displaced residences and businesses, which are additional burdens to the community. Hence, wherever feasible, additional capacity for through movements or turn movements are facilitated through re-striping or widening provided the intersection has sufficient receiving lanes as vehicles pass through the intersection. Table 7-2 provides a list of improvements for the deficient intersections within the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Improvement strategies for locations within the City of Orange will require coordination with the City and a fair-share determined for the City of Anaheim’s contributions to the cost of the improvements in Orange. Figure 7-1 exhibits the improvement locations and identified mitigation strategy. Lane geometries for the intersections within Platinum Triangle including mitigation strategies are included in Appendix F. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 90 Table 7-2: Recommended Intersection Mitigation Measures ID Intersection Jurisdiction 2030 With Project Scenario Without Mitigation 2030 With Project Scenario With Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Strategy AM PM AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.87 D 0.94 E 0.87 D 0.89 D Restripe NBR to NBT, widen NB departure for 400 feet I - 2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.97 E 0.88 D 0.80 C Add 2nd NBL (Restripe #1 SB lane) I - 5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.87 D 0.92 E 0.83 D 0.87 D Add NBL: Restripe NB to 2L, 2T, 1R and SB to 2L, 2T; Remove Split I - 6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.96 E 0.94 E 0.84 D 0.90 D Restripe EBR to EBT, Restripe WBR to WBT and add 4th WB lane to the I - 8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 1.10 F 0.96 E 0.90 D 0.90 D Add NBT, SBT, EBT, EBR I - 18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.92 E 0.89 D 0.76 C 0.89 D Add SBT I - 19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.88 D 1.01 F 0.82 D 0.90 D Add NBR, EBL, EBR I - 20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 1.03 F 0.68 B 0.86 D Add NBL, SBL, WBR, Restripe WB approach to 2L, 1TR, 1R I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 NB Ramps Anaheim 0.66 B 0.95 E 0.55 A 0.85 D Add SBT (in median) I - 23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.90 D 0.90 D Add WBR I - 24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.95 E 1.16 F 0.78 C 0.87 D Add WBL, SBL, SBR I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.77 C 0.80 C 0.77 C 0.71 C Add EBT, WBT (part of mitigation measure to widen Katella under I-5) I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.90 D 0.81 D 0.78 C Add EBT, WBT (part of mitigation measure to widen Katella under I-5) I - 31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.95 E 0.85 D 0.89 D Add WBR I - 33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 1.28 F 0.70 B 0.83 D Add NBL, NBT, SBL, SBR, WBT; Restripe SB to 2L, 1T, 1TR, 1R I - 35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim 0.74 C 1.07 F 0.60 A 0.85 D Add EBL I - 47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.96 E 0.87 D 0.88 D 0.74 C Add NBL, SBL, EBL I - 49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.99 E 0.90 D 0.85 D Add WBR, EBR; Restripe SB to 2L, 2T, 2R; EB to 3L, 3T, 1R I - 50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 1.04 F 1.19 F 0.89 D 0.78 C Add WBL and NBR I - 51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 1.02 F 0.84 D 0.90 D 0.73 C Add SBR I - 53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.91 E 0.97 E 0.88 D 0.90 D Add NBR and WBT I - 57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.83 D 0.80 C Restripe WBT to WBTR I - 60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.69 B 0.93 E 0.69 B 0.90 D Add SBL, restripe SB to 1L, 1LT, 1R I - 61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.62 B 0.93 E 0.62 B 0.82 D Add WBR I - 62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.77 C 0.98 E 0.73 C 0.89 D Restripe NBTR to NBT, NBTL, Add Lane I - 64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.78 C 1.13 F 0.73 C 0.80 C Add NB Free Right, Add SBL ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 91 Table 7-2: Recommended Intersection Mitigation Measures, Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction 2030 With Project Scenario Without Mitigation 2030 With Project Scenario With Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Strategy AM PM AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 SB Ramps Orange 0.84 D 1.04 F 0.79 C 0.89 D Add WBL (Restripe) I - 73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.97 E 1.09 F 0.78 C 0.87 D Add NBT and SBT; Reconfigure NBTR to NBT, Reconfigure SBTR to SBT; Add EBT and WBR I - 80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.88 D 0.87 D Add 2nd WBL I - 87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.77 C 0.92 E 0.76 C 0.90 D Restripe SBR to SBT and Widen SB departure for 400 feet I - 102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.97 E 1.09 F 0.67 B 0.90 D Add SBL by Restriping #1 NB lane); Restripe EBT to EBL Delays caused by heavy turning movements, including the pedestrian component of the proposed project, are not factored into ICU calculations, and therefore are not reflected in the LOS analysis performed in this study. Since the Platinum Triangle is expected to have heavy pedestrian traffic, intersections within the Platinum Triangle could have considerable delays if heavy turn movements are not appropriately addressed. Heavy right-turn volumes without exclusive right-turn lanes are projected at several intersections with acceptable levels of service. With high pedestrian volumes expected within the project area, through movements and the right-turn movements are projected to be heavily delayed. The addition of a right-turn lane will result in increased pedestrian crossing times, but will improve pedestrian and vehicular safety. The identified right-turn movements at the following intersections have peak-hour right-turn volumes in excess of 300 vehicles without an exclusive right-turn lane and are located in mixed-use districts where heavy pedestrian volumes are expected: · Lewis Street/ Gene Autry Way – westbound right turn lane · Anaheim Way/ Orangewood Avenue – westbound second right turn lane · State College Boulevard/ Howell Avenue – northbound right turn lane · State College Boulevard/ Gateway – westbound right-turn · State College Boulevard/ Artisan Court – westbound right-turn · Dupont Drive/ Orangewood Avenue – eastbound right-turn Additionally, heavy left-turn volumes are projected at intersections with only one left-turn lane. Excessive queue at left-turn lanes can result in through-moving vehicles being blocked by left-turning vehicles. An additional left-turn lane can accommodate about 180 percent of the volume that can be served by a single left-turn lane with the same amount of green time. The reduction in green time for the left turn allows for more time to be assigned to other movements. The second left- turn lane would result in fewer delays for all movements and a smaller left-turn pocket, increasing the length of the landscaped median. The following locations are recommended to have an additional left-turn lane: · State College Boulevard and Howell Avenue – southbound second left turn lane · Orangewood Avenue/ Rampart Street – westbound second left-turn lane ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 92 Certain intersections will have an unbalanced share of turning volumes between the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, events at Angel Stadium and Honda Center can generate traffic patterns that are unique for events only. Dynamic lane assignment signs will allow for some lanes to operate as through lanes during certain times and turn lanes during other times. The following locations will benefit from these signs in place of capacity enhancements: · State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue – southbound and eastbound approaches · State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way – eastbound approach · Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 SB Ramps – eastbound approach · Douglass Road/ Katella Avenue – eastbound and southbound approaches 7.4 ARTERIAL SEGMENT IMPROVEMENTS Based on the 2030 With Project traffic analysis, four arterial segment improvements in the City of Anaheim are required and six in the City of Orange. Table 7-3 presents the arterial segments with the proposed improvements. One additional segment on Cerritos Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Street is recommended to be upgraded from four lane secondary arterial to four lane primary arterial with bike lanes. This upgrade is recommended so that Cerritos Avenue has a consistent classification for its entire length, and for this segment of Cerritos Avenue to be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Table 7-3: Recommended Arterial Segment Mitigation Strategies ID Arterial From To 2030 With Project Scenario Without Mitigation 2030 With Project Scenario With Mitigation V/C LOS V/C LOS Mitigation Strategy A-18 Cerritos Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street 0.79 C 0.53 A Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road 1.07 F 0.72 C Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 1.14 F 0.76 C Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way 1.26 F 0.95 E Upgrade to 8 lane Stadium A - 65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 1.32 F 0.88 D Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A - 15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 1.07 F No mitigation recommended A -27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 0.99 E 0.63 B Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial A -28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street 0.91 E 0.58 A Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial A -32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue 1.16 F 0.74 C Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial A -62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 0.92 E No mitigation recommended A -91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street 1.29 F 0.65 B Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial Source: City of Anaheim 7.5 FREEWAY RAMP TERMINI IMPROVEMENTS Table 7-4 presents the freeway ramp termini intersections with the mitigation measures that have been identified through the ICU analysis. Three locations, I-21, Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 Northbound Ramps, I-27, Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue, and I-71, ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 93 Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps correlate to intersection deficiencies already identified through the ICU analysis. Additionally, Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue was not previously identified as deficient under the ICU analysis but is deficient under the HCM analysis under With Project conditions and acceptable under No Project conditions. As noted above, Katella Avenue is expected to be widened to eight lanes between Manchester Avenue, and Anaheim Way as part of the improvement for intersection #27, and upgraded to an eight-lane Stadium Smart Street to facilitate traffic operations. The proposed improvement for intersection #26, Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue would be affected by this arterial upgrade and the intersection widened to add a 4th Eastbound and 4th Westbound through lane. This improvement strategy returns the intersection to an acceptable LOS under the analysis. The implementation of the mitigation measures for these ramp termini intersections will return all to an acceptable LOS. Table 7-4: Recommended Freeway Ramp Termini Mitigation Strategies ID Intersection 2030 With Project With Proposed Mitigation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mitigation Measures Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 NB Ramps 10.5 B 83.1 F 14.1 B 51.6 D Add 4th SBT* I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 40.8 D 75.7 E 39.2 D 42.0 D Add 4th EBT, Add 4th WBT I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 24.6 C 88.9 F 17.3 B 54.4 D Add 4th EBT, Add 5th WBT* I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 30.0 C 81.1 F 26.5 C 41.1 D Add 2nd WBL* I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 51.9 D 68.2 E 50.0 D 36.5 D Restripe WBT to 3rd WBL * Mitigation strategy identical to that proposed for ICU analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ao lo A kd b CT o ao melbkfu C ir B a o NMO CeAmjAk Asb dbkb ArTov tv dAoabk dolsb Bisa oa BofpTli pT OS BAii oa tbpT pT pTATb Cliibdb Bisa BAii oa kfkTe pT eAoBlo Bisa brCifa pT sbojlkT Asb bApT pT iA sbTA Asb plrTe pT AkAebfj Bisa tAikrT pT TAcT Asb oAjmAoT pT hATbiiA Asb Asb ibtfp pT ibtfp pT CboofTlp Asb Cliifkp Asb eApTbo pT tAdkbo Asb Teb CfTv ao jAfk pT pTorCh Asb jbjlov ik bChelcc pT pT diAppbii pT jbjlov ik pT tAikrT Asb BATAsfA pT dATbtAv ao tv alrdiApp oa pT AkAebfj tv eltbii Asb jAohbT pT jAfkmiACb ao ao tv CboofTlp Asb hATbiiA Asb AoTfpAk pT CeAmjAk Asb jAkCebpTbo Asb S N O U R S4 SO RM 4N NU UT TN SN SM TP RP RT UM ON OT OM PS O4 OP PP 4V RN PN 4T NV cigure 7-1: Intersection Mitigation Strategies ? ê ? ê ? l pA kTA AkA ofsbo dAoabk dolsb AkAebfj pAkTA AkA loAkdb j b T o l m lifTAk ao #NW - oestripe kBo to kBT #OW Add Ond kBi #RW - Add kBiX oestripe kB to OiI OTI No - oestripe pB to OiI OT - oemove pplit mhase #SW - oestripe bBo to bBT C tBo to tBT - Add 4th tB lane to the pimba parking lot entrance #UW - Add kBTI pBT - Add bBTI bBo #NUW - Add pBT #NVW - Add kBo - Add bBiI bBo #OMW - Add kBiI pBiI tBo - oestripe tB approach to OiI NToI No #ONW - Add pBT #OPW - Add tBo #OS - Add bBTI tBT #O4W - Add tBiI - Add pBiI pBo #OTW - Add bBTI tBT #PNW - Add tBo #PPW - Add kBiI kBTI pBiI pBoI tBT - oestripe pB to OiI NTI NToI No #PRW - Add bBi #4TW - Add kBiI pBiI bBi #4VW - Add tBoI bBoX - oestripe pB to OiI OTI Oo - oestripe bB to PiI PTI No #RMW - Add tBi - Add kBo #RNW - Add pBo #SOW - oestripe kBTo to kBTI kBoI Add Ond kBo #SMW - Add pBiI restripe pB to NiI NiTI No #SNW - Add tBo #S4W - Add kB cree oight - Add pBi #TNW - Add tBi ErestripeF #RTW - oestripe tBT to tBTo #NMOW - Add pBi Eby restriping #N kB laneF - oestripe bBT to bBi #TPW - Add kBT and pBT - oeconfigure kBTo to kBT - oeconfigure pBTo to pBT - Add bBT and tBo #UMW - Add Ond tBi #UTW - oestripe pBo to pBT and widen pB departure for 4MM feet #RPW - Add kBo - Add tBT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 95 7.6 CITY OF ORANGE IMPROVEMENTS The Proposed Project results in cumulative impacts to seven intersections located within the City of Orange and includes one shared intersection with Anaheim and two ramp termini intersections. Some of the identified improvements are not included within the City of Orange development impact fee program. The Proposed Project would contribute the associated intersection fair-share percentage toward the costs of the recommended improvements. The fair-share calculations, presented in Table 7-5, show that the Proposed Project contributes between 8% and 27% of trips to Orange intersections and 34% of trips to the shared Anaheim and Orange intersection. The Cities of Orange and Anaheim will need to enter into or amend an existing a cooperative agreement to determine the implementation of these improvements. It should be noted that the mitigation identified in Table 7-4 does not include the ramp termini intersections in Orange that were found to have a cumulative impact under the HCS analysis. These intersections will be discussed later in this section. Table 7-5: Potential Intersection Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities ID Intersection Jurisdiction 2030 With Project 2030 With Project (Mitigated) Proposed Mitigation Strategy Possible Mitigation Issues Fair-Share Percentage AM PM AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS I - 53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.91 E 0.97 E 0.88 D 0.90 D Add NBR and WBT Median, Corner business 34% I - 57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.83 D 0.80 C Restripe WBT to WBTR Within ROW 16% I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 SB Ramps Orange 0.84 D 1.04 F 0.67 B 0.87 D Add WBL (Restripe) Within ROW 27% I - 80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.88 D 0.87 D Add 2nd WBL Parking, landscaping 8% I - 87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.77 C 0.92 E 0.69 B 0.90 D Restripe SBR to SBT and Widen SB departure for 400 feet Street parking 9% I - 102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.69 B 0.89 D Add SBL by Restriping #1 NB lane; Restripe EBT to EBL Within ROW 9% For arterial segment improvements within the City of Orange, the facilities identified in Table 7-6 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 7-6 were 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 segments 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 was recommended. The segments of Eckhoff Street and Struck Avenue were not found to be deficient in the Orange General Plan Update. The City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the deficient circulation system components in the City of Orange. Nevertheless, the City shall fund appropriate fair-shares of the identified improvements. The City shall endeavor to work with the City of Orange in developing a joint fee ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 96 program whereby cross-municipal boundary impacts can be mitigated by development that is occurring in the adjoining jurisdiction. However, because the City of Anaheim cannot guarantee that the City of Orange will cooperate in the development of such a fee program or utilize funds collected by the City of Anaheim for City of Orange impacts for the intended purpose of such funds, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed for the deficient Orange arterial segments in the Environmental Documentation. Table 7-6: 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 ramp termini intersections within the City of Orange, the facilities identified in Table 7-7 would require improvements to ensure acceptable operations. However, as the City of Orange did not utilize the HCM methodology in their General Plan, the operational deficiencies described were not addressed. Locations that operate at an acceptable LOS under the ICU analysis should be monitored to determine appropriate strategies toward improving flow through signal timing and coordination. The City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the deficient circulation system components in the City of Orange, thus a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed for the deficient Orange arterial segments in the Environmental Documentation. Should the City of Orange decide to improve the operational capacity of any of the locations above, the City of Anaheim will be subject to a fair-share contribution towards the improvement cost. Table 7-7: Potential Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities ID Intersection 2030 With Project With Proposed Mitigation Fair- Share AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Proposed Mitigation Strategy Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps* 30.0 C 81.1 F 26.5 C 41.1 D Add 2nd WBL* 27% I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 51.9 D 68.2 E 50.0 D 36.5 D Restripe WBT to 3rd WBL 7% * Consistent with mitigation strategy under ICU analysis 7.7 FREEWAY FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS As identified in the 2030 traffic analysis, there are several freeway mainline and ramp deficiencies under the 2030 No Project and 2030 With Project scenarios. For the 2030 With Project scenario, the traffic volume on all freeway segments within the study area increases when compared with Existing Conditions. The future Proposed Project forecast volumes are generally consistent with the No ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 97 Project scenario forecast volumes, with some segments and ramps experiencing a slight increase in the peak hour. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements will be required to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the addition of one, two, or three lanes to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway mainline are not feasible improvement options. The rationale is that Caltrans has not identified any further improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5, SR-57, and SR-22 and the City has no control over State facilities. Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments would involve significant right-of- way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses. It is not a legal prerogative and policy of the City to support further freeway widening when such widening would have negative impacts on adjacent businesses and residences. State facilities located within the City have been significantly expanded over the past several years and City businesses and areas which were subject to an acquisition or which were located near acquisitions have not fully recovered from the acquisition activities. As an example, remnant residential and commercial parcels exist along I-5 at the Euclid Street exit. Other examples also exist. In addition, bringing State facilities closer to residences and businesses is also not a social or legal prerogative of the City. For example, many standard tract homes are located adjacent to SR-57; the existence of such standard, suburban tract homes adjacent to a freeway creates incompatible land use and air quality impacts. The City does not desire to further exacerbate these land use and air quality incompatibility issues by encouraging the expansion of freeway facilities adjacent to suburban-style tract houses. Lastly, the Proposed Project is consistent with recent State legislation SB 375) to reduce the average vehicle miles traveled as the Project is designed to co-locate urban-style housing and employment opportunities. As a result of these policy prerogatives and identified constraints, the project is not expected to mitigate the freeway mainline segments to an acceptable LOS. As part of the Proposed Project approval and certification of the EIR, the City will develop a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the capacity improvements of freeway mainlines and freeway ramp facilities. Neither the State or any other agency, such as OCTA, currently has a program in place for construction of the mainline, ramp, and weaving segment improvements at the 2030 time horizon to satisfy baseline congested conditions; nor is there currently any mechanism in place that would ensure that funds contributed to Caltrans or to the State to ameliorate impacts on freeway mainlines will be used for their intended purpose. In addition, the traffic on the State Highway System is regional in nature and the deficiencies are the result of expected regional growth. Caltrans has not entered into an agreement with the City and Caltrans has not adopted a program by which Caltrans can ensure that developer fair-share contributions will assist in the funding of potential capacity or operational improvements on the study area State Highway System. Because the I-5 and SR-22 are at their Conceptual Buildout, and OCTA and State funding is committed to the planned widening of SR- 57, there is no guarantee that impact fees from the Proposed Project will be dedicated to the improvements of the study area State Highway System. Finally, because the I-5, SR-57, and SR-22 are exclusively controlled by the State, there is no mechanism by which the City can construct or guarantee the construction of any improvements to I-5, SR-57, and SR-22. Pursuant to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002), consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 98 improvement measures that can be implemented in the study area to assist in mitigation of traffic increases related to implementation of the Proposed Project. Three freeway ramps, I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue, SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road and SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue, are deficient under 2030 With Project conditions in the PM Peak Hour and operate at acceptable levels of service under 2030 No Project conditions. Operationally, adding a lane to either of these ramps does not result in acceptable ramp operations under 2030 With Project conditions. Impacts to freeway ramp facilities are the result of high forecast volumes on the ramps themselves coupled with high forecast volumes on the freeway mainline adjacent to the ramp facilities, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. The weaving analysis revealed that several weaving areas operate at deficient levels of service under 2030 With and No Project conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and cumulative growth. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the freeway mainline and weaving segments, freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities by one lane in each direction would require consideration: · I-5 between SR-91 and SR-55 – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-shares range from approximately 2-12%) · SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Katella Avenue – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-shares range from approximately 13-19%) · SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 and SR-22 Ramps – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair- share approximately 16%) · SR-22 Westbound between Brookhurst Street and Main Street – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-shares range from approximately 8-13%) · SR-22 Eastbound between Brookhurst Street and Glassell Street – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-share negligible) Mitigation strategies have been recommended to reduce the level of impact to less than significant levels. Potential additional capacity enhancements include the implementation of auxiliary lanes within weaving areas to improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as well as the mainline and weaving areas. Fair-shares have been computed for all freeway mainline, merge/diverge, and weaving segments per the methodology outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Appendix The guidelines are not intended to establish a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility, but rather to provide a starting point for discussions with Caltrans to address the traffic mitigation and fair-share responsibilities. The utilization of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and signage improvements could potentially improve the flow and operational capacity of Caltrans facilities, but would not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. 7.8 OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES In order to address the proposed measures in the previous sections, a series of mitigation measures will be drafted and incorporated into the SEIR. These mitigation measures, once finalized, will apply ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 99 to any owner or developer of real property within the boundaries of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. This section will generally describe the mitigation measures that will be developed for the SEIR in regards to transportation and traffic. Project Level Traffic Impact Analysis The mitigation measures previously identified are developed at a program level that considers the complete buildout of the Platinum Triangle as well as the General Plan of the City of Anaheim. It is expected that development will occur over a large period of time throughout the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, for any development expected to generate a significant number of trips, a project level traffic study shall be required. This study is intended to ensure that appropriate transportation improvements are built as necessary. 1. 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 this traffic analysis 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 DSEIR 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. 2. In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 1, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 1. 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 100 3. In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 1, 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. 4. In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 1, 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 DSEIR 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. 5. 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 4. 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. Property owners shall irrevocably dedicate the ultimate arterial rights-of-way adjacent to their properties as shown in the City of Anaheim Circulation Element and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Plan, regardless of the level of impacts generated by the project. 6. 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 101 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 Plan. Transportation Fee Program Any development in the City of Anaheim is required to pay transportation impact fees per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the completion of the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. In addition, within the Platinum Triangle, any development shall participate in the Platinum Triangle Community Facilities District, which will fund infrastructure improvements throughout the Platinum Triangle, including transportation infrastructure requirements. As set forth above, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements. 7. 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. 8. 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 or update of the existing City traffic fee program or other fee programs shall be developed by the City of Anaheim to ensure completion of the recommended improvements. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Each property proposing commercial, office, or institutional land uses shall record a covenant on the property requiring the development and ongoing implementation of a Transportation Demand Program (TDM) for all employees. Established as an air quality measure, the TDM program objectives shall be to increase ridesharing and use of alternative modes of transportation by employees, provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips, and to conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain project trip generation, trip origin, and average vehicle ridership. Projects with over 250 employees are required to submit annual commuter surveys to the Air Quality Management District. The TDM program shall be coordinated with ATN, as all projects requiring a TDM also are required to join ATN. The TDM program shall consist of program strategies and elements designed to reduce overall vehicle usage. Each project requiring a TDM shall work with ATN to develop an approved menu of TDM strategies and elements for both existing and future employee’s commute options. These strategies and elements shall be in effect from the first final building and zoning inspection, and shall be in effect throughout the project operation. A menu of TDM program strategies and elements shall include, but not be limited to, any of the items listed below. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 102 9. 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 trips. · Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 10. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 103 · Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. · 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) Each building with office and/or commercial uses shall join and financially participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. Every property owner and/or lessee shall be a voting member of the ATN, subject to the terms and provisions of the by-laws and association rules of the ATN. For all projects that are required to be ATN members, every property owner and/or lessee shall participate in ATN coordinated transportation demand management efforts designed to decrease traffic congestion and increase ridesharing. This is described in more detail in the next section. For all projects that are required to be ATN members, every property owner and/or lessee shall financially participate in the operation of a clean fuel shuttle system, if established. It is envisioned ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 104 that a shuttle service will ultimately be established through this program which shall connect these employment centers with ARTIC. For all projects that are required to be ATN members, every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who shall be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip reduction mitigation measures. This requirement shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants. Documentation indicating compliance shall be included in the annual monitoring report ongoing during project operation. The specific mitigation measure with respect to the ATN is as follows: 11. 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. 12. 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 105 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. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Bus Stops There are currently 18 bus stops located within the Platinum Triangle. The majority of these bus stops are located at a far side location, or after the intersection. The far side location is preferred as it provides the least impact to traffic flow. But sometimes, the far side location is not feasible due to physical constraints or other mitigating circumstances. In certain instances, a bus turnout may be preferred as well. Bus turnouts should be carefully placed, as when they are too close to an intersection, they serve to actually increase pedestrian crossing time, which negatively affect traffic signal timing as well. Also, buses can have great difficulty leaving a bus turnout on congested streets resulting in poor transit service levels. Project owners shall upgrade any adjacent bus stops to meet the minimum standard requirements as set for by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The specific mitigation measure with respect to bus stop(s) is as follows: 13. 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). 7.9 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Although every effort was made through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation to ensure that all recommended improvements are physically feasible, there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. For these improvements, including several intersections in the City of Anaheim, all intersections and arterial segments in the City of Orange, and all Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the Environmental Impact Report documenting why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation. With implementation of the improvements described in the mitigation discussion above, the significant project related or cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be fully mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 106 City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Table 7-8 presents all mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts. Locations that are expected to be overridden in the Environmental Document are noted in the table and discussed in the subsequent pages of this section. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 107 Table 7-8: Project Mitigation Measures ID Location Jurisdiction Level of Impact Mitigation Strategy Comments Intersections I - 1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Restripe NBR to NBT, widen NB departure for 400 feet Infeasible I - 2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add 2nd NBL (Restripe #1 SB lane) I - 5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim Project Add NBL: Restripe NB to 2L, 2T, 1R and SB to 2L, 2T; Remove Split Phase Infeasible I - 6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Restripe EBR to EBT, Restripe WBR to WBT and add 4th WB lane to the Simba parking lot entrance Partially Infeasible I - 8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim Project Add NBT, SBT, EBT, EBR Infeasible I - 18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim Project Add SBT I - 19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim Project Add NBR, EBL, EBR I - 20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBL, SBL, WBR, Restripe WB approach to 2L, 1TR, 1R I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim Project Add SBT (in median) I - 23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR Infeasible I - 24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Project Add WBL, SBL, SBR I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add EBT, WBT I - 31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR I - 33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBL, NBT, SBL, SBR, WBT; Restripe SB to 2L, 1T, 1TR, 1R I - 35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim Project Add EBL I - 47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBL, SBL, EBL I - 49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR, EBR; Restripe SB to 2L, 2T, 2R; EB to 3L, 3T, 1R Partially Infeasible I - 50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim Project Add WBL and NBR I - 51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Project Add SBR I - 53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange Project Add NBR and WBT Infeasible I - 57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange Project Restripe WBT to WBTR Override I - 60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim Project Add SBL, restripe SB to 1L, 1LT, 1R I - 61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR I - 62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Restripe NBTR to NBT, NBTL, Add Lane I - 64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange Project Add NB Free Right, Add SBL I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange Project Add WBL (Restripe) Override I - 73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBT and SBT; Reconfigure NBTR to NBT, Reconfigure SBTR to SBT; Add EBT and WBR I - 80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange Project Add 2nd WBL Override I - 87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange Project Restripe SBR to SBT and Widen SB departure for 400 feet Override I - 102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange Project Add SBL by Restriping #1 NB lane); Restripe EBT to EBL Override ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 108 Table 7-8: Project Mitigation Measures, Continued Ramp Termini Intersections I - 21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 NB Ramps Anaheim Project Add 4th SBT* I - 26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add 4th EBT, Add 4th WBT I - 27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add 4th EBT, Add 5th WBT* I - 71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange Project Add 2nd WBL* Override I - 98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive Orange Cumulative Restripe WBT to 3rd WBL Override Arterial Segments A-18 Cerritos Avenue (between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Street) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-19 Cerritos Avenue (between Sunkist Street and Douglass Road) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-31 Douglass Road (between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-56a Katella Avenue (between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 8 lane Stadium A - 65 Lewis Street (between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A - 15 Ball Road (between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street) Orange Project No mitigation recommended Override A -27 Collins Avenue (between Main Street and Batavia Street ) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane divided t i l Override A -28 Collins Avenue (between Batavia Street and Glassell Street) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane divided t i l Override A -32 Eckhoff Street (between Orangewood Avenue and Collins Avenue) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane divided t i l Override A -62 Katella Avenue (between Main Street and Batavia Street) Orange Project No mitigation recommended Override A -91 Struck Avenue (between Katella Avenue and Main Street) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial Override Note: * Intersection identified as deficient under both ICU and HCM analysis. City of Anaheim Intersections The following City of Anaheim intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. · Intersection I-1: Euclid Street / Katella Avenue—Restripe Northbound Right turn lane to Northbound through lane The improvement at Euclid Street and Katella Avenue is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing and newly constructed businesses including a recently rebuilt mini- mall on the northeast corner of the intersection, which support economic development for the City of Anaheim. The potential right-of-way required for receiving lane on the northeast corner of the intersection would significantly impact the business and parking on the east side of Euclid Street, north of Katella Avenue. · Intersection I-5: Disneyland Drive / Ball Road—Add NBL: Restripe NB to 2L, 2T, 1R and SB to 2L, 2T; Remove Split Phase The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. In order to accommodate the proposed improvement, the intersection would likely need to be expanded, potentially impacting the HOV ramp overpass to the Disneyland Resort. Both the City and Disney have invested heavily in supporting The Anaheim Resort and altering the street system in the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 109 · Intersection I-6: Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue— Restripe WBR to WBT and add 4th WB lane to the Simba parking lot entrance The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. This access to the Disneyland Resort has been significantly reconfigured in recent years to accommodate new development at the park and adjacent parking areas. The addition of lane capacity at this intersection would require substantial right-of-way and affect the attractive gateway that the Disneyland Resort has created through extensive landscaping. · Intersection I-8: Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road—Add Northbound Through lane, Southbound Through lane, Eastbound Through lane, and Eastbound Right-turn lane The improvements are infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. To accommodate the proposed improvements, the intersection would have to be substantially expanded impacting the right-of-way of several hotel buildings including the Days Inn Suites and Hotel Menage. Altering the street system in the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. · Intersection I-23: Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue—Add Westbound Right-turn lane The City has invested heavily in supporting development in The Anaheim Resort and reconfiguring an intersection in this area would be disruptive to those goals. This improvement also serves a turning movement that could be considered redundant, as most of the vehicles using this movement would be better served using Anaheim Way to the east to access Anaheim Boulevard. · Intersection I-49: State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue—Restripe eastbound to 3 left turn lanes, 3 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane This proposed restripe will reduce the number of through lanes on eastbound Katella Avenue from four lanes to three lanes. This proposed change will negatively affect signal coordination and timing for both streets. Katella Avenue is identified as an eight lane smart street by OCTA. All through lanes must be kept to ensure the higher capacities envisioned by OCTA on its smart street corridors. To add a third eastbound left turn lane without removing a through lane will significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. This widening will also make Katella Avenue difficult for pedestrians to cross, as with this improvement, pedestrian traffic would have to cross 12 lanes. · Intersection I-53: State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue—Add Northbound Right turn lane and Westbound Through lane The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent existing structures, including several high-density office buildings within close proximity to the public right of way. These types of higher density buildings are consistent with the goals of the Platinum Triangle of internal trip capture and promotion of transit use. Additionally, State College Boulevard is a designated BRT corridor. Improvements to the circulation system in this area should be consistent with the goals of promoting transit use and limiting ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 110 increased auto trips to this area. All of these intersections have a project related impact under the 2030 With Project scenario. As set forth above, there are numerous physical constraints associated with the proposed improvements, including private properties, extensive circulation landscaping and mature trees, and a variety of hotels and other businesses that would likely be impacted. These physical constraints limit the ability to ensure that the improvements necessary to mitigate the project impacts at these locations can be mitigated to less than significant levels. City of Orange Facilities The following intersections within the City of Orange have a project related impact under the 2030 With Project scenario. As noted, there are physical constraints associated with the proposed improvements, including impacts to private properties, including businesses and residences, and natural impediments such as the Santa Ana River. These physical constraints limit the ability to ensure that the improvements necessary to mitigate the project traffic impacts at these locations can be mitigated to level of less than significant. Since the City of Anaheim does not control the improvements that Orange chooses to implement in their City, the City of Anaheim will need to enter into or amend an existing an agreement with Orange to contribute a fair-share to the improvements identified within the City of Orange. This fair-share would reflect an appropriate nexus between the additional traffic caused by the Proposed Project and the regional traffic contributing to future deficiencies in Orange. Intersections that are shared between the City of Anaheim and Orange will be dealt with in the same fashion. · Intersection I-53: State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (shared intersection between Anaheim and Orange)—Add Northbound Right and Westbound through lanes As identified above, this improvement would significantly impact the high-density office buildings at the southeast and northwest corners of the intersection. It should be noted that these mitigation measures do not impact any area within the City of Orange. · Intersection I-57: State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue-- Restripe Westbound Through to Shared Westbound Through Right. Since the westbound right turn does not have an overlap right turn phase, this mitigation measure will cause no impact. · Intersection I-71: Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps—Restripe intersection to add Westbound Left. The existing curb lines up with the curb of the new bridge that will cross the Santa Ana River. The number 1 lane will become a left turn lane at this intersection, leaving two through lanes without an offset. Only signal loops, striping, and timing changes are required at this intersection, and there are no impacts to right of way. · Intersection I-80: Main Street / Collins Avenue—Add 2nd Westbound Left Turn Lane The improvement may be infeasible due to the fact that there are significant right-of-way impacts to adding additional capacity at the intersection. Existing businesses on the east side of Main Street would be disrupted by construction and right-of-way impacts. The City of Anaheim would need to work with the City of Orange to determine the most appropriate strategy for future improvements at this location. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 111 · Intersection I-87: Glassell Street / Katella Avenue—Restripe Southbound Right to Southbound Through and Widen Southbound departure for 400 feet The improvement would require right-of-way and would likely disrupt existing businesses at the southwest corner of the intersection. Although the proposed improvement is a restriping, receiving lane accommodations may impact existing property. · Intersection I-102: The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard—Add Southbound Left by Restriping #1 Northbound Lane. Restripe Eastbound Through to Eastbound Left Turn Lane. This improvement will result in only two northbound through lanes on The City Drive until the southbound left turn pocket tapers to its standard cross section. No impacts to right of way are required at this intersection. Additionally, the one intersection, SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive that was identified as deficient under the HCM methodology will also be overridden. Operational improvements, involving signal timing, coordination, and other methods, may be feasible but fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Orange. This location should be monitored to determine appropriate strategies toward improving flow through signal timing and coordination. The six arterial segments identified as deficient are located within corridors that are built out and right-of-way constraints include existing businesses, extensive landscaping, and in the case of Struck Avenue, several homes. The City of Orange has not included these segments in a current capital improvement program to fund construction of these improvements; 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. Caltrans Mainline Segments, Ramps, and Weaving Segments State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Rather, those improvements are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and OCTA. In California, most State Highway System improvements are programmed through two documents, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). State and federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for these improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a Fund Estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State Highway Account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements in both the STIP and SHOPP by the CTC. The STIP is developed from Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) proposed by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs/MPOs) throughout California and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) proposed by Caltrans. Of the funds made available by the CTC for the STIP, 25 percent is made available for Caltrans to propose expansion and capacity-enhancing improvements on the statutorily designated Interregional Road System while 75 percent of the funds are made available to the RTPAs/MPOs to propose all types of improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 112 on all other State Highway System Roads, other non-State highway roads eligible to use federal funds, and on the Interregional Road System. Transportation funds generally come from a variety of sources including National Highway System funds; State fuel taxes; federal fuel taxes; sales taxes on fuel; truck weight fees; roadway and bridge tolls; user fares; local sales tax measures; development fees, where applicable; bond revenues; and State and local general and matching funds. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern. On the federal level, the City, through its Congressional delegation, has aggressively sought federal monies for regional roadway improvements. Within the study area, relatively recent projects have provided improvements to the freeway facilities. Interstate 5 within the study area was widened in the late 1990’s under the OCTA Measure M. Additionally, the I-5, SR-57, SR-22 interchange to the south of the study area was recently upgraded to improve flow on all facilities. The State Highway System freeways and ramps that are cumulatively deficient under 2030 conditions are at their recommended buildout, according to the Route Concept Reports (RCR) for the Interstate 5 facility approved by Caltrans in 2000; SR-22 facility, approved by Caltrans in 1996; and the State Route 57 facility, approved by Caltrans in 1999. On I-5, the RCR identifies a concept facility of eight general-purpose lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for the segment between the SR-22/57 interchange, south of the study area, to SR-91, north of the study area. On SR-22, the RCR identifies a concept facility with six general- purpose lanes and two HOV lanes, plus auxiliary lanes. On SR-57, the RCR identifies an eight-lane existing facility with two HOV lanes for the segment between the I-5/SR-22 interchange, south of the study area to SR-91, north of the study area. For the 2030 analysis, the concept buildout facility of five general-purpose lanes and two HOV lanes was assumed, although there is still ongoing study for the funding and timeline for implementation of these improvements. State and local funding sources, including Renewed Measure M funding through OCTA, is currently assessing improvements on SR- 57. In an attempt to further increase capacity and reduce congestion on SR-57, a feasibility study was conducted by OCTA to examine alternatives for adding an additional lane in each direction between the Los Angeles County line and the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange. This study concluded that due of extensive right-of-way impacts and expanded traffic at the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange, any consideration of capacity improvements should be deferred until the SR-57 is extended southward to the I-405 freeway. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program. · SR-57 northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment—addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall 2010). · SR-57 northbound from the Katella Avenue off-ramp to the Lincoln Avenue off-ramp— addition of auxiliary lane capacity--(entered the environmental phase in 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late 2010 if project is approved) (Source: OCTA). For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 113 and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the project. The City of Anaheim has already taken steps to alleviate most of the impacts of increased development of the Platinum Triangle. The Gene Autry Extension Project and recent capacity improvements to State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue are just some of the examples of the City of Anaheim’s commitment to an effective circulation system within the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim has an existing CFD program that outlines its strategy toward implementing many of the improvements necessitated by increased development in the Platinum Triangle. With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be fully mitigated with the exception of the intersections identified above in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim City of Orange and Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. The City is committed to working with the City of Orange and Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, the City of Orange and Caltrans have full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements under their jurisdiction. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 114 8.0 CONCLUSION PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES Intersection Impacts Based upon the ICU methodology established by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the study determined that 30 intersections are impacted by the Proposed Project and require mitigation. Improvements have been proposed for all locations and with the implementation of the mitigation strategies, all intersections within the study area operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS). However, seven of the intersection improvements within the City of Anaheim may not be feasible due to potential constraints and will be included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Proposed Project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will also apply to the six intersections identified as deficient within the City of Orange under the ICU analysis methodology. Additionally, the City of Anaheim has identified intersections where certain heavy left or right turn movements may impede pedestrian flow and further delay traffic. Six intersections in Anaheim are forecast to have heavy right volumes which justify an additional turn lane. There are two intersections with heavy forecast left-turn volumes for which the City has recommended adding an additional left turn lane. Finally, the City has identified four locations where unbalanced share of turning volumes between the AM and PM peak hours or special events justify dynamic lane assignment signs that will allow for some lanes to operate as through lanes during certain times and turn lanes during other times. In place of capacity enhancements these locations would benefit from signage improvements to maximize available capacity. Arterial Segment Impacts Based on the analysis, it is observed that there are four required arterial segment improvements in the City of Anaheim. One additional segment is recommended for improvement to allow for continuity on a key east-west corridor. There are also six arterial segment improvements required to locations in the City of Orange. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the arterial capacity improvements has been developed for improvements in Orange. Caltrans Intersection Impacts Five Caltrans ramp termini intersection deficiencies identified through peak hour analysis. Of the five locations, three were also identified by the ICU analysis as deficient. Proposed improvements have been compared to those strategies identified through the ICU analysis and improvements applied to both the types of analyses. Additional mitigation strategies have been proposed for the locations identified only through the HCM analysis where a project related impact has been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 115 Caltrans Mainline and Ramp Improvements Since the major freeway facilities within the study area, I-5, SR-22, and SR-57 have reached their design capacity or will have reached it by 2030 and the required physical improvements are largely the result of background regional traffic, consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures. The improvement measures could consist of ITS improvements, enhanced signage, or other operational improvements. The City of Anaheim has no jurisdiction to implement the physical improvements on the Caltrans facilities and a statement of overriding considerations will be discussed in the EIR identifying the potential operational improvements to Caltrans facilities. Mitigation Monitoring Program The Mitigation Monitoring Program identifies mitigation measures that have been identified through the analysis of potential impacts caused by implementation of the Proposed Project. The discussion in Chapter 7, Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Strategy, identifies the mitigation measures and this section combines the various strategies into a proposed monitoring program that will be carried forward into the EIR. 1. 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 this traffic analysis 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 DSEIR 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. 2. In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 1, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 1. 3. In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 1, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange: ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 116 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. 4. In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 1, 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 DSEIR 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. 5. 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 4. 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. 6. 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 Plan. 7. 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, 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 117 given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. 8. 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 or update of the existing City traffic fee program or other fee programs shall be developed by the City of Anaheim to ensure completion of the recommended improvements. 9. 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 trips. · Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 10. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 118 · 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 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. 11. 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 119 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. 12. 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 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. 13. 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 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 120 required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 121 9.0 REFERENCES City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. (City of Anaheim, 1996) City of Anaheim General Plan. (City of Anaheim, 2004, and as amended thereafter) City of Anaheim Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A For The Platinum Triangle, City Council Adopted 10/25/05 City of Bakersfield Panama Lane Shopping Center, Draft EIR. (Michael Brandman Associates, 2003) City of Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (June 2009) City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (City of Orange, August 15, 2007) Colton California-West Valley Specific Plan- Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines Glossary. (Kunzman and Associates, 2008) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Transportation Research Board, (TRB, 2000) Route Concept Report (RCR), Interstate Route 5 San Diego/Santa Ana Freeway. (Caltrans, 2000) Route Concept Report (RCR), State Route 57 Orange Freeway. (Caltrans, 1999) Route Concept Report (RCR), State Route 22 Garden Grove Freeway. (Caltrans, 1996) Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Multi-Use Development Trip Generation and Internal Capture Summary Methodology—Chapter 7 (ITE, 2004) Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Effects of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transit on Trip Generation—Appendix B (ITE, 2004) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 122 10.0 GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS COMMON ABBREVIATIONS ADT Average Daily Traffic ATAM Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Caltrans The California Department of Transportation DU Dwelling Unit HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCS Highway Capacity Software (Software package utilizing the formulae in the Highway Capacity Manual) HOV High Occupancy Vehicle lane ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Level of Service OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model TSF Thousands of Square Feet V/C Volume/Capacity VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled TERMS ANAHEIM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL (ATAM): The subarea modeling tool developed for the City of Anaheim that has been determined to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) for the purposes of forecasting future traffic activity throughout the City for land use and circulation system scenarios. AUXILIARY LANE: A non-capacity enhancing lane that provides operational benefits to the freeway mainline. Typically an auxiliary lane extends between an on-ramp and off-ramp to facilitate the weave movement between the interchange without detrimental effects to the mainline through lanes. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 123 CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. lf there is an all red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance interval. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD): For Platinum Triangle the District is authorized to incur bonded indebtedness and levy a special tax in accordance with a rate and method of apportionment in order to finance certain public facilities within the Platinum Triangle. The District is expected to contribute funds towards many of the intersection improvements identified in this study. CRITICAL MOVEMENT: Conflicting intersection turning movements that are found to have the highest ICU for opposing movements; i.e. each of the approaches at a four-legged intersection will contain a critical movement that conflicts with an opposing movement. DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle. DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic-actuated signal. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time. DIVERGE AREA (HCM): the two right shoulder lanes plus the auxiliary lane for 1500 feet from the ramp gore point (location where the ramp intersects with the freeway mainline. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper. HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANE: A lane restricted for use by vehicles with 2 or more persons. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 124 INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that are connected to achieve signal progression. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MERGE AREA (HCM): the two right shoulder lanes plus the auxiliary lane for 1500 feet from the ramp gore point (location where the ramp intersects with the freeway mainline. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to cross or merge. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT: The practice of allowing more than one type of lane use in a building or set of buildings. In planning terms, this can mean some combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses. MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes. OFFSET: the time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection. PLATOON; A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS MODEL (OCTAM): The regional model developed and maintained by OCTA that is the parent model to the City of Anaheim subarea model, ATAM. ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PGE): One car is one Passenger car Equivalent. A truck is equal to two or three Passenger car Equivalents in that a truck requires longer to start, goes slower, and accelerates slower. Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car Equivalent than empty trucks. PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles. PEAK HOUR FACTOR: the period during which peak hour traffic volume is at its highest. Peak Hour factor is determined by calculating the hourly volume divided by the peak rate of flow within the hour, which is the highest 15 minute interval multiplied by four. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 125 PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. Also, fixed time signal. PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of traffic through several signalized intersections. SCREEN-LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL CYCLE: The time in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (CEQA): Projects can cause significant impacts by direct physical changes to the environment or by triggering reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes. Physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. You must determine whether the cumulative impact is significant, as well as whether an individual effect is “cumulatively considerable.” This means “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(1)). STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. A complete software package for modeling, optimizing, managing and simulating traffic systems. implements the HCM methodologies for intersection analysis and is applied for State Highway System ramp termini intersections. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT: A mixed-use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport, and often incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to another (destination). For example, from home to store to home are two trips, not one. TRIP-END: one end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each trip has two trip-ends. A trip- end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quality of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet of floor space. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED Flow: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. On a daily basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the peak hours, flow is seldom balanced in an urban area. VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length of facility in miles. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 126 WEAVING AREA: The area of a freeway where there is cross traffic from either a on or off-ramp or transition to another freeway. Typically weaving segments are formed when merge areas are followed closely by diverge areas (within 2,500 feet) and the two are joined by an auxiliary lane requiring the crossing of two or more traffic streams traveling in the same general direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 127 11.0 APPENDICES Appendix A: Platinum Triangle Land Use Quantities by TAZ Appendix B: Internal Trip Capture Worksheets Appendix C: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Counts Appendix D: Existing Arterial Segment Traffic Counts Appendix E-1: ICU Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix E-2: ICU Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix E-3: ICU Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix E-4: ICU Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix F: Intersection Lane Configurations Appendix G-1: Intersection Turning Movement Volumes under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix G-2: Intersection Turning Movement Volumes under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix H-1: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix H-2: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix H-3: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix H-4: Caltrans Ramp Termini Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix I-1: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix I-2: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix I-3: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix I-4: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix J-1: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix J-2: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix J-3: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix J-4: HCS Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) ---PAGE BREAK--- The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report 128 Appendix K-1: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix K-2: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix K-3: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix K-4: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix M-1: Caltrans Ramp Termini Queuing Analysis Worksheets under Existing Conditions Appendix M-2: Caltrans Ramp Termini Queuing Analysis Worksheets under 2030 No Project Conditions Appendix M-3: Caltrans Ramp Termini Queuing Analysis Worksheets under 2030 With Project Conditions Appendix N: Difference Plots outlining AM and PM peak hour volumes under 2025 No Project and With Project scenarios ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix G Water Supply Assessment ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT September 2009 Prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Prepared by: 3 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Project No. 2ANA012900 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive ES-1 1.0 2.0 2.1 SB 610 – Costa – Water Supply Planning 3.0 The Platinum Triangle 3.1 Proposed Project 3.2 Proposed Project Water Demands 4.0 City of Anaheim Water Demand and 4.1 Overview of Supply and 4.2 Groundwater 4.3 Imported Water (Surface Water) 4.4 Recycled 5.0 Reliability of Water 5.1 Metropolitan Water 5.1.1 State Water Project 5.1.2 Colorado River Aqueduct 5.1.3 Water Transfer and Exchange Programs 5.1.4 Supply Management 5.2 Orange County Water District 5.2.1 OCWD Long Term Facilities Plan (LTFP) 5.2.2 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 5.2.3 OCWD 2020 Water Master Plan Report (Water 5.3 Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD or 5.3.1 Water 5.3.2 Past and Current 5.3.3 Huntington Beach Sea Water Desalination Facility 5.4 Dry Year Reliability 6.0 Possible Water Supply Shortage 7.0 Conclusion 8.0 September 2009 i ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLES Table 3.1 Proposed Project Development Intensities Table 3.2 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Table 3.3 Proposed Project Water Demand Table 4.1 Water Service Area Population – Past, Current and Table 4.2 City of Anaheim Historical Water Sales by Customer Class Table 4.3 City of Anaheim Historical Production by Source (AF) Table 4.4 Projected Water Demand and Supply City of Anaheim, including the Proposed Project Table 4.5 Groundwater Pumping by Well (AF) Table 4.6 Estimated Pumping by Well to 2015 (AF) Table 4.7 Total Retail Water Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area for Orange County - Includes Municipal and Industrial, and Agriculture Table 5.1 SWP Deliveries to Metropolitan Table 5.2 Historical Imported Water Use (AFY) Table 5.3 Metropolitan’s Regional Imported Water Supply Reliability Projections....5-25 Table 5.4 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Normal Table 5.5 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Single Dry Year.....5-30 Table 5.6 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years Table 5.7 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years Table 5.8 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years Table 5.9 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years Table 5.10 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years Table 6.1 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Normal Year Table 6.2 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Single Dry Table 6.3 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2006-2010 Table 6.4 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2011-2015 Table 6.5 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2016-2020 Table 6.6 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2021-2025 Table 6.7 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2026-2030 Table 6.8 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Normal Year September 2009 ii ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.9 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Single Dry Table 6.10 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2006-2010 Table 6.11 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2011-2015 Table 6.12 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2016-2020 Table 6.13 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2021-2025 Table 6.14 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2026-2030 September 2009 iii ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURES Figure 3.1 Regional Location of Proposed Figure 3.2 Existing General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Figure 3.3 Proposed General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Figure 3.4 Existing and Proposed Mixed Use Districts for The Platinum Triangle........3-5 Figure 5.1 Anaheim Public Utilities Major Facilities & Service APPENDICES Appendix A Water Demand Factor Support Data Appendix B Metropolitan Water Supply Support Data Appendix C Anaheim Water Conservation Support Data Appendix D Metropolitan Water Supply Allocation Plan Percentages September 2009 iv ---PAGE BREAK--- ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS AB Assembly Bill AF Acre-feet AFY Acre-feet per year APUD, Department City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department ARSP Anaheim Resort Specific Plan ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City, Anaheim City of Anaheim CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CREED Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development CVP Central Valley Project CVWD Coachella Valley Water District DPH California Department of Public Health DSEIR Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report DWA, Desert Desert Water Agency DWR California Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Endangered Species Act FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FSEIR Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report GIS Geographic Information System GMP Groundwater Management Plan gpd Gallons per day GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HGL Hydraulic grade line IID Imperial Irrigation District IRP Integrated Resources Planning IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District KPMC Kaiser Permanente Medical Center ksf Thousand square feet LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LRP Local Resources Program LTFP Long Term Facilities Plan MAF Million acre-feet Metropolitan, MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MG Million gallons September 2009 v ---PAGE BREAK--- MGD Million gallons per day MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County OCCORD Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development OCP Orange County Projections OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District PTMU Platinum Triangle Mixed Use PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement RA Replenishment Assessment RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan SAR Santa Ana River SB Senate Bill SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority sf Square feet SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority SSS Seasonal Shift Storage SWP State Water Project State Water Resources Control Board UBC Uniform Building Code UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WCR Walnut Canyon Reservoir WRD Water Replenishment District WSA Water Supply Assessment YCWA Yuba County Water Agency September 2009 vi ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) has been prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (the “Proposed Project”) in accordance with applicable sections of the Public Resources Code and California Water Code as referenced in Senate Bill 610. The Proposed Project provides for mixed-use development on approximately 820 gross acres located where the I-5 and SR-57 intersect. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in The Platinum Triangle. The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of office and commercial square footage and increase the amount of residential units being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in Final EIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in The Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities for ARTIC, reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange, and address some of the concerns of the previous project opponents. This WSA will provide information to verify that there is sufficient water supply to the City of Anaheim (“City”) to provide for the Proposed Project now and into the future. Previous Water Supply Assessments and Environmental Documents In May 2004, the City approved a Citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update Program and certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 330 in connection therewith. In February 2005, the City completed a WSA for the increase in development intensity proposed for The Platinum Triangle and concluded that there was adequate water supply through the year 2024/2025 to provide for the intensity of the development proposed. In October 2005, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332 was certified and amendments to the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan were approved to allow for the development of 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet (sf) of office use; and 2,254,400 sf of commercial use within The Platinum Triangle, as had been analyzed by the February 2005 WSA. The water demands associated with FSEIR No. 332 developed in the 2005 WSA were included in the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The City prepared a subsequent environmental impact report in connection with The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, for which FSEIR No. 334 was approved in December 2007 and reapproved in April 2008. However, following the approval of the FSEIR No. 334, a lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD) challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council rescinded the certification September 2009 ES-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- of The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 334 and the various related approvals and directed staff to prepare a new EIR for the project. One of the claims alleged in the CREED and OCCORD lawsuits was that the May 2007 WSA was inadequate because it failed to contain information pertaining to possible cutbacks in State Water Project (SWP) deliveries to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and MWD member agencies, such as the City. The possibility of cutbacks was due to federal court orders mandating increased in-stream flows and reduced SWP deliveries to protect the Delta smelt, an endangered species that is allegedly harmed by operation of the SWP pumps, which facilitate water deliveries to the southern part of the State through the SWP. While the May 2007 WSA complied with all applicable laws and accurately assessed all conditions at the time the May 2007 WSA was prepared, this current WSA will analyze the possibility of future cutbacks of SWP deliveries in light of the ongoing federal litigation pertaining to the Delta smelt and possible future regulatory changes due to possible future climate change impacts. The purpose of this WSA is to provide information to verify that there is sufficient water supply to the City to provide for the Proposed Project now and into the future. This WSA evaluates the additional water demands that will need to be served by the City as a result of the proposed intensification of development in The Platinum Triangle. This intensification is consistent with the land uses being addressed in the Proposed Project’s Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) No. 339, and the associated water demands require the preparation of a new WSA in conjunction with the subject EIR. The WSA also responds to some of the previous policy concerns raised by OCCORD and CREED in their earlier lawsuits. Water Demand In 2007/08, the City’s water demand was approximately 74,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) including unaccounted for water, which was actually over 5,000 AFY less than what was projected in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). In essence, this means that City businesses and residents are using less water than was originally forecast, which is likely due to the fact that the previous UWMP conservatively over-estimated water demand, and (ii) water demand is being reduced due to effective conservation efforts being undertaken by the City and increased water efficiencies resulting from more stringent building codes and more efficient appliances tankless water heaters, high- efficiency clothes washing machines, etc.). At the end of the 20-year planning period for this WSA, as required by SB 610, City water demand for 2029/30 is projected to be approximately 88,520 AFY. This projection includes future demands from the City based on the overall projected growth rate, as well as added demands from the Proposed Project, the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project, and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion, all of which have been, or are being, addressed in other WSAs prepared since the 2005 UWMP. September 2009 ES-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- The 2005 UWMP included a demand projection of 2,656 AFY for The Platinum Triangle, based on the development intensities previously analyzed by FSEIR No. 332. Build-out of these development intensities was assumed to take place within the 20-year time horizon typically associated with the General Plan; however, build-out may occur sooner or beyond the 20-year planning period. The adopted land uses considered in the current EIR include land use intensity increases adopted after the February 2005 WSA and, therefore, such increased land use intensities are not included in the 2005 UWMP. The total water demand projection for the increase in land use intensification that was not included in the 2005 UWMP is 1,804 AFY. Additionally, there are existing landscape irrigation demands within The Platinum Triangle, as well as existing demands associated with the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim, totaling 789 AFY that were included in the 2005 UWMP as existing citywide demand. These existing demands are not anticipated to change with any of the land use intensification proposed with the Proposed Project. Thus, the total water demand for the Proposed Project is 5,249 AFY, which includes the 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA that was included in the 2005 UWMP; the 789 AFY of existing demand that was included in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP; and the 1,804 AFY of additional demand addressed in this WSA. Supply Projections The City’s sources of supply consist of groundwater and imported surface water. In 2007/08, the City received approximately 79 percent of its water supply from groundwater and 21 percent from imported water. Analysis of water supply projections for the City demonstrates that projected supplies will exceed demand through fiscal year 2029/30. These projections consider water development programs and projects as well as water conservation, as described in the City’s 2005 UWMP and Section 5 of this WSA. The City’s groundwater and imported water supplies are anticipated to remain stable based on studies and reports of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), respectively. Statewide water planning is also considering current dry conditions and various Bay Delta pumping scenarios, which are also discussed in Section 5. Based on the expected long-term average Basin Production Percentage (BPP), the City’s water supply projection assumes that up to 67 percent will be groundwater, and 33 percent will be imported, which has been confirmed as reliable by Metropolitan. Additionally, analyses of normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios also demonstrate the City’s ability to meet demand during the 20-year analysis period. Finally, an analysis was conducted utilizing assumed temporary shortages in Metropolitan’s water supply, which demonstrates the City’s ability to meet demand under reasonably foreseeable temporary allocations to deal with cutbacks in SWP deliveries due to Delta smelt and other environmental issues, were such issues to materialize in any near term or future years. September 2009 ES-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moreover, should extraordinary circumstances require it, the City can meet its water demand by increasing production of groundwater beyond the BPP up to the basin safe yield, increasing imported water purchases from available storage programs, and/or decreasing demand through water conservation measures. Reliability of future water supplies to the region will be ensured through continued implementation of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan, local agency programs, and the combined efforts and programs among member and cooperative agencies of Metropolitan. These agencies include all water wholesalers and retailers, the Orange County Sanitation District, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. The plans are described in the City’s 2005 UWMP and Section 5 of this WSA. Conclusion The information included in this water supply assessment identifies a sufficient and reliable water supply for the City, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for The Platinum Triangle, as analyzed by FSEIR No. 332 and projected in the February 2005 Platinum Triangle WSA, plus the currently proposed intensification of land use within The Platinum Triangle (the Proposed Project). These supplies are also sufficient to provide for overall City-wide growth at the rate projected in the most recent Orange County Projections (OCP - 2006 Population and Housing Projections), published in 2008 by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, which develops higher growth projections than those used in the 2005 UWMP (both of which include the Mountain Park development) plus additional water demands within the City resulting from development proposed after the UWMP was adopted. These added demands include the Proposed Project, demands analyzed by the May 2007 WSA for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (KPMC), and demands associated with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion Project (ARSP), which are being analyzed in a separate WSA. September 2009 ES-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Platinum Triangle Background The Platinum Triangle consists of approximately 820 acres and is located at the confluence of Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57), in the City of Anaheim (City) in Orange County, California. The Platinum Triangle encompasses Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, The Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station, and surrounding light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and supporting retail uses. One mixed-use development in The Platinum Triangle has been completed and several more are under construction or in the planning stages. Proposed, existing, approved and pending land uses for The Platinum Triangle are included in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project DSEIR No. 339. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330 On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved a comprehensive Citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update Program and certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 330 and associated Mitigation Monitoring Programs. The adopted General Plan provided a new vision for The Platinum Triangle. It was determined, however, that future individual development projects and infrastructure improvements within the project area would require further environmental review and analysis. The First WSA and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 In February 2005, the City completed a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for The Platinum Triangle, which included an analysis of the overall water demands for the City plus The Platinum Triangle as proposed at that time, the existing water supply sources, and the reliability of those supplies over a 20-year planning period, including each agency that impacts water supply and water quality to the region. The WSA concluded that the City’s water supplies were sufficient during normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year planning period. The February 2005 WSA analyzed the development intensity included in the FSEIR No. 332, and concluded that there was adequate water supply to provide for the intensity of development proposed. In October 2005, SEIR No. 332 and amendments to the General Plan and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan were approved to allow for the development of 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet (sf) of office use; and 2,254,400 sf of commercial use within The Platinum Triangle, as had been analyzed by February 2005 WSA. The associated water demands for the proposed developments were subsequently included in the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). 1-1 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- WSA for Gene Autry Experience Project In February 2007, a WSA Amendment for The Platinum Triangle was completed to include water demand increase as a result of the intensification of development proposed by the Gene Autry Experience Project, which encompasses approximately 17.7 acres at the southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard within the Gene Autry District of the Platinum Triangle. The February 2007 WSA Amendment updated the February 2005 WSA to account for an additional 699 dwelling units beyond those included in the February 2005 WSA. WSA for The Platinum Triangle Expansion The February 2007 WSA was again amended in May 2007 to include the water demand increase as a result of the intensification of development proposed by The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (as was envisioned in 2007), as well as the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. The proposed Platinum Triangle Expansion Project included three potential alternatives for increased densities within The Platinum Triangle. The May 2007 WSA for The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed the alternative with the highest water demand. Also included in the May 2007 WSA were water demands associated with the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, a 27-acre site which includes a hospital, administrative and medical offices, central utility plant, retail areas, and associated parking. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 334 In 2007, the City prepared a subsequent environmental impact report in connection with The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. FSEIR No. 334 was approved in December 2007 and reapproved in April 2008. However, following the approvals, a lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD) challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council repealed the certification of FSEIR No. 334 and its related approvals, and directed staff to prepare a new SEIR for the project. One of the claims alleged in the CREED and OCCORD lawsuits was that the May 2007 WSA was inadequate because it failed to contain information pertaining to possible cutbacks in State Water Project (SWP) deliveries to the Metropolitan Water District (Metropolitan) and Metropolitan member agencies, such as the City. The possibility of cutbacks was due to federal court orders mandating increased in-stream flows and reduced SWP deliveries to protect the Delta smelt, an endangered species that is allegedly harmed by operation of the SWP pumps, which facilitate water deliveries to the southern part of the State through the SWP. While the May 2007 WSA complied with all applicable laws and accurately assessed all conditions at the time the May 2007 WSA was prepared, this current WSA will analyze the possibility of future cutbacks of SWP 1-2 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- deliveries in light of the ongoing federal litigation pertaining to the Delta smelt and possible future regulatory changes due to possible future climate change impacts. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 Now, the City proposes to increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in The Platinum Triangle under adopted General Plan and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of office and commercial square footage and increase the amount of residential units as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in The Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities and reduce traffic impacts. Purpose of this WSA The purpose of this WSA is to provide information to verify that there is sufficient water supply to the City to provide for the Proposed Project now and into the future. This WSA develops the additional water demands that will need to be served by the City as a result of the proposed intensification of development in The Platinum Triangle. This intensification is consistent with the land use being addressed in the Proposed Project’s environmental impact report (DSEIR No. 339). This proposed land use intensification and commensurate additional water demand requires the preparation of a new WSA in conjunction with the subject EIR. 1-3 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2.0 LEGISLATION Because of the size of the Proposed Project, the State of California, through Senate Bill (SB) 610, requires that a Water Supply Assessment be completed to evaluate the potential affect of the proposed development on current and future water supplies. While the Proposed Project will be implemented by numerous individual development projects that may have fewer than the threshold of 500 units (or a water use equivalent of commercial or office square footage) that triggers the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, collectively the total project exceeds the threshold. Thus, the City has caused this Water Supply Assessment to be prepared. The following outlines the requirements of SB 610. 2.1 SB 610 – Costa – Water Supply Planning SB 610 was chaptered into law on October 9, 2001. It mandates that a city or county approving certain projects subject to CEQA identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, and (ii) request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. The assessment is to include the following: 1. A discussion of whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing. 2. The identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts. 3. A description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts. 4. A demonstration of water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts by the following means: a. Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. b. Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system. c. Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply. d. Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply. 5. The identification of other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system. 2-1 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. If groundwater is included for the supply for a proposed project, the following additional information is required: a. Review of any information contained in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. b. Description of any groundwater basin(s) from which the proposed project will be supplied. Adjudicated basins must have a copy of the court order or decree adopted and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system has the legal right to pump. For non-adjudicated basins, information on whether the DWR has identified the basin as over-drafted or has projected that the basin will become over-drafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of DWR that characterizes the condition of the basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken in the basin to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. c. Description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system for the past five years from any groundwater basin which the proposed project will be supplied. Analysis should be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. d. Description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater projected to be pumped by the public water system from any groundwater basin by which the proposed project will be supplied. Analysis should be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. e. Analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin(s) from which the proposed project will be supplied. The water supply assessment shall be included in any environmental document prepared for the project. The assessment may include an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document. A determination shall be made whether the projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. Additionally, SB 610 requires new information to be included as part of an UWMP if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. Information must include a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. SB 610 prohibits eligibility for funds from specified bond acts until the plan is submitted to the State. 2-2 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3.0 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE 3.1 Proposed Project Description The Proposed Project area is located at the confluence of the I-5 and SR-57 Freeways, and encompasses 820 gross acres within the City. Figure 3.1 shows the Proposed Project’s regional location. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in The Platinum Triangle to that shown in Table 3.1. The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of office and commercial square footage and increase the amount of residential units being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in Final EIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in The Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities for ARTIC, reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange, and address some of the concerns of the previous project opponents. Table 3.1 Proposed Project Development Intensities Land Use Adopted Proposed Increase Residential Units 10,266 18,909 8,643 Commercial Square Feet 2,264,400 4,909,682 2,645,282 Office Square Feet 5,055,550 14,340,522 9,284,972 Institutional Square Feet 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 The Proposed Project would expand the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation within The Platinum Triangle, shown in Figure 3.2, and (ii) create two new mixed use districts and expand two existing mixed use districts within Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone as shown in Figure 3.3. District development intensity maps that further break down the allocated development in The Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Districts by sub-areas have also been developed and are included in the Current EIR. These existing and proposed districts are shown in Figure 3.4. Proposed development intensities shown in Table 3.1 were used to determine impacts on water supply from the Proposed Project in this WSA. Table 3.2 lists the development intensities by district. Both of these tables include the adopted intensities as well as the proposed intensification for the Proposed Project. 3-1 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 3.1 Regional Location of Proposed Project 3-2 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-3 September 2009 Figure 3.2 Existing General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-4 September 2009 Figure 3.3 Proposed General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 3.4 Existing and Proposed Mixed Use Districts for The Platinum Triangle 3-5 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 3.2 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Acres Residential Units Office Square Feet1 Commercial Square Feet Platinum Triangle District Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Arena 41 41 425 425 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ARTIC2 0 17 0 520 0 2,202,803 0 358,000 Gateway 53 50 2,142 2,949 530,000 562,250 50,000 64,000 Gene Autry 33 33 1,699 2,362 100,000 338,200 174,100 304,700 Katella 99 141 4,250 5,707 775,000 2,131,058 630,300 832,614 Orangewood 4 35 0 1,771 590,000 1,402,855 10,000 130,000 Stadium3 153 153 1,750 5,175 1,760,000 3,125,000 1,300,000 3,120,368 Total Mixed Use 383 470 10,266 18,909 3,855,000 9,862,166 2,264,400 4,909,682 Office 0 121 0 0 0 4,478,356 0 0 Total PTMU Overlay 383 591 10,266 18,909 3,855,000 14,340,522 2,264,400 4,909,682 1 The adopted General Plan allows an additional 1,200,550 square feet of office development within The Platinum Triangle on properties outside of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Proposed Project expands the PTMU Overlay Zone to encompass these properties. 2 The proposed development intensity includes 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses in addition to the residential, office and commercial uses. 3 The adopted and proposed development intensities for the Stadium District include 119,543 seats for existing (49,043 seats) and potential (70,500 seats) stadiums. 3-6 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-7 September 2009 3.2 Proposed Project Water Demands The Proposed Project consists of a mix of new residential, commercial, office, and institutional land uses (mixed use) within The Platinum Triangle. The Proposed Project includes a maximum of 18,909 residential units; 4,909,682 square feet (sf) of retail/commercial use; 14,340,522 sf of office use; 1,500,000 sf of institutional use; and an estimated 9.07 acres of park1. The Proposed Project’s water demand increase is estimated in Table 3.3. The February 2005 WSA for The Platinum Triangle analyzed the intensification of land uses in the Proposed Project area, which estimated an additional water demand of 2,656 acre-feet per year (AFY). This additional water demand did not include existing demands totaling 789 AFY from within The Platinum Triangle consisting of the existing landscape irrigation demands and existing demands from the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim, as these were included in the existing citywide demands and were not the subject of any land use intensification. This additional demand of 2,656 AFY was then included in the subsequent 2005 UWMP adopted by the City in December 2005. The current EIR includes proposed land use intensity increases over and above those included in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP. The total water demand projection for the increase in land use intensification that was not included in the 2005 UWMP is 1,804 AFY. The total water demand projection for the Proposed Project and the demand increase that was not included in the 2005 UWMP is detailed in Table 3.3. As indicated in this table, the total estimated water demand for the Proposed Project is 5,249 AFY, which includes the existing demands from the Arena, Stadium, and landscape irrigation of 789 AFY that have been a part of, and included in, the exiting citywide demand; (ii) the 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA, which was included in the 2005 UWMP; and (iii) the 1,804 AFY of additional demand addressed in this WSA. The water demand factors by land use category are described following Table 3.3. 1 Park acreage is estimated based on a requirement for developers of parcels eight acres or larger to provide and construct an on-site public park, at a minimum size of forty-four square feet per residential dwelling unit (A.M.C. Section 18.20.110). The February 2005 WSA did not include an estimate for park acreage. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 3.3 Proposed Project Water Demand Increase Demand Land Use Total Project Demand Factor gpd AFY Residential 18,909 units 105 gpd/unit 1,985,445 2,224 Commercial 4,909,682 sf 195 gpd/ksf 957,388 1,072 Office 14,340,522 sf 60 gpd/ksf 860,431 964 Institutional 1,500,000 sf 60 gpd/ksf 90,000 101 Parks 9.07 acre 3,500 gpd/acre 31,745 36 Subtotal 3,925,009 4,397 Less Existing Industrial1 -2,272,155 sf -89,473 -100 Total 3,835,536 4,297 3.8% Losses 163 Existing Landscape Irrigation2 164 acre 3,000 gpd/acre 492,000 551 Existing Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim3 238 Total Proposed Project Water Demand4 5,249 Less Existing Landscape Irrigation -551 Less Existing Arena and Stadium -238 Less February 2005 WSA Additional Demand (included in 2005 UWMP) -2,656 Water Demand Increase 1,804 1) These industrial demands were derived from average of past three years of water meter readings from the subject industrial parcels. 2) Existing Landscape Irrigation demand calculated based on 20% of gross acreage of The Platinum Triangle (820 acres) being landscaped and irrigated. Demand factor based on typical application rate for median, parkway and on- site landscaping typical to the existing land uses. Since this demand is included in existing water usage figures in February 2005 WSA and 2005 UWMP (and not anticipated to change due to future land use intensification), it was not included in determining Water Demand Increase. 3) Existing Honda Center Arena and Angel Stadium demands are not included in above projections but are included in the currently approved Platinum Triangle plan. Since this demand is included in existing water usage figures in the February 2005 WSA and 2005 UWMP (and not anticipated to change due to future land use intensification), it was not included in determining Water Demand Increase. 4) Total water demand for the Proposed Project includes 2,656 AFY from existing and/or previously approved development included for the densities anticipated by the previous version of The Platinum Triangle plan, which was included in the 2005 UWMP, the existing landscape irrigation demand described in footnote 2, the existing Arena and Stadium demand described in footnote 3, and 1,804 AFY additional demands shown here and addressed in this WSA. Thus this WSA analyzes the full 5,249 AFY water demand projected for the current Platinum Triangle proposed development intensities. 3-8 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-9 September 2009 1. Outside water usage (irrigation), estimated at 551 AFY, would remain unchanged due to the intensification as it has been included with the acreage already accounted for in the water demand factors for the original Platinum Triangle area. In other words, the land uses within the same area are just becoming more intensified and no additional significant landscape irrigation demand is projected beyond that projected in the 2005 UWMP based on the 2004 General Plan Update land use plan, with the exception of the additional park acreage listed in the tables above. This is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that The Platinum Triangle is intended to be an urban environment with attached residential products coupled with commercial and institutional development. Extensive lawnscapes are not anticipated to be utilized in these types of development projects. 2. Existing water demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim estimated at 238 AFY will remain unchanged and are accounted for in the existing citywide demand. 3. Inside water usage is increased based on the additional residential dwelling units and additional office, commercial and institutional building square footages. 4. Inside residential water usage is estimated based on the number of dwelling units times an estimated 1.5 people per dwelling unit and 70 gallons per capita per day. The people per dwelling unit is based on an estimate provided in the 2004 General Plan Update process and is consistent with City of Anaheim forecasts based on current residential projects located within The Platinum Triangle and other similar parts of the City. The 70 gallons per capita is based on statistics compiled by the American Water Works Association from the website www.drinktap.org (included in 12/9/08 Tech Memo in Appendix 5. Inside water use for office uses is estimated based on 60 gallons per day (gpd) per thousand square feet (/ksf). The sources for this duty factor are from actual inside water meter readings compiled by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) in 2004 for 13 office buildings totaling over 2.5 million square feet in the City of Irvine that averaged 66 gpd/ksf. Based on these studies and other information, IRWD2 used 56 gpd/ksf to project inside water demand for office uses in their Water Resources Master Plan dated July 2003 (included in Appendix City of Anaheim staff also compiled water meter readings for 7 office buildings from 2005 to 2007 totaling over 900,000 sf. The weighted average usage of these readings was 61 gpd/ksf. Some of these uses also included at least a minimal amount of irrigation demand as there were not separate irrigation meters for each property (spreadsheet summaries included in Appendix The use of these more current meter readings based on newer buildings is appropriate because of 2 IRWD information is used within this WSA because the City of Irvine is a municipality that contains a significant portion of new office construction and IRWD maintains records via sophisticated monitoring equipment which analyzes the amount of water used by various developments. Thus, IRWD data contains accurate data on the amount of water used by new office buildings. Because The Platinum Triangle will consist of new office development, the use of IRWD data is appropriate here. ---PAGE BREAK--- the greater water efficiencies that are borne out of, and required of, new development. The Uniform Building Code includes new regulations which result in more efficient water use, and new appliances tankless water heaters, high-efficiency clothes washing machines, waterless urinals, etc.) will be utilized in future projects as required by the UBC and Title 24 requirements. In addition, as the cost of water continues to rise, development projects naturally design projects that are more water efficient. Thus, newer development using less water than older development is a result of regulatory and market forces. This is evidenced by the fact that the City’s water demand was forecast to be approximately 79,000 AFY for 2007/08 in the City’s 2005 UWMP, but in fact was only 74,000 during this period. This demonstrates that the utilization of conservation programs through pricing incentives coupled with increased building and appliance efficiencies have resulted in lower water use per capita and per square foot. 6. Inside water use for commercial uses is estimated based on 195 gpd/ksf, which is an average of the regional and community commercial land use water demand factors used by IRWD in their Water Resources Master Plan of 180 gpd/ksf and 209 gpd/ksf, respectively (included in Appendix 7. Existing demands were assumed to drop by 89,473 gpd or 100.2 AFY based on demolishing 2,272,155 square feet of industrial building area (as of July 1, 2008) to make way for the re-development. This water usage is from an average of the past three years of meter read records for the building addresses that fall within the current industrial areas within The Platinum Triangle based on the City’s GIS maps as researched by City Water Utilities staff. 8. Lastly, a 3.8% allowance was added to the net new demand to account for losses in the water system. This is based on the average system losses experienced by the City over the past six-year period. The Combined WSA for The Platinum Triangle and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center dated May 2007 included an analysis of additional land use intensification in The Platinum Triangle but these additional demands were not included in the adopted 2005 UWMP, and the land use statistics are being revised in concert with the preparation of the current EIR. Therefore, the demand projections developed in the May 2007 WSA for The Platinum Triangle will not be considered separately in this analysis as they are included in overall build-out projections above. Project phasing for The Platinum Triangle has always been based on a 20-year build-out and this analysis will be in accordance with that planning time horizon. Assuming that Year 0 commences in fiscal year 2008/09 (FY 2009), and assuming that occupancy and water demands will not occur until the following year, the additional demands associated with the Proposed Project will commence in FY 2010 (Year 1) and reach build-out in FY 2029 (Year 20), with 5 percent of the total demand added each year. The 20-year planning period from the time of this WSA, as required by SB 610, projects a total Proposed Project water demand of over 200 acre-feet added each year through 2028/29. 3-10 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- However, as described above, a large portion of the total Proposed Project demand is already included in the City’s adopted 2005 UWMP. Thus, the demand not included in the UWMP, which will be added annually to those figures, is only approximately 90 AFY (1,804 AFY/20 years). Thus, this WSA analyzes the availability of the total water demand of the Proposed Project which is anticipated to be 5,249 AFY. 3-11 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-1 September 2009 4.0 CITY OF ANAHEIM WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLIES 4.1 Overview of Supply and Demand The City currently obtains water from the following primary water sources: naturally and artificially recharged local groundwater, and imported water. In addition, the City of Anaheim Water Department maintains 17 interconnections with adjacent water purveyors that are temporarily utilized from time to time, on an as-needed or emergency basis. In 2007/08, the City received approximately 79 percent of its water supply from its groundwater wells that access the Orange County Groundwater Basin and 21 percent from imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The Orange County Groundwater Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). Current and planned improvements, as discussed in Section 4.4 of the City’s 2005 UWMP, will increase the efficient and reliable use of both water sources. Each of the sources of water for the City are briefly discussed in this section and more fully discussed in the subsequent sections. Population, Housing and Water Demand Growth According to the State of California, Department of Finance, Anaheim is the 10th most populated city in California. The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) currently serves water to an area of approximately 48.2 square miles and to approximately 353,000 people.3 The population in Anaheim was approximately 1,500 in 1900, and grew to approximately 14,500 by 1950. In 1955 and 1966, Disneyland and Anaheim Stadium were opened, respectively. These facilities, along with others, prompted a population increase to approximately 166,000 by 1970. Based on the City’s 2005 UWMP, Anaheim’s water service area population was projected to increase to approximately 401,000 by the year 2030. As described below, current projections have increased this 2030 population projection to over 426,000. Much of the growth will likely be attributed to higher population densities throughout Anaheim, including The Platinum Triangle and the proposed Mountain Park single and multi-family residential development in Anaheim Hills. Some population growth will also occur in the redevelopment areas. Since the 2005 UWMP, the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton has prepared the 2006 Orange County Projections (OCP - 2006) published in December of 2008. These projections include population and housing unit projections for all of the cities in Orange County. The approved housing units within The Platinum Triangle of 10,266 were included in the OCP – 2006. However, the additional housing units in the Proposed Project were not included in the OCP projections. When 3 Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton. ---PAGE BREAK--- those units are included, the new total projected housing units within The Platinum Triangle is 18,909. There are also approximately 9,000 additional people who currently reside outside Anaheim’s City limits, but are served by APUD. This figure is anticipated to increase to 10,000 people by 2035. Table 4.1, below, shows the most recent data from OCP – 2006 in the first three rows, with the fourth, fifth and sixth rows of the table reflecting the additional population outside the City but within the APUD water service area. In order to generate a baseline citywide housing unit growth rate, the housing units within The Platinum Triangle are subtracted out since the increase in water demand for these units is being accounted for separately. The water service area housing units, excluding The Platinum Triangle, are then calculated by subtracting the approved Platinum Triangle housing units from the total service area housing units. A baseline citywide housing unit growth rate (excluding The Platinum Triangle) is then calculated using 2005 as a base year. For example, housing units within the APUD service area (excluding The Platinum Triangle) are anticipated to increase by 9.7% in 2020 over 2005 and by 13.7% in 2030. 4-2 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-3 September 2009 Table 4.1 Water Service Area Population – Past, Current and Projected Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 City of Anaheim Housing Units1 100,672 105,920 111,060 115,861 120,705 123,219 126,692 Persons per Housing Unit1 3.38 3.46 3.49 3.47 3.44 3.46 3.47 City of Anaheim Population 340,284 366,351 387,951 402,301 415,496 426,162 439,635 Population Outside City but within Water Service Area2 9,000 9,167 9,333 9,500 9,667 9,833 10,000 Housing Units Outside City2 2,663 2,650 2,672 2,736 2,808 2,843 2,882 Total Service Area Housing Units 103,335 108,570 113,732 118,597 123,513 126,062 129,574 Platinum Triangle Absorption (HU)3 - 1,820 3,509 5,198 6,888 8,577 10,266 Service Area Housing Units (excl. TPT) 103,335 106,750 110,223 113,399 116,626 117,485 119,308 % Growth in Housing Units (excl. TPT) Base Year 3.3% 6.7% 9.7% 12.9% 13.7% 15.5% Water Demand Growth (0.75 x HU %)4,5 2.5% 5.0% 7.3% 9.6% 10.3% 11.6% 1) Population and Housing Unit projections were based on the Orange County Projection - 2006 (OCP - 2006), prepared by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton and approved in November 2006. Population and Housing Unit projections include the Mountain Park development and the previously approved Platinum Triangle project. 2) Population outside City limits but within the Water Service Area provided by the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Housing Units Outside City calculated by dividing population by persons per housing unit shown on second row of table. 3) The Platinum Triangle (TPT) Housing Unit (HU) absorption, or phasing, assumes The Platinum Triangle approved dwelling units were included in the OCP - 2006 with a buildout by 2035. The 2010 dwelling units of 1,820 is based on the Existing Land Use statistics provided by the City of Anaheim Planning Department as of July 2008 plus the assumption that all units under construction as of that date will be occupied by 2010. Dwelling unit absorption is pro-rated equally between 2010 and 2035. 4) Water Demand Growth is estimated to be 75% of housing unit growth due to the fact that new units will use less water inside the home as they will be equipped with modern water conserving fixtures and also use less water outside the home because they will tend to have less landscaping due to higher densification as well as having more drought tolerant landscaping and more efficient irrigation systems. 5) Water Demand Growth also includes non-residential water demand growth since existing demand is increased by this percentage to obtain demand projection for each 5-year period and existing demand includes non- residential water use as well as residential water use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Water Demand The growth rate in housing units developed in Table 4.1 above was used to project growth in citywide water demand at a somewhat lower rate than housing unit growth. A growth rate in water demand equal to 75% of the growth rate in housing units, exclusive of The Platinum Triangle, was used to project citywide water demand increases. This is based on the fact that new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments will have newer, water conserving fixtures inside, more efficient irrigation systems outside, and less landscaping due to increased densities. What landscape there is will also tend to be more drought-tolerant with lower water use than existing developments. The water demand growth rates generated in Table 4.1, while tied to residential housing unit growth, also include other non-residential water demand increases such as commercial, industrial and institutional as these demands are assumed to increase proportional to the ratio of the existing residential and non-residential demands. Table 4.2 shows the historical water sales by customer class and Table 4.3 shows historic water production by source for the past six years. This demand is satisfied from groundwater and imported water. Table 4.3 also shows the City’s annual water demand, that is, the total volume of water entering the City’s system (Total Water Into System). Water into the system is determined based on the water supply quantities (Total Water Supply) and adjusted for changes in system storage and water transfers. Table 4.2 City of Anaheim Historical Water Sales by Customer Class (AF) Customer Class 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Single Family 27,197 27,987 26,201 26,785 28,775 27,674 Multi-Family 15,473 15,652 14,837 14,620 14,646 14,197 Commercial and Industrial 28,766 29,637 28,240 28,838 30,450 29,174 Total Water Sales 71,436 73,276 69,277 70,243 73,871 71,046 4-4 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-5 September 2009 Table 4.3 City of Anaheim Historical Production by Source (AF) Source 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Groundwater 50,852 51,831 43,642 41,858 51,637 58,172 Imported Water 23,943 25,066 28,030 31,256 24,696 15,272 Total Water Supply 74,795 76,897 71,672 73,114 76,333 73,445 Total Water Into System (Water Demand) 74,541 76,900 71,108 72,798 76,687 74,212 Equal to water supply adjusted for changes in storage and water transfers. The variance between the Water Into the System and Water Sales by Customer Class is the result of system losses or unaccounted-for-water. The City has an unaccounted-for- water loss of about 3.8 percent based on the average system losses experienced by the City over the past six-year period. Demand and Supply Comparison Table 4.4 shows the projected water demand and supply for the City of Anaheim, including additional demand the Proposed Project will require through Fiscal Year 2029/30. To determine the total City demand without the Proposed Project (first line under Demand in Table 4.4) for 2009/10, the existing adjusted demand for 2008 of 76,687 AFY (described in more detail in Section 5) is reduced by the existing plus projected demand for The Platinum Triangle by 2010 (1,260 AFY). This demand is then increased to account for two years of the 2.5 percent growth projected between 2005 and 2010 from Table 4.1, which adjusts the 2008 demand upward by 0.984 percent to 76,170 AFY. Each subsequent five-year period is then calculated similarly taking the percent increase for that specific five-year period from the last row in Table 4.1. Demand and supply projections consider land use in addition to water development programs and projects. The demand projections for a previously approved WSA since the 2005 UWMP (Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, dated May 2007) and a concurrent WSA (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion (ARSP)) are also included in the demand projections and listed separately in Table 4.4. A supply surplus is indicated in each of the five-year periods, demonstrating a sufficient water supply for the City and the proposed projects through the 20-year planning period. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 4.4 Projected Water Demand and Supply City of Anaheim, including the Proposed Project (AFY – rounded to nearest 10 AFY) Water Sources 2009/10 2014/15 2019/20 2024/25 2029/2030 SUPPLY CAPACITY Imported1 29,090 30,430 29,560 29,640 29,640 Groundwater – City2 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310 Total Potable Supply 81,200 84,930 86,020 88,000 88,950 DEMAND Total City Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP3 76,170 78,040 79,760 81,500 81,960 Existing plus Approved Platinum Triangle Demand4 1,440 1,940 2,450 2,950 3,450 Additional Proposed Project Demand the additional demand necessitated by the revised project description). 5 90 540 990 1,440 1,800 Additional Kaiser Medical Center Demand6 40 210 330 330 330 Additional ARSP Demand7 30 610 740 880 980 Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 SUPPLY SURPLUS 3,430 3,590 1,750 900 430 Supply Assumptions: 1. Imported: Imported water supply is the result of the “MWD Average Year Supply” times the Level 10, (1.18%) allocation percentage for the City of Anaheim from MWD’s 2009 Water Supply Allocation Model (5/6/09 email from MWD included in Appendix The “MWD Average Year Supply” that was taken from the MWD 2006 IRP Implementation Report includes a 22% reduction in SWP supply based on 2007 MWD IRP Implementation Report, October 2007 1-8). This 22% reduction in SWP supply is the amount of SWP water MWD has forecast would be reduced for delivery to MWD and its customers due to pumping restrictions that may be imposed to protect the Delta smelt and due to potential future impacts from climate change. Thus, the imported supply numbers included in this water supply assessment include the potential for a reduction in total SWP deliveries to MWD as a result of judicial and regulatory actions designed to protect Delta smelt as well as account for future climate change impacts. 4-6 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. The Additional Proposed Project Demand: Proposed Project demand assumptions are discussed in Section 3.2. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes existing landscape irrigation demand of 551 AFY, existing Arena and Stadium demand of 238 AFY, 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. 4. Existing plus Approved Platinum Triangle: This demand includes the additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand (551 AFY) and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim (238 AFY) that were not specifically addressed in the February 2005 WSA, except within the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. 4-7 September 2009 The Level 10 allocation percentage for the City of Anaheim was obtained from MWD (5/6/09 email from MWD included in Appendix This allocation percentage, which is based on MWD’s Water Supply Allocation Model, corresponds to a 50% reduction in regional supply. This is conservative in that the proposed allocation for Year 2009/10, which is the first year MWD has enforced an allocation program, is set at Level 2, corresponding to a 10% reduction in regional supply. MWD’s Allocation Plan is discussed in more detail in Section 5 of this WSA. 3. Total City Demand (without Proposed Project, KPMC, and ARSP): Demand projections are consistent with the OCP - 2006 housing and population projections released in December 2008, adjusted to reflect current (2006-2008) water demand data provided by the City with all Platinum Triangle demand excluded. The demand includes unaccounted for water. 6. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (KPMC) Demand: Project demand assumptions and phasing are from May 2007 WSA. 7. ARSP: Additional project demand assumptions are discussed in concurrent ARSP WSA. 2. Groundwater – City: Groundwater supply is estimated to equal 67% of total demand. Demand Assumptions: ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-8 September 2009 4.2 Groundwater Groundwater The information in this section is intended to furnish the information required by Water Code section 10910(f). The primary source of water for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). The Basin underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. A description of the Coastal Plain of the Basin or DWR’s Groundwater Basin Number 8- 1, dated September 2001, states that the Basin underlies a coastal alluvial plain in the northwestern portion of Orange County. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminates at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County.4 The Basin is dominated by a deep structural depression containing a thick accumulation of fresh water-bearing imbedded marine and continental sand, silt and clay deposits. The sediments containing easily recoverable fresh water extend to approximately 2,000 feet in depth. Although water bearing aquifers exist below that level, reduced water quality and pumping make these materials economically unviable at present. Upper, middle and lower aquifer systems are recognized in the Basin with well production yields ranging from 500 to 4,500 gallons per minute, but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per minute.5 The aquifers comprising the Basin form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The Basin holds millions of acre feet of water, of which about 1.25 to 1.5 million AF is available for use.6 To ensure that the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Groundwater conditions in the Basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions. The Basin is recharged primarily by four sources: local rainfall, which varies due to the extent of the annual seasonal precipitation; storm and base flows from the Santa Ana River, which includes recycled wastewater from treatment plants in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; imported water; and highly treated recycled wastewater. The Basin generally operates as a reservoir in which the net amount of water stored is increased in wet years to allow for manageable overdrafts in dry years. According to OCWD’s Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2006-2007, total groundwater production from the Basin in 4 DWR’s Bulletin 118-1 Basin Description for Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin Number 8-1. September 5, 2001. 5 DWR’s Bulletin 118-1 Basin Description for Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin Number 8-1. September 5, 2001. 6 Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan Report. Chapter 3, Orange County Groundwater Basin Hydrology. 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-9 September 2009 OCWD's jurisdiction was 349,858 AF. The production capability of the Basin has increased as a result of increased wastewater reclamation and the blending of waters of different qualities to produce high-quality potable water for public distribution.7 The most recent example of a highly successful OCWD wastewater reclamation project is the construction and operation of OCWD’s new $500 million water-purification plant, which is designed to turn wastewater into drinking water. This new Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project, dubbed “toilet to tap” in the media, has been lauded by the environmental community because of the fact that these types of projects reduce the amount of energy needed to transport water from the northern part of the state to the southern part of the state, thereby also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. OCWD’s GWRS program is being emulated throughout the State and in other parts of the country. This OCWD GWRS currently treats and recharges up to 70 million gallons per day of wastewater back into the Basin for future potable use. This equates to the recycling of over 72,000 AFY of wastewater back into the Basin for future extraction and potable use. An already CEQA-approved treatment plant expansion of 30 million gallons per day is currently in the design process by OCWD that will increase the recharge capacity of the GWRS to 90,000 AFY, and the treatment system is being laid out so that it could eventually be expanded to 130 million gallons per day. As stated, the OCWD groundwater basin is managed by the OCWD, a special district created by the State Legislature in 1933 pursuant to the OCWD Act, an un-codified statutory scheme set forth in the State’s Water Code. The Basin is unadjudicated. All pumpers within the basin are permitted to pump from the Basin, but OCWD is charged with managing the groundwater basin. OCWD manages the Basin largely through the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) that it establishes each water year. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, ideal precipitation, Santa Ana River runoff, and basin management objectives. In essence, the BPP represents a set percentage identifying the amount of groundwater all pumpers in the basin can pump without paying a high “pumping tax” or Basin Equity Assessment to OCWD (described below). Thus, for example, if OCWD establishes a BPP of 65%, all pumpers within the Basin, including the City, can supply 65% of their water needs from groundwater supplies at a cost significantly less than the cost of imported water. The BPP is a major factor for the City in determining the cost of groundwater production. Groundwater production equal to or less than the BPP pays a replenishment assessment (RA). Funds collected by OCWD through RA payments made by all producers in the basin are used to fund groundwater replenishment and recharge programs aimed at ensuring the long-term viability and stability of the Basin. If groundwater production greater than the BPP occurs, a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) is assessed against the producer of that amount of groundwater produced in excess of the BPP. The BEA is an additional fee a higher “pumping tax”) paid on each AF 7 MWDOC. Regional Water Management Plan Update. 2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-10 September 2009 of water pumped above the BPP, making the total cost of that water to Anaheim equal to the cost of Tier 2 imported water from Metropolitan.8 Thus, the BPP creates pricing incentives to ensure that groundwater producers pump within the framework established by the BPP. Like funds collected by OCWD through the RA, funds collected by OCWD through the BEA are also used to fund groundwater replenishment, and recharge and recycling programs aimed at ensuring the long-term viability and stability of the Basin. The programs funded by the RA and the BEA include all of the groundwater replenishment, recharge, and recycling programs discussed above. Basin recharge occurs largely in the following recharge basins: Warner Basin, a 50- foot deep recharge basin located next to the Santa Ana River (SAR) at the intersection of the 55 and 91 freeways; (ii) Burris Pit, located between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road; (iii) Kraemer Basin, located adjacent to Burris Pit, and (iv) Santiago Creek. All of these recharge facilities are located in or adjacent to the City of Anaheim. A large portion of the recharge of the OCWD groundwater basin comes from water flowing in the Santa Ana River (SAR) south of the Prado Dam, which is located in San Bernardino County, just east of the Orange County jurisdictional boundary. With the exception of contractual rights conveyed to Bryant Ranch landowners in east Yorba Linda which have contractual rights to approximately 2,800 AFY of SAR water, OCWD has the legal rights to all of the SAR flow south of the Prado Dam. (See OCWD v. City of Chino, et al, (Civ. Case No. 117628), Judgment and Settlement Documents.) As set forth in DWR Bulletin 118 and in the 2006-2007 OCWD Engineer’s Report, the Orange County Groundwater Basin is a managed basin and not in a state of overdraft. The Orange County Groundwater Basin is one of the richest and most plentiful sources of groundwater in the entire State, containing approximately 1.25 to 1.5 million AF of water available for use at the present time, and millions of acre-feet that could possibly be produced in the future.9 As part of its Basin management function, OCWD operates an extensive groundwater monitoring program whereby OCWD routinely tests all groundwater production wells located within the Basin in compliance with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. OCWD maintains a multi-million dollar laboratory whereby chemists test the well water for traces of pollution, hydrocarbons, pesticides, and other chemical components. OCWD’s laboratories process tens of thousands of samples a year, and perform hundreds of thousands of analyses a year. As part of its monitoring and management duties, OCWD has developed and adopted a Groundwater Management Plan which is a program to increase water supplies and increase monitoring and groundwater contamination clean up. 8 Metropolitan charges a Tier 1 water rate to recover the cost of maintaining a reliable amount of supply and a Tier 2 rate to include the cost of developing additional supply to encourage efficient use of local resources. As an example, Metropolitan’s Tier 1 rate for treated water as of January 1, 2009 is $579 per acre-foot and the Tier 2 rate for treated water is $695 per acre-foot. 9 Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan Report. Chapter 3, Orange County Groundwater Basin Hydrology. 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-11 September 2009 In 2007/2008, the City of Anaheim produced groundwater for potable use from 20 existing wells located throughout the City as set forth in Section 5 (Figure 5.1). Groundwater extracted by the City at these pumping locations is generally extracted from depths of approximately 100 feet to 150 feet below ground level, based on June 2008 static water levels10. Groundwater produced at these wells is easily accessible to City water distribution and storage facilities. Because of the location of many of the City’s wells adjacent to the SAR and in the northeast part of the groundwater basin, especially the six wells near Anaheim Lake, City wells are ideally located within the Groundwater Basin. From a hydro-geological standpoint, the City’s wells pump from geological structures which are relatively high up and geologically differentiated from other parts of the OCWD groundwater basin. In addition, because the City’s wells are located relatively near to the Prado Dam outlet to the SAR, particularly as compared to the well locations of other producers in the Basin, the City’s well fields draw water from easily accessible groundwater tables that are recharged on a naturally-occurring priority basis due to the location of OCWD recharge basins in or adjacent to the City, and (ii) the City’s wells’ location in or near the upper reaches of the SAR. In essence, SAR water has the natural effect of recharging the portion of the OCWD Basin that provides groundwater to City wells prior to such SAR water reaching the lower portions of the SAR. Thus, City wells are ideally located within the OCWD Groundwater Basin. In addition, because the City’s well produce groundwater from areas within the groundwater basin as described above, the groundwater production in Anaheim does not generally affect the production of groundwater production wells operated by other producers located in other portions of the Basin. Table 4.5, below, sets forth all of the water (defined in AFY) produced by the City during the past five years from each of the City’s wells. For the location of each of these wells, refer to Section 5, Figure 5.1. 10 Water Facilities Data Sheet, City of Anaheim, Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 4.5 Groundwater Pumping by Well (AF) Well No. 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 12 36.7 - - - 14 628.5 502.4 477.4 539.8 509.1 18 362.9 376.7 92.0 - - 19 65.0 - - - - 20 802.1 665.0 409.0 - - 22 2,005.6 551.1 - - - *24A* 332.0 231.6 214.7 251.6 296.9 25 591.6 408.2 505.5 484.8 544.9 26 1,233.9 347.6 - - - 27 997.6 803.4 984.0 1,383.4 234.6 28 1,027.3 818.6 780.2 988.8 580.9 29 573.8 226.4 394.2 - - 34 1,091.4 1,272.8 743.1 409.5 - 36 2,254.4 1,829.1 1,358.3 1,077.2 934.3 39 831.8 959.4 1,019.3 1,722.4 615.3 40 1,513.2 2,156.1 2,155.1 2,396.7 1,849.9 41 5,884.4 4,951.2 5,048.7 5,957.0 5,612.7 42 4,453.5 3,738.5 3,658.3 4,302.4 4,267.6 43 4,650.0 4,521.6 4,373.1 4,520.8 4,402.8 44 4,309.3 3,887.3 3,541.8 4,346.2 4,034.0 45 3,643.7 2,840.2 2,299.8 4,077.2 5,319.3 46 4,486.1 2,609.3 2,090.6 2,869.9 3,354.1 47 2,012.2 2,045.6 3,327.8 4,022.0 5,195.5 49 2,920.4 3,009.8 2,664.5 3,396.0 6,174.4 51 2,477.8 1,759.4 1,626.6 1,595.6 2,571.3 55 2,237.5 2,322.6 1,272.1 2,581.9 4,865.4 48 - - - - 1,080.0 52 - - - - 2,130.1 105 0.0 0.0 - - - 112 408.7 314.1 - - - 53 - 493.9 2,821.1 4,965.0 3,896.2 Total 51,831.4 43,641.9 41,857.2 51,888.2 58,469.3 PotableTotal1 51,499.4 43,410.3 41,642.5 51,636.6 58,172.4 1) Potable Total excludes pumping from Well No. 24A, which is an irrigation well serving Dad Miller Golf Course. 4-12 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Based on past trends and based on the anticipated BPP, Table 4.6, below, sets forth the amount of groundwater, in acre-feet, the City anticipates producing from each of its wells through 2015 during a normal water year, assuming Well Nos. 25 and 39 are taken out of operation. Table 4.6 Estimated Pumping by Well to 2015 (AF) Well No. 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 12 14 466 470 475 479 483 488 18 19 20 22 *24A* 272 275 277 280 282 285 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 27 215 217 219 221 223 225 28 532 537 542 546 551 556 29 34 36 855 863 870 878 886 894 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1,691 1,707 1,722 1,738 1,753 1,769 41 5,129 5,176 5,223 5,270 5,317 5,365 42 3,900 3,936 3,972 4,008 4,043 4,079 43 4,024 4,061 4,098 4,135 4,171 4,208 44 3,687 3,721 3,755 3,788 3,822 3,856 45 4,861 4,906 4,950 4,995 5,040 5,084 46 3,066 3,094 3,122 3,150 3,178 3,206 47 4,748 4,792 4,835 4,879 4,922 4,966 49 5,642 5,694 5,746 5,798 5,849 5,901 51 2,350 2,372 2,394 2,415 2,437 2,458 55 4,447 4,487 4,528 4,569 4,610 4,650 48 988 997 1,006 1,015 1,024 1,033 52 1,947 1,965 1,983 2,001 2,019 2,037 105 112 53 3,561 3,594 3,626 3,659 3,691 3,724 Total 52,382 52,863 53,343 53,824 54,304 54,785 Potable Total1 52,110 52,588 53,066 53,544 54,022 54,500 1) Potable Total excludes pumping from Well No. 24A, which is an irrigation well serving Dad Miller Golf Course. 4-13 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-14 September 2009 Section 5 of this WSA sets forth various groundwater production scenarios as required by the Water Code (Single Dry Year, Multiple Dry Years, and reduced allocation due to Delta Smelt issues), and these latter tables and accompanying text should be reviewed for an understanding of how groundwater production by the City may be affected by hypothetical future conditions. This additional information set forth in Section 5 will furnish some of the additional information pertaining to the sufficiency of the groundwater basin in various pumping scenarios as required by Water Code section 10910(f)(5). 4.3 Imported Water (Surface Water) The information in this section is intended to furnish the information required by Water Code section 10910(d). Metropolitan provides imported water supplies to the City. Metropolitan is the wholesale water agency that serves supplemental imported water from northern California through the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River to 26 member agencies located in portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. The construction of the SWP was authorized by the State Legislature in 1951. Eight years later, the Legislature passed the Burns-Porter Act, which provided a mechanism for bonds to be issued to pay for the construction of certain portions of the SWP facilities. The DWR has entered into contracts with water districts and regional agencies (SWP Contractors) specifying the amount of SWP water to be delivered to each SWP Contractor. Each SWP Contractor was provided with a contract amount (Table A Amount) and capacity rights to the SWP aqueduct and storage system in return for payments intended to cover operation and maintenance, bondholder obligations, and repayment of moneys loaned from the California Water Fund. DWR water supply contracts contemplate that the SWP would deliver 4.2 million AFY to 29 SWP Contractors. Although the SWP is not fully constructed and cannot yet deliver the full 4.2 million AFY in all years, since the end of the six-year drought in 1992, the SWP has fully met SWP Contractors’ water needs twelve out of the next 16 years, except the dry years of 1994, 2001, 2007 and 2008. Of SWP water deliveries, about 70 percent is delivered to SWP urban contractors and about 30 percent is delivered to SWP agricultural contractors. Kern County Water Agency and Metropolitan are the largest Contractors with DWR for SWP water.11 From a statewide perspective, the maximum capacity of the overall SWP transportation system is generally limited by the capacity of the system pumps. The capacity of the California Aqueduct is 10,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) at its northern end, and 4,480 cfs below the Edmonston pumping plant (1,000 cfs equates to approximately 82.6 acre- feet per hour, 1,980 acre-feet per day and 725,000 AFY). If these transportation rates 11 See, generally Bulletin No. 132-06 and latter supplements to Bulletin No. 132. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-15 September 2009 were maintained for a full year, they would result in the transport of approximately 7.2 million acre-feet near the Delta and 3.2 million acre-feet to users in Southern California.12 Demand can have a significant effect upon the reliability of a water system. For example, if the demand occurs only three months in the summer, a water system with a sufficient annual supply but insufficient water storage may not be able to reliably meet the demand. If, however, the same amount of demand is distributed over the year, the system could more easily meet the demand because the need for water storage is reduced. Because the City of Anaheim overlies the Orange County Groundwater Basin and can utilize the Basin to smooth out seasonal peaks, its imported water reliability is enhanced. The City of Anaheim is one of only three retail member agencies of Metropolitan in Orange County. As a member agency, pursuant to the Metropolitan Act, the City has preferential rights to a certain percentage of water delivered to Metropolitan each year primarily from the State Water Project and/or the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as other Metropolitan storage programs. Being a member agency of Metropolitan puts the City in a better position relative to receiving water directly from Metropolitan, as opposed to other agencies in Orange County which obtain their imported Metropolitan water through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). Metropolitan’s SWP imported water is stored at Castaic Lake on the western side of their service area and at Silverwood Lake near San Bernardino. Metropolitan water imported from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) is stored at Diamond Valley Lake and Lake Mathews in Riverside County. Through the 1996 Integrated Resources Plan and subsequent updates, Metropolitan has worked toward identifying and developing water supplies to provide 100 percent reliability. Due to competing needs and uses for all of the water sources and regional water operation issues, Metropolitan undertook a number of planning processes: the Integrated Resources Planning (IRP) Process, the Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan, the Strategic Planning Process, the Regional Urban Water Management Plan, and most recently, the Report on Metropolitan Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water Reliability. Combined, these documents provide a framework and guidelines for optimum water planning into the future. Reliability of Metropolitan’s supply is further discussed in Section 5.0, Reliability of Water Supplies. Metropolitan member agencies receive imported water at various delivery points along their system, and pay for it at tiered and/or uniform rates established by the Board depending on the class of service. Recently, Metropolitan has increased its ability to supply water, particularly in dry years, through implementation of storage and transfer programs. Metropolitan supplies approximately 50 percent of all water demands in its service area 100 percent of the time.13 12 DWR, Bulletin No. 132-05, December 2006. 13 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-16 September 2009 Historical water demands in the Metropolitan service area increased from 3.1 million acre feet (MAF) in 1980 to 3.9 MAF in 1990. Total water use is projected to grow from 3.98 MAF in 2000 to a projected 4.6 MAF in 2020.14 For the Orange County service area, according to Metropolitan, demands are projected to increase approximately 6 percent between 2000 and 2020.15 Table 4.7 shows the historic and projected total retail water demands for Metropolitan’s Orange County service area. The water demand forecasts account for water savings resulting from plumbing codes, price effects, and actual and projected implementation of water conservation Best Management Practices.16 Table 4.7 Total Retail Water Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area for Orange County - Includes Municipal and Industrial, and Agriculture (AF) Reported Projected County 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Orange 651,500 587,900 694,500 672,700 713,900 721,900 735,400 748,600 761,000 Source: The Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Appendix A.1 Demand Forecast. November 2005. The City purchases both treated potable and untreated non-potable water from Metropolitan. The treated water is delivered through five major feeders, East Orange County Feeder No. 2, Orange County Feeder, Second Lower Feeder, West Orange County Feeder, and Allen-McColloch Pipeline, through MWD connections A-01 through A-07. All of these infrastructure programs are in place, and no further regulatory permits are required to permit Metropolitan to convey imported water to these facilities for use by the City. Untreated Metropolitan water is delivered to the City's Walnut Canyon Reservoir (WCR), through MWD Connection A-08, via the Santiago Lateral of the Lower Feeder System. WCR has a total capacity of 2,823 AF (920 MG). This water is treated by the City's August F. Lenain Water Treatment Plant (Lenain). Lenain utilizes a conventional treatment process that includes coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, deep bed monomedia (anthracite coal) filtration, and ozone disinfection. The facility also includes a water system operation center and fully equipped water quality laboratory. Together, the WCR and Lenain form a receiving, storage, and treatment facility. All of these infrastructure programs are in place, and no further regulatory permits are required to permit Metropolitan to convey imported water to these facilities for use by the City. 14 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005. 15 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005. 16 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-17 September 2009 A description of the amount of Metropolitan water delivered to the City in the past and anticipated to be delivered to the City in the future under a variety of scenarios is set forth in Section 5 and 6 of this WSA. 4.4 Recycled Water The City does not currently utilize recycled water. However, the City produced about 79 percent of its water supply from the Orange County Groundwater Basin in 2007/08 and production averaged about 66 percent of its water supply from the Orange County Groundwater Basin over that past five years. OCWD utilizes recycled water generated from the Orange County Sanitation District’s (OCSD) treatment facilities for regional recycled water projects, and groundwater recharge, which is the most immediate potential use for recycled water. In 1991, the City conducted a Water Reclamation Feasibility Study. A Water Reclamation Steering Committee was formed to interview and collect information on developing and implementing water reclamation systems, and the potential use of recycled water in Anaheim, including alternate routings and cost analysis of distribution systems. The committee concluded that a recycled water treatment and distribution system in Anaheim was not economically feasible at that time. The committee did recommend continued work with OCWD and OCSD in regional recycled water projects, including groundwater recharge. Although a formal Recycled Water Optimization Plan has not been completed for the City, the Department requires separate irrigation services for any new landscaped area larger than 2,500 square feet in the City including the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, which will enable easy conversion to recycled water if and when it becomes available. Mitigation monitoring requirements include installation of separate irrigation meters and systems in the current Platinum Triangle Specific Plan and these requirements will be made a part of the proposed Platinum Triangle project as well. Without separating the irrigation services from the domestic, conversion to recycled water becomes overly expensive, making it problematic to convert in the future. Thus, projects located within The Platinum Triangle will be required to construct separate systems to accommodate water supply in the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5.0 RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLIES This section provides a description of Metropolitan’s, OCWD’s, and City of Anaheim’s efforts in securing adequate water supply as well as reliability of the region and City’s normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year supplies. Section 6 describes a possible water supply shortage scenario resulting from a higher reduction in SWP deliveries The Southern California region faces a challenge in satisfying its water requirements and securing its firm water supplies. Increased environmental regulations and the competition for water from outside the region have resulted in reduced supplies of imported water. Continued population and economic growth correspond to increased water demands within the region, putting an even larger burden on local supplies. Reliability is a measure of a water system's expected success in managing water shortages. Reliability planning requires information about the following: expected frequency and severity of shortages; how additional water management measures are likely to affect the frequency and severity of shortages; and how available contingency measures can reduce the impact of shortages when they occur. The reliability of the City’s water supply is currently dependent on the reliability of both groundwater and imported water supplies, which are managed and delivered by OCWD and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), respectively. Despite the ongoing water supply challenges within the region, the goal and statutory mission of these agencies are to identify and develop projects to meet the water demands in the region. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 discuss these agencies, their roles in water supply reliability, and the near and long-term efforts they are involved with to ensure future reliability of water supplies to the City and the region as a whole. State funding has been made available, through California voters’ approval, to increase reliability of state water supplies. In March 2000, California voters approved Proposition 13, which authorized the State to issue $1.97 billion of its general obligation bonds for water projects. Additionally, California voters approved Proposition 50 in November 2002 and Proposition 84 in November 2006, which authorized the issuance by the State of $3.4 billion and $5.4 billion, respectively, of its general obligation bonds for water projects. Types of water projects eligible for funding under Propositions 13, 50, and 84 include water conservation, groundwater storage, water treatment, water quality, water security and Colorado River water management projects, many of which are within the scope of the California Plan. 5.1 Metropolitan Water District Metropolitan was formed in the late 1920's. Collectively, charter members recognized the limited water supplies available within the region, and realized that continued prosperity and economic development of Southern California depended upon the acquisition and careful management of an adequate supplemental water supply. This foresight made the continued development of Southern California possible. 5-1 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-2 September 2009 Metropolitan acquires water from Northern California via the State Water Project (SWP) and from the Colorado River to supply water to most of Southern California. As a wholesaler, Metropolitan has no retail customers, and distributes treated and untreated water directly to its 26 member agencies. One such member agency is the City of Anaheim. Through the 1996 Integrated Resources Plan and subsequent updates, Metropolitan has worked toward identifying and developing water supplies to provide 100 percent reliability. Due to competing needs and uses for all of the water sources and regional water operational issues, Metropolitan undertook a number of planning processes: the Integrated Resources Planning (IRP) Process, the Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan, the Strategic Planning Process, the Regional Urban Water Management Plan, and most recently, the Report on Metropolitan Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water Reliability. Combined, these documents provide a framework and guidelines for optimum water planning into the future. The reliability and operational issues related to Metropolitan’s various sources of supply are discussed in detail by major source in the subsequent sections. It should be noted that some of the recent issues surrounding operational limitations in supply related to species protection and Delta issues are considered by Metropolitan to be somewhat short-term in nature and are not affecting the overall 20-year planning period that is being considered in this WSA document. 5.1.1 State Water Project The SWP is owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The reliability of the SWP impacts Metropolitan’s member agencies’ ability to plan for future growth and supply. On an annual basis, each of the 29 SWP contractors, including Metropolitan, request an amount of SWP water based on their anticipated yearly demand. In most cases, Metropolitan’s requested supply is equivalent to its full Table A Amount,17 currently at 1,911,500 AFY. The full Table A amount is defined as the maximum amount of imported water to be delivered and is specified in the contract between the DWR and the contractor. After receiving the requests, DWR assesses the amount of water supply available based on precipitation, snow pack on northern California watersheds, volume of water in storage, projected carry over storage, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta regulatory requirements. Due to the uncertainty in water supply, contractors are not typically guaranteed their full Table A Amount, but instead a percentage of that amount based on the available supply. Table 5-1 lists the 17 Two types of deliveries are assumed for the SWP contractors: Table A and Article 21. Table A Amount is the contractual amount of allocated SWP supply, set by percentage amount annually by DWR; it is scheduled and uninterruptible. Article 21 water refers to the SWP contract provision defining this supply as water that may be made available by DWR when excess flows area available in the Delta Delta outflow requirements have been met, SWP storage south of the Delta is full, and conveyance capacity is available beyond that being used for SWP operations and delivery of allocated and scheduled Table A supplies). Article 21 water is made available on an unscheduled and interruptible basis and is typically available only in average to wet years, generally only for a limited time in the later winter. ---PAGE BREAK--- historical SWP deliveries to Metropolitan and the delivery’s percentage compared to the full Table A amount. Once the percentage is set early in the water year, the agency can count on that amount of supply or more in the coming year. The percentage is typically set conservative and then held or adjusted upwards later in the year based on a reassessment of precipitation, snow pack, etc. 5-3 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.1 SWP Deliveries to Metropolitan (AF) Year SWP Delivery % of Full Table A Amount 1981 826,951 43% 1982 856,996 45% 1983 385,308 20% 1984 501,682 26% 1985 740,410 39% 1986 756,142 40% 1987 769,603 40% 1988 957,276 50% 1989 1,215,139 64% 1990 1,457,676 76% 1991 624,861 33% 1992 746,991 39% 1993 663,390 35% 1994 845,305 44% 1995 451,305 24% 1996 642,871 34% 1997 724,393 38% 1998 521,255 27% 1999 790,538 41% 2000 1,442,615 75% 2001 1,119,408 59% 2002 1,413,745 74% 2003 1,560,569 82% 2004 1,792,246 94% 2005 1,720,350 90% 2006 1,911,500 100% 2007 1,146,900 60% 2008 669,025 35% 2009 764,600 40% Source: Metropolitan’s November 2005 Regional UWMP and DWR Website. 2009 data represents the initial allocation of 15% plus the March notice to SWP Contractors increasing the allocation to 20%, an April 16, 2009 press release increasing it to 30%, and a May 20, 2009 notification increasing it to 40%. Metropolitan’s full Table A amount is 1,911,500 AFY. 5-4 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Litigation filed by several environmental interest groups (NRDC v. Kempthorne (Case No. 05CV01207-OWW-GSA); Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez (Case No. 06CV00245-OWW)) has alleged that certain biological opinions and incidental take permits issued by state and federal agencies inadequately analyzed impacts on species listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2007, Federal District Judge Wanger issued a decision, finding the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion for Delta smelt to be invalid. Judge Wanger issued an Interim Remedial Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law requiring that the SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) operate according to certain specified criteria until a new biological opinion for the Delta smelt was issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Recently DWR conducted simulations to evaluate current (2007) SWP delivery reliability in light of possible long term cut backs due to Delta smelt protective orders and possible impacts from climate change and reduced snow pack. To this end, these SWP delivery reliability simulations incorporated actions to protect Delta smelt defined by the 2007 Interim Remedial Order (NRDC v. Kempthorne) and a range of possible climate change impacts to hydrology in the Central Valley (DWR, 2007). These protective actions and the simulations resulted in reduced SWP water deliveries. In December 2007, the DWR submitted a Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2007. The report estimates future deliveries to decrease in 93 percent of future years in comparison to their 2005 SWP Delivery Reliability Report. A number of significant areas affecting the uncertainty for delivery reliability are discussed below. Major sources of uncertainty include Delta pumping restrictions, organism decline, climate change and sea level rise, and levee vulnerability associated with floods and earthquakes. The estimated current SWP delivery reliability assumed that the SWP and CVP operate to meet Old and Middle River flow targets specified in the 2007 federal court ruling on interim measures to protect Delta smelt. The DWR has altered the operations of the SWP to accommodate species of fish listed under the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts (ESAs). These changes in project operations have influenced the manner in which water is diverted from the Bay- Delta and SWP deliveries to the southern part of the State. Restrictions on Bay-Delta pumping beginning in 2008 under the Interim Remedial Order in NRDC v. Kempthorne have resulted in reduced deliveries of SWP water to Metropolitan. Based on initial estimates supplied by the DWR and considering the Interim Remedial Order, Metropolitan staff was estimating that it could lose up to 30 percent of its SWP supplies in 2008. The DWR considered these estimated losses in setting Metropolitan’s and every other agency’s 2008 SWP allocation. Actual curtailments of SWP water to Metropolitan in 2008 were based on fish abundance, weather, flow conditions in the Bay-Delta, numbers of fish salvaged at the project pumps, and how curtailments were to be divided between the SWP and CVP. Metropolitan’s current measures to address potential water supply shortages and interruptions include calling for extraordinary conservation, cutting groundwater replenishment and agricultural water deliveries, maximizing groundwater production, acquiring additional supplies, and drawing from dry-year storage programs. Based on these issues, MWD’s 2007 IRP (which was adopted in 2008) includes a 5-5 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-6 September 2009 forecast 22 percent reduction in SWP deliveries. (Section 6 of this WSA sets forth additional analyses, which evaluate a reduction in SWP deliveries of 35 and 40 percent.) Based on DWR estimates of SWP deliveries under the Interim Remedial Order, and assuming an equal division of curtailments between the SWP and CVP,18 Metropolitan planned to meet firm demands in calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010. However, Metropolitan has been withdrawing supplies from surface and groundwater storage to meet current demands. Anticipating that storage could be significantly reduced by the end of 2010, Metropolitan and its member agencies are calling for voluntary water conservation to lower demands and reduce drawdowns from water storage. In fact on April 14, 2009, Metropolitan adopted a Level 2 Allocation, which equates to a 10 percent reduction in regional water supplies. If necessary, mandatory water allocations could be imposed in the future to cause further reductions in water use and reduce drawdowns from water storage reserves. Metropolitan’s member agencies and retail water suppliers in Metropolitan’s service area also have the ability to implement water conservation and allocation programs, and some of the retail suppliers in Metropolitan’s service area have initiated conservation measures. The City of Anaheim has had a successful track record in implementing water conservation programs. For example, in 1991 the City adopted Municipal Code section 10.18, the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance. In response to this ordinance, which resulted in over 13 percent reduction in water use in 1991 as compared to the previous year (see discussion later in this report and documentation in Appendix Additionally, a new Water Conservation Ordinance to address the current water supply situation was adopted by the City Council on April 14, 2009, a copy of which is attached as Appendix D. These water conservation ordinances are recommended by MWD and serve as an effective tool to deal with future water reliability issues. The City’s Water Conservation Ordinance provides the City with the tools to reduce City water demands if the needs arise in the future. For example, section 10.18.080 of the ordinance authorizes the City Council to prohibit specified water uses in the event of a Catastrophic Water Reduction Condition. Because of uncertainties related to SWP deliveries to Metropolitan based on Delta smelt and other issues, Section 6 of this WSA analyzes an additional 13 to 18 percent loss of SWP supply above and beyond the 22 percent MWD has already factored into MWD supply calculations (for a total of a 35 and 40 percent reduction in SWP deliveries). Thus, Section 6 of this WSA analyzes these potential SWP reliability issues on City water supply now and out into the future. In order to create a systemic solution to the issue facing the Delta (which have existed since the 1970’s), Governor Schwarzenegger created the Delta Vision process, which is aimed at identifying long-term solutions to the conflicts in the Bay-Delta, including 18 Assuming an equal division of curtailments between the SWP and the CVP is conservative and may have the effect of overstating the amount of SWP curtailment. As an example, in January the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the CVP, provided notice to agricultural customers that it intended to not provide any water deliveries to agricultural customers in 2009. Thus, in the short term it appears as though agricultural users which receive water through the CVP may suffer deeper water cuts as compared to water purveyors which receive water from the SWP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-7 September 2009 natural resource, infrastructure, land use and governance issues. The Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force presented findings and recommendations for a sustainable Delta as a healthy ecosystem and water supply source on January 17, 2008. In addition, state and federal resource agencies and various environmental and water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, which is aimed at addressing ecosystem needs and securing long-term operating permits for the SWP. The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process is scheduled for completion during the third quarter of 2009, with acquisition of appropriate permits and completion of the associated environmental impact statement/impact report. Recently, statewide officials have expressed support for the construction of the peripheral canal, which would alleviate some of the delta species considerations by transferring river water south before it reaches the Bay Delta. The issues, such as the recent decline of some fish species in the Delta and surrounding regions and certain operational actions in the Delta, may impact Metropolitan’s water supply from the Delta. SWP operational requirements may be further modified through the consultation process for new biological opinions for listed species under the Federal ESA or from the California Department of Fish and Game’s actions regarding the California ESA. Decisions in current or future litigation, listings of additional species (such as the longfin smelt), or new regulatory requirements could adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage, or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. However, based on information provided by DWR and Metropolitan, a 22 to 30 percent cutback in SWP deliveries to the south could be foreseeable in the future years until statewide systemic solutions are provided.19 The inclusion of 35 and 40 percent cut back scenarios in this WSA over a long term time horizon therefore analyzes a true worst case scenario that will likely not materialize, at least in the timeframe out to 2030. 5.1.2 Colorado River Aqueduct The Colorado River was Metropolitan’s original source of water after Metropolitan’s establishment in 1928. Metropolitan has a legal entitlement to receive water from the Colorado River under a permanent service contract with the Secretary of the Interior. Water from the Colorado River or its tributaries is also available to other users in California, as well as to users in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (the “Colorado River Basin States”), resulting in both competition and the need for cooperation among these holders of Colorado River entitlements. In addition, under a 1944 treaty, Mexico has an allotment of 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, except in the event of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the delivery system in the United States, when the water allotted to Mexico would be curtailed. Mexico also can schedule delivery of an additional 200,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year if water is available in excess of the requirements in the United States and the 1.5 million acre-feet allotted to Mexico. 19 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2007 IRP, October 2007, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Appendix A, Water Revenue Refunding Bonds 2008, Series C, July 10, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Colorado River Aqueduct, which is owned and operated by Metropolitan, transports water from the Colorado River approximately 242 miles to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. After deducting for conveyance losses and considering maintenance requirements, up to 1.2 million acre-feet of water a year may be conveyed through the Colorado River Aqueduct to Metropolitan’s member agencies, subject to availability of Colorado River water for delivery to Metropolitan as described below. California is apportioned the use of 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River each year plus one-half of any surplus that may be available for use collectively in Arizona, California and Nevada. In addition, California has historically been allowed to use Colorado River water apportioned to, but not used by, Arizona and Nevada when such supplies have been requested for use in California. Under the 1931 priority system that has formed the basis for the distribution of Colorado River water made available to California, Metropolitan holds the fourth priority right to 550,000 acre-feet per year. This is the last priority within California’s basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet. In addition, Metropolitan holds the fifth priority right to 662,000 acre-feet of water, which is in excess of California’s basic apportionment. Until 2002, Metropolitan had been able to take full advantage of its fifth priority right as a result of the availability of surplus water and apportioned but unused water. However, Arizona and Nevada increased their use of water from the Colorado River, leaving no unused apportionment available for California since the late 1990s. In addition, a severe drought in the Colorado River Basin has reduced storage in system reservoirs, resulting in no surplus water being available since 2002. Prior to 2002, Metropolitan could divert over 1.2 million acre-feet in any year, but since that time, Metropolitan’s deliveries of Colorado River water varied from a low of 633,000 acre-feet in 2006 to a high of 897,000 acre-feet in 2005. In 2007, Metropolitan received approximately 713,500 acre-feet of Colorado River water. Metropolitan has taken steps to augment its share of Colorado River water through agreements with other agencies that have rights to use such water. Under a 1988 water conservation agreement (the “1988 Conservation Agreement”) between Metropolitan and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), IID has constructed and is operating a number of conservation projects that are currently conserving 105,000 acre-feet of water per year. In 2007, the conserved water augmented the amount of water available to Metropolitan by 85,000 acre-feet and, by prior agreement, to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) by 20,000 acre-feet. In 1992, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) to demonstrate the feasibility of CAWCD storing Colorado River water in central Arizona for the benefit of an entity outside of the State of Arizona. Pursuant to this agreement, CAWCD created 80,909 acre-feet of long-term storage credits that may be recovered by CAWCD for Metropolitan. Metropolitan, the Arizona Water Banking Authority, and CAWCD executed an amended agreement for recovery of these storage credits in December 2007. In 2007, 16,804 acre-feet were recovered. Metropolitan has requested that 25,000 acre-feet be recovered in 2008, and 5-8 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- expects to request the balance of the storage credits over the next several years. Water recovered by CAWCD under the terms of the 1992 agreement allows CAWCD to reduce its use of Colorado River water, resulting in Arizona having an unused apportionment. The Secretary of the Interior is making this unused apportionment available to Metropolitan under its Colorado River water delivery contract In April 2008, Metropolitan’s Board authorized the expenditure of $28.7 million to join the CAWCD and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) in funding the construction of a new 8,000 acre-foot off-stream regulating reservoir near Drop 2 of the All-American Canal in Imperial County. The reservoir will be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation and is anticipated to be completed in late 2010. The Drop 2 Reservoir is expected to save up to 70,000 acre-feet of water per year by capturing and storing water that would otherwise be lost. In return for its funding, Metropolitan received 100,000 acre-feet of water that is stored in Lake Mead until recovered, with annual delivery of up to 34,000 acre-feet of water through 2010 and up to 25,000 acre-feet between 2011 and 2036. Besides the additional water supply, the new reservoir will add to the flexibility of Colorado River operations. Metropolitan and the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) signed the program agreement for a Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program in August 2004. This program provides up to 118,000 acre-feet of water available to Metropolitan in certain years. The term of the program is 35 years. Fallowing of approximately 20,000 acres of land began on January 1, 2005. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, approximately 108,700 acre-feet, 105,500, and 72,300 acre-feet, respectively, of water were saved. Metropolitan’s fallowing call is estimated to save 82,000 acre-feet in 2008. With Arizona’s and Nevada’s increasing use of their respective apportionments and the uncertainty of continued Colorado River surpluses, in 1997 the Colorado River Board of California, in consultation with Metropolitan, IID, PVID, CVWD, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), embarked on the development of a plan for reducing California’s use of Colorado River water to its basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet when use of that basic allotment is necessary (California Plan). In 1999, IID, CVWD, Metropolitan and the State of California agreed to a set of Key Terms aimed at managing California’s Colorado River supply. These Key Terms were incorporated into the Colorado River Board’s May 2000 California Plan that proposed to optimize the use of the available Colorado River supply through water conservation, transfers from higher priority agricultural users to Metropolitan’s service area and storage programs. To implement these plans, a number of agreements have been executed. One such agreement, the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), is a landmark agreement signed by the four California Colorado River water use agencies and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, which will guide reasonable and fair use of the Colorado River by California through the year 2037. The QSA was authorized in October 2003 and defined Colorado River water deliveries to the four California agencies as well as facilitated transfers from agricultural agencies to urban users. The QSA is a critical component of the California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan. 5-9 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5.1.3 Water Transfer and Exchange Programs California’s agricultural activities consume approximately 34 million acre-feet of water annually, which is 80 percent of the total water used for agricultural and urban uses and 40 percent of the water used for all consumptive uses. Voluntary water transfers and exchanges can make a portion of this agricultural water supply available to support the State’s urban areas. Such existing and potential water transfers and exchanges are an important element for improving the water supply reliability within Metropolitan’s service area and accomplishing the reliability goal set by Metropolitan’s Board of Directors. Metropolitan is currently pursuing voluntary water transfer and exchange programs with state, federal, public and private water districts and individuals. The following are summary descriptions of some of these programs. Arvin-Edison/Metropolitan Water Management Program. In December 1997, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (Arvin-Edison), an irrigation agency located southeast of Bakersfield, California. Under the program, Arvin-Edison stores water on behalf of Metropolitan. Up to 350,000 acre- feet of Metropolitan’s water may be stored and Arvin-Edison is obligated to return up to 70,000 acre-feet of stored water in any year to Metropolitan, upon request. The agreement will terminate in 2035 unless extended. Semitropic/Metropolitan Groundwater Storage and Exchange Program. In 1994 Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Semitropic Water Storage District (Semitropic), located adjacent to the California Aqueduct north of Bakersfield, to store water in the groundwater basin underlying land within Semitropic. The minimum annual yield available to Metropolitan from the program is 31,500 acre-feet of water and the maximum annual yield is 223,000 acre-feet of water depending on the available unused capacity and the SWP allocation. California Aqueduct Dry-Year Transfer Program. Metropolitan has entered into agreements with the Kern Delta Water District, the Mojave Water Agency (Demonstration Water Exchange Program) and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to ensure against regulatory and operational uncertainties in the SWP system that could impact the reliability of existing supplies. The total potential yield for the three agreements is approximately 115,000 acre-feet of water per year. Other Water Purchase, Storage and Exchange Programs in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. Metropolitan has been negotiating water purchase, storage and exchange programs with other agencies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. These programs will involve the storage of both SWP supplies and water purchased from other sources to enhance Metropolitan’s dry-year supplies and the exchange of normal year supplies to enhance Metropolitan’s water reliability and water quality, in view of dry conditions and potential impacts from the ESA cases discussed above. Metropolitan has entered into agreements to purchase water transfer supplies for 2008 totaling 41,743 acre- feet from Western Canal Water District, Richvale Irrigation District, South Feather Water and Power Agency and South Sutter Water District. In addition, Metropolitan is pursuing water quality exchange partnerships with San Joaquin Valley agricultural districts, 5-10 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-11 September 2009 including the Friant Water Users Authority. The purpose of these partnerships is to improve the quality of water that Metropolitan receives via the California Aqueduct. Yuba River Accord. Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Department of Water Resources in December 2007 to purchase a portion of the water released by the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA). YCWA was involved in a proceeding in which it was required to increase Yuba River fishery flows. Metropolitan and other SWP contractors entered into agreements with the Department of Water Resources for purchase of portions of the water made available. Metropolitan’s agreement allows Metropolitan to purchase 13,750 acre-feet to 35,000 acre-feet per year of water supplies in dry years through 2025. Metropolitan/Coachella/Desert Water Agency Exchange and Advance Delivery Agreement. Metropolitan has agreements with the CVWD and the Desert Water Agency (Desert) that require Metropolitan to exchange its Colorado River water for those agencies’ SWP entitlement water on an annual basis. Because Desert and Coachella do not have a physical connection to the SWP, Metropolitan takes delivery of Desert’s and CVWD’s SWP supplies and delivers a like amount of Colorado River water to the agencies. In accordance with an advance delivery agreement executed by Metropolitan, CVWD and Desert, Metropolitan delivers Colorado River water in advance to these agencies for storage in the Upper Coachella Valley groundwater basin. In years when supplies are needed to meet local demands, Metropolitan has the option to receive the water supply and must pay the associated SWP transportation costs and CVWD and Desert may use the stored water. Historical imported water use by the City delivered by Metropolitan over the past five years is shown on Table 5.2, below. Table 5.2 Historical Imported Water Use (AFY) 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 25,066.1 28,029.6 31,255.8 24,696.0 15,272.1 5.1.4 Supply Management Strategies On the regional level, Metropolitan has taken a number of actions to secure a reliable water source for its member agencies. Metropolitan recently adopted a water supply allocation plan for dealing with potential shortages that takes into consideration the impact on retail customers and the economy, changes and losses in local supplies, the investment in and development of local resources, and conservation achievements.20 Additional actions taken by Metropolitan during the first half of 2008 include the 20 Metropolitan Water District Press Release dated February 12, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-12 September 2009 adoption of a $1.9 billion spending plan, increased rates and charges,21 and the funding of a new reservoir to benefit Colorado River supply capabilities.22 The $1.9 billion spending plan for 2008-09 includes spending for the improvement of water conveyance facilities, water transfers, and providing financial assistance to member agency’s local conservation, recycling, and groundwater clean-up efforts. 5.2 Orange County Water District As has been discussed previously throughout this WSA, the primary source of water for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). OCWD is responsible for the protection of water rights to the Santa Ana River in Orange County as well as the management and replenishment of the Basin.23 OCWD replenishes and maintains the Basin at safe levels while significantly increasing the Basin’s annual yield by utilization of the best available technology. Other than recycled water, OCWD primarily recharges the Basin with water from the Santa Ana River and to a lesser extent with imported raw water purchased from Metropolitan. According to the OCWD’s Draft Groundwater Management Plan Update 2009 dated May 8, 2009, natural recharge accounted for 69,000 acre-feet and artificial recycled water injection and recharge accounted for 272,000 acre-feet in 2008. As of January 2008, OCWD began recharging recycled water from the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). The GWRS, the largest water purification project of its kind in the world, can currently produce up to 72,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water, and has increased Orange County’s water independence by providing a locally controlled, drought-proof supply of safe, high-quality water. The EIR has been completed for a GWRS Expansion Project to increase production to over 90,000 acre-feet per year. Other processes such as recycling of wastewater, conservation and water use efficiency programs, and creative water purchases have aided in replenishing the basin to desired levels to meet required demands. As discussed previously, OCWD establishes the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) each water year. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, ideal precipitation, Santa Ana River runoff, and basin management objectives. The BPP was initially established in 1969 and has generally ranged from 60 to 80 percent. The average BPP for the past twenty years is 72.9 percent. Based on discussions with OCWD and background analysis provided for the January 7, 2009 OCWD Board of Directors meeting on annual water budget and water replenishment, an average projected BPP between 65 and 69 percent was documented. This projected BPP would increase by approximately 4 percent as a result of the GWRS Expansion Project discussed above. 21 Metropolitan Water District Board Meeting, March 11, 2008, and Press Release of same date, regarding spending plan and adoption of rates and charges. 22 Metropolitan Water District Board Meeting, April 8, 2008, and Press Release of same date, regarding new reservoir. 23 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-13 September 2009 As discussed previously, the BPP is a major factor for the City in determining the cost of groundwater production. For groundwater production equal to or less than the BPP, groundwater producers including Anaheim pay a replenishment assessment. If groundwater production greater than the BPP occurs, a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) will be assessed. The BEA is an additional fee paid on each acre foot (AF) of water pumped above the BPP, making the total cost of that water to Anaheim equal to the cost of Tier 2 imported water from Metropolitan. Total water demand within Orange County Water District (OCWD) was 502,746 AF for the 2006-07 water year (beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007). In the same period, groundwater production (including In-lieu Program water, but excluding groundwater production used to supply the Talbert Barrier) for the water year totaled 349,858 AF. For the water year, a total of 52,219 AF of supplemental water was used for the purpose of groundwater replenishment and barrier maintenance to prevent seawater intrusion from occurring in areas of the groundwater basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Fountain Valley. For the water year, which ended June 30, 2007, the annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water was 166,000 AF. Precipitation within the basin was 20 percent of normal during the water year, totaling 2.75 inches. Based on the groundwater basin conditions for the water year ending June 30, 2007, OCWD may purchase up to 84,000 AF for groundwater basin replenishment during the ensuing water year, beginning July 1, 2008, pursuant to the District Act. Since the formation of OCWD in 1933, OCWD has made substantial investment in facilities, basin management and water rights protection, resulting in the elimination and prevention of adverse long-term “mining” overdraft conditions. OCWD continues to develop new replenishment supplies, recharge capacity and basin protection measures to meet projected production from the basin during average/normal rainfall and drought periods.24 OCWD has invested in seawater intrusion control (injection barriers), recharge facilities, laboratories and basin monitoring to effectively manage the basin. Some of these programs include: Recharge Facilities - OCWD currently owns and operates approximately 1,000 acres of recharge spreading facilities located in cities of Anaheim and Orange adjacent to the SAR and Santiago Creek. OCWD has built a recharge system that provides the majority of water supplied by the District. The 17 major facilities in the Anaheim/Orange area are grouped into four major components: the Main River System, the Off-River System, the Deep Basin System, and the Burris Pit/Santiago System. Each system has a series of percolation spreading basins, either shallow or deep, whose sidewalls and bottoms allow for percolation into the underlying aquifer. Seawater Intrusion Barriers - OCWD’s Talbert Barrier is composed of a series of injection wells that span the 2.5-mile-wide Talbert Gap between the Newport and 24 Orange County Water District, 2006-2007 Engineer’s Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District, February 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Huntington mesas. The Talbert Barrier wells can inject approximately 42 mgd of water into four aquifer zones. Injecting water through the wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. The Alamitos seawater intrusion barrier is composed of a series of injection wells that span the Los Angeles/Orange County line in the Seal Beach-Long Beach area. It is operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) in cooperation with OCWD and the Water Replenishment District (WRD). The source of this water is a blend of purified wastewater from WRD and potable supplies from Metropolitan. Also, the Alamitos Barrier System includes four extraction wells located seaward of the injection barrier to create a pumping trough to remove the degraded brackish groundwater. Groundwater Monitoring – OCWD has one of the most sophisticated groundwater monitoring programs in the country. The District runs more than 350,000 analyses of water from more than 650 wells every year. OCWD performs nearly 50 percent more water quality tests than it is required to do in order to ensure the highest water quality possible. In 2004, OCWD completed a 10-year, $10 million Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Effects Study, which demonstrated the safety of SAR water as a source for recharging the groundwater basin. A panel of nationally recognized experts provided an independent review of the study and validated its positive results. 5.2.1 OCWD Long Term Facilities Plan (LTFP) OCWD has prepared a draft LTFP to evaluate potential basin and water quality enhancement projects that may be implemented in the 20-year planning period. The LTFP is proposed to do the following: • Evaluate projects to cost effectively increase the amount of sustainable basin production and protect water quality • Develop an implementation program for the recommended projects • Establish the basin’s future maximum (target) annual production amount and correspondingly how much new recharge capacity would be required • Estimate impacts to potential future RA rates and long-term BPPs • Evaluate potential annexations The draft LTFP and subsequent EIR were stalled due to difficulties related to the annexation of new lands. As a result, annexation has been removed from the document, and the revised LTFP will examine a five year window for new projects. The LTFP has been adopted by the OCWD Board as a planning document. The LTFP utilizes information recently developed in OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan and Recharge Development Study. The LTFP includes a master list of developed and proposed projects. The various projects are grouped into five categories: recharge facilities, water source facilities, basin management facilities, 5-14 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-15 September 2009 water quality management facilities, and operational improvements facilities. Each project is evaluated using criteria such as technical feasibility, cost, institutional support, functional feasibility, and environmental compliance. The LTFP will include an implementation plan for the 28 recommended projects over the 20 year planning period. 5.2.2 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) OCWD finalized its GMP in March 2004. The latest GMP updated earlier versions prepared in 1989 and 1990. The GMP complies with SB 1938, passed in 2002, which includes a list of items to be included in a GMP. The GMP’s objectives include protecting and enhancing groundwater quality, and cost-effectively protecting and increasing the basin’s sustainable yield.25 Various programs, policies, goals, and projects are defined in the GMP to assist OCWD staff meet these objectives. The potential projects described in the GMP are discussed in further detail in the LTFP. The GMP describes the following: • the background and purpose of the GMP • the hydrogeology of the basin • the range of activities and management programs, including groundwater monitoring, groundwater quality management, production management, recharge water supply, and improvement projects • the historical and future water demands and integrated demand/supply management strategies • the financial management programs • the recommendations for continued proactive basin management 5.2.3 OCWD 2020 Water Master Plan Report (Water MPR) OCWD’s 2020 Water Master Plan Report (MPR) describes local water supplies and estimates their availability extending to the year 2020. Specifically, OCWD states in their 2020 Water MPR that significant water supply sources will be available in the future for potable, non-potable, and recharge purposes. The 2020 Water MPR discusses source waters such as imported water from Metropolitan, base flows from the Santa Ana River, treated wastewater through the OCWD/OCSD GWRS program, and possibly desalinated ocean water. The local supplies’ availability and projections from the 2020 Water MPR have been revised and are being pursued with the LTFP. 25 Orange County Water District, Groundwater Management Plan, 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-16 September 2009 5.3 Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD or Department) 5.3.1 Water System The City's Water Service Area consists of virtually the entire area within the limits of the City; however, the Service Area excludes areas inside City limits serviced by other water purveyors and includes areas outside of City limits serviced by the Department. Figure 5.1 shows the Anaheim Water Service Area including these described areas. The City’s basic water services include single family residential, multi-family residential and general services commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional consumers). As the City has developed, the Department has increased its number of connections to imported water supplies, increased the number and quality of wells, built a series of reservoirs, and greatly expanded the transmission and distribution system in order to meet the water service requirements of a growing number of customers. The Department's Water Service Area population as of 2008 was approximately 353,000 and is expected to increase to approximately 436,000 by the year 2030.26 The current major water system facilities consist of 8 purchased water connections to Metropolitan (one untreated and seven treated water connections), 18 active wells, one 920 MG reservoir for untreated water, one 15 MGD water treatment plant, 12 treated water reservoirs with 28.75 MG of total storage capacity, permanent chlorination facilities at various sites, and 9 booster pump stations. Figure 5.1 depicts the location of the City’s major water supply, treatment and storage facilities mentioned above. The water system service area has elevations ranging from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level. In order to provide appropriate operation pressures for such a wide range of elevations, the water system is divided into 19 pressure zones. The lowest pressure zone operates at a static hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation of 220 feet above sea level and the highest pressure zone having a static HGL elevation of 1,320 feet above sea level. The Department's water distribution system is generally divided into two main geographic areas: the "Flatland Area" (i.e. 555 HGL elevation and below) and the "Hill and Canyon Area" (i.e. the 585 HGL elevation and above). The Flatland Area is approximately 21,000 acres, situated generally north and west of the Santa Ana River (SAR), and is almost entirely served by groundwater (with Metropolitan imported water supplemented, as necessary). The Hill and Canyon Area is approximately 11,000 acres, situated generally south and east of the SAR, and served primarily by imported water from Metropolitan. 27 26 OCP – 2006 Population and Housing Projections prepared by California State University, Fullerton published December 2008 and information provided by Anaheim Planning Dept., April 2009. 27 City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan. December 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2009 5-17 N Figure 5.1 Anaheim Public Utilities Major Facilities & Service Area ---PAGE BREAK--- 5.3.2 Past and Current Efforts Reliability is a measure of a water system's expected success in managing water shortages. The City has strategies to manage water demand with respect to frequency and magnitude of supply deficiencies. On February 16, 1991, the City adopted Ordinance No. 5204 (which is now codified as Anaheim Municipal Code section 10.18.010 et seq.,), relating to water shortages. This Ordinance consists of three Water Shortage Plans that can be implemented during declared water shortages. This Ordinance was a result of the severe drought the City experienced initiating in 1987. In response, on March 19, 1991, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 91R-65, in which the City Council determined that a Water Shortage existed and ordered implementation of Water Shortage Plan II, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5204. Effective April 1, 1992, City Council adopted Resolution No. 92R-65, and discontinued Water Shortage Plan II and ordered Water Shortage Plan I and reduced Anaheim’s target of water conservation from 15 percent to 10 percent. On September 16, 2008, the City Council approved guidelines asking residents and businesses for voluntary reduction in water use and stretch water supplies. Plumbing repairs, sprinkler system adjustments, reduced landscape watering, runoff and evaporation management are some of the smart practices the City urges its customer to adopt. On April 14, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6138 (included as Appendix D) in response to Metropolitan’s request to its member agencies to adopt more stringent conservation ordinances that would put into effect different levels of conservation related to Metropolitan’s Water Supply Allocation Plan levels. Another method of water reliability is Metropolitan's Long-Term In Lieu Groundwater Storage Program, which the City has consistently participated in when this water has been made available by Metropolitan. The major goals of this program include the following: achievement of greater water supply reliability through increased conjunctive use of imported and local water supplies; and reduction of member agencies' dependence on deliveries from Metropolitan during times of shortage. The Long-Term Storage credits apply to water that is imported in lieu of groundwater pumping. For each acre-foot of Long-Term Storage water claimed, the Department is provided discounts from Metropolitan and OCWD, resulting in a unit cost of Long-Term Storage water approximately equivalent to the unit cost. But, this provides significant benefits to the Orange County Groundwater Basin as overall water levels are increased, thus enhancing regional water supply reliability. The Department has the ability to certify for Groundwater Seasonal Shift Storage (SSS), Direct Reservoir Seasonal Storage Service (for Walnut Canyon Reservoir), and Groundwater Long-Term Storage credits. The following describes the SSS programs the Department participates in: • Groundwater Seasonal Shift Storage credits are received when the Department pumps additional groundwater during the summer months (May through 5-18 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- September) and, correspondingly, imports from Metropolitan an identical quantity during the winter months (October through April), within a 12-month period. Metropolitan charges the Department a discounted unit cost for the "shifted" imported quantity. • Direct Reservoir Seasonal Storage Service credits for the Department are calculated as the net gain in Walnut Canyon Reservoir during a period that such service is available (typically during October through April). Metropolitan charges the Department a discounted unit cost for this "net gain." • The Long-Term Storage credit applies to water that is imported in lieu of groundwater pumping. For each acre-foot of Long-Term Storage water claimed, the Department is provided discounts from Metropolitan and OCWD, resulting in a unit cost of Long-Term Storage water approximately equivalent to the unit cost of pumped groundwater. Although the Long-Term Storage Program is essentially cost-neutral for the Department, it provides the following benefits: water is imported when Metropolitan has an abundant supply; and groundwater resources are conserved (i.e. the long-term import quantity would have been pumped from the groundwater if the Department did not participate). As previously stated, groundwater is currently the most reliable and least expensive water resource for the City. The Department has scheduled the drilling of one new well every three years. The new wells replace existing shallow and deteriorated wells and provide additional production capacity. Additional groundwater pumping capacity will add to the reliability of the system by: meeting peak demands during the summer months; providing a contingency for wells that are temporarily out of service; and providing availability for any additional pumping requests from OCWD. Due to the geographic location of the City, groundwater production wells are scattered throughout the water distribution system in the Flatland Area. Typically, well capacity exceeds demand in the Flatland Area. In order to maximize the use of groundwater, the Department continues to investigate the feasibility of increasing booster station capacities. These booster stations would move additional groundwater from the Flatland Area (555 pressure zone and below) to the Hill and Canyon Area (585 pressure zone and above). The ability to supply the Hill and Canyon Area with additional groundwater above and beyond what the Hill and Canyon Area already receives will help ensure the Department's ability to minimize water supply peaking charges and increase water supply reliability. Additionally, in order to enhance reliability of the water system and minimize the risk of losing wells to contamination, the Department operates its own water quality laboratory to test wells the City operates, in addition to the tests conducted by OCWD’s laboratories. The water quality laboratory conducts more than 30,000 tests annually and routinely files results with DPH. Metropolitan and OCWD also monitor the Department’s imported and groundwater supplies, respectively. The Department consistently delivers high quality water that meets or surpasses all federal and state drinking water regulations. 5-19 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- The City's long-term plans to assure a reliable water supply include, but are not limited to, the following: • Reduction of water demand through aggressive water use efficiency programs, with a goal to reduce demand by 15% by 2020, compared to 1993. • Groundwater production capacity and distribution ability to meet 100 percent of the water service area demands. • Cooperation with OCWD to maximize conservation activities throughout Orange County and increase groundwater recharge capabilities. As discussed earlier, the reliability of the City's water supply is currently dependent on the reliability of both groundwater and, to a lesser extent, imported water supplies, which are managed and delivered by OCWD and Metropolitan, respectively. 5.3.3 Huntington Beach Sea Water Desalination Facility As technology progresses, additional water supplies and facilities are being brought on line to further assure water supply reliability well into the future. One recent example is the proposal by Poseidon Resources, Inc. to build a 50-million- gallon-per-day (50 MGD) (56,000 AFY) seawater desalination project in Huntington Beach called the Huntington Beach Sea Water Desalination Facility. Poseidon Resources Corporation is working with local and state agencies to obtain the required permits to ensure proper safeguards to the community and environment. The Environmental Impact Report was certified in September 2005 by the Huntington Beach City Council. The City Council also approved the Coastal Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Owner’s Participation Agreement for the facility in February 2006. Construction could begin in 2009 and the facility could be operational in 2011. The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department has signed a letter of intent regarding a potential water purchase agreement with Poseidon Resources. The letter sets forth certain non-binding understandings between the City and Poseidon relating to an interest in discussing the potential purchase of desalinated water from the seawater desalination plant to be built by Poseidon at its site in Huntington Beach. Anaheim and Poseidon intend to begin good faith negotiations of a definitive water purchase agreement. Again, this is just one example of a new project and new technology ensuring water reliability into the future. Another example includes OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System discussed above. 5-20 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-21 September 2009 5.4 Dry Year Reliability Comparison Metropolitan Supplies and Demands As previously noted, the Anaheim Public Utilities Department is a direct member agency of Metropolitan. In its 2005 Regional UWMP (RUWMP) and more recently its 2006 Integrated Water Resources Plan Implementation Report (IRP Implementation Report),28 Metropolitan chose the year 1977 as the single driest year since 1922 and the years 1990- 1992 as the multiple driest years over that same period. These years were selected because they represent the timing of the least amount of available water resources from the SWP, a major source of Metropolitan’s supply. Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP Implementation Report provided an update to the water supply projections presented in the Metropolitan’s 2005 RUWMP. Subsequently, MWD developed its 2007 IRP Implementation Report dated October 2007. In reliance on data received from DWR staff, the 2007 IRP Implementation Report states that “[b]ased on initial estimates, Metropolitan could see as much as up to 22 percent reduction, on average, of its SWP supplies in 2008 and beyond.” However, Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report did not include revised water supply projections as did the previous versions. Importantly, it should be noted that the 2007 SWP Delivery Reliability Report (which was adopted by DWR in August 2008) does not reflect reductions in SWP deliveries to MWD as high as 22 percent. Nevertheless, this WSA utilizes the 22 percent reduction of SWP supplies set forth in the 2007 MWD IRP Implementation Report. Additionally, in Section 6, this WSA includes analyes of 35 and 40 percent reduction in SWP deliveries to MWD. Thus, this WSA takes a very conservative approach and utilizes a truly worst case scenario (in Section 6) that may not materialize. Thus, this WSA directly addresses the assertion made by CREED and OCCORD in the previous 2008 lawsuit that the previous WSA did not analyze new information in the form of Delta smelt and other issues in the WSA’s analysis of future water reliability. Based on the 2006 IRP Implementation Report, over the 20-year period beginning in 2010 and ending in 2030, Metropolitan projects a 2.0 percent increase in overall available supply during an average year, a 4.9 percent increase during a single dry year, and a 1.9 percent increase during the third year of the multiple dry year period. The increased available supplies during drought year scenarios are primarily due to increased contract allotments of in-basin storage as well as a number of supplies under development. For example, in a single dry year or multiple dry year period, Metropolitan anticipates accessing water stored in a variety of the storage programs discussed above. In its 2005 RUWMP, Metropolitan projects an increase in member agency demands. Specifically, they project a 10 percent increase over the same 20-year period in the 28 Metropolitan develops Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs), which lay out how Metropolitan will secure and provide water to its customer base. These IRPs utilize hydrological and other data provided by DWR and are updated periodically through IRP Implementation Reports to reflect changing conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- average demand, a 6.9 percent increase during the single dry year scenario, and a 7.8 percent increase during the multiple dry year scenario. However, in all cases, the projected regional increase in demands by member agencies are offset by available surpluses in the Metropolitan supply. Table 5.3 summarizes Metropolitan’s current imported supply availability projections for average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years over the 20-year period beginning in 2010 and ending in 2030. These supply projections are based on the most recent data available from their 2006 IRP Implementation Report with an additional 22 percent reduction in SWP supplies based on Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report, as discussed above. Appendix B includes the water supply tables from Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP Implementation Report and the calculated Metropolitan supply with a 22 percent reduction in SWP supply. Based on these projections, Metropolitan will be able to meet all of its projected average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year service area demands through the year 2030. Metropolitan regional water demand data is based on its 2005 RUWMP. MWD has had a long and successful track record in implementing resource management actions and measures to allow for consistency in available water supply in dry years. Some of these programs, segregated by category, have included the following: 1. Conservation • Incentives to facilitate the installation of water conserving devices. • Water savings through legislative measures. • Pursuing specific implementation strategies outlined in Metropolitan’s Conservation Strategy Plan, jointly developed with its member agencies. • Total incentive payments for FY 2006/07 were $15.4 million, which created 112,000 AF of conserved water savings. 2. Local Resources (LRP) • Incentives of up to $250 per acre-foot to expand water recycling and groundwater recovery programs. • Eighty-six participating water recycling and groundwater recovery projects are expected to collectively produce about 363,000 AF per year once fully implemented. • Since inception of the LRP in 1982, Metropolitan has provided more than $244 million for the production of about 1.3 MAF of recycled water and recovered groundwater. 3. In-Basin Groundwater Storage • Metropolitan’s dry-year conjunctive use programs with member and retail agencies provide more than 415,000 AF of additional storage within the service area with a contractual yield of more than 115,000 AF during dry conditions. Metropolitan has allocated $52.4 million to these programs to date. • Metropolitan has about 63,000 AF in supplemental storage locally through agreements with several member agencies. 5-22 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. In-Basin Surface Water Storage Metropolitan Reservoirs – Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner Flexible Storage in DWR reservoirs – Castaic Lake, and Lake Perris 5. Colorado River Aqueduct • Metropolitan has implemented water management and transfer programs: o Quantification Settlement Agreement – agreement allowing for agricultural conservation, water transfers, and potential surplus water availability (60,000 AF in FY 2006/07) o Imperial Irrigation District/Metropolitan Conservation Program (83,000 AF in FY 2006/07. o Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management Program (86,000 AF in FY 2006/07) 6. State Water Project • In June 2007 Metropolitan adopted the Delta Action Plan that sets a direction for Metropolitan to respond to the ongoing problems of the Bay-Delta ecosystem in a systematic approach to restore reliability to the SWP. • Metropolitan manages five existing SWP storage programs located outside of its service area: o Semitropic/Metropolitan Water Banking and Exchange Program (yield between 31,500 and 223,000 AFY) o Arvin-Edison Water Management Program (yield up to 75,00 AFY) o San Bernardino/Metropolitan Coordinated Operating Agreement (annual purchase of up to 20,000 AF and carryover storage of 50,000 AF) o Kern Delta/Metropolitan Water Management Program (storage up to 250,000 AF and return up to 50,000 AFY) o Mojave/Metropolitan Demonstration Water Exchange Program In its 2007 IRP, MWD has identified and stated that it intends to continue implementing many of these same programs and has also identified additional resource management actions. Some of these programs include the following: 1. Conservation • Program refinements: more options, streamlined administrative processes, upgraded and new incentives and more standardization across programs to increase program participation. • Expanded incentives: new incentives added to facilitate installation of water conserving devices, grants and like funding from other agencies help expand incentives programs. • New Programs: novel programs similar to Public Sector Water Efficiency Partnership Demonstration Program. 5-23 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Local Resources (LRP) • Metropolitan’s pursuit of the development of seawater desalination through regional facilitation and funding. • Updated policies allowing an open process to accept and review project applications on a continuous basis, with a goal of development of an additional 174,000 acre-feet per year of local water resources. 3. In-Basin Groundwater Storage • Completion of the Groundwater Basin Assessment Study provides new information and a baseline for discussions focusing on how to move forward to meet goals for dry-year groundwater yield. Key findings indicate that as much as 3.2 million acre-feet of storage may be available in groundwater basins within the Metropolitan service area; however, much of this space is not currently utilized due to a number of factors including institutional disagreements and uncertainties, need for significant capital investments in conveyance, recharge, and/or extraction facilities, water quality considerations, etc. 4. Colorado River Aqueduct • Metropolitan has begun negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation for a long- term Intentionally Created Surplus program that will allow Metropolitan to store water in Lake Mead for delivery via the Aqueduct in dry years. 5. State Water Project • Metropolitan is actively engaged in all proceedings regarding Delta operations to evaluate options to address Delta smelt impacts and other environmental concerns, the Delta Vision process and the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process. 5-24 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.3 Metropolitan’s Regional Imported Water Supply Reliability Projections Region Wide Projections 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Information Projected Supply During an Average Year[1] 2,465,140 2,579,140 2,505,040 2,512,040 2,512,040 Projected Supply During a Single Dry Year[1] 3,253,640 3,438,180 3,486,560 3,439,560 3,390,560 Projected Supply During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period[1] 2,599,760 2,653,060 2,685,580 2,677,580 2,660,580 Demand Information Projected Demand During an Average Year[2] 2,063,000 1,985,000 2,029,000 2,141,000 2,269,000 Projected Demand During a Single Dry Year[2] 2,348,000 2,234,000 2,275,000 2,388,000 2,511,000 Projected Demand During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period[2] 2,420,000 2,341,000 2,355,000 2,479,000 2,609,000 Surplus Information Projected Surplus During an Average Year 402,140 594,140 476,040 371,040 243,040 Projected Surplus During a Single Dry Year 905,640 1,204,180 1,211,560 1,051,560 879,560 Projected Surplus During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period 179,760 312,060 330,580 198,580 51,580 Projected supplies include current supplies and supplies under development. This data was obtained from Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP Implementation Report supply projections and includes a 22% reduction in SWP deliveries based on Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). Demand data obtained from Metropolitan’s 2005 RUWMP demand projections. 5-25 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Anaheim Public Utilities Department The City’s water demand in fiscal year 2007/08 was 74,242 AF including unaccounted- for-water. By the year 2029/30, the City’s projected water demand is 88,520 AFY, including approximately 5,249 AFY for the total Proposed Project, of which 1,804 AFY of demand is associated with increased intensification in The Platinum Triangle (see Table 3.3) over and above that which was included in the City’s adopted 2005 UWMP. More current information than what was included in the City’s 2005 UWMP, in terms of existing City-wide water use and future growth projections, was utilized to project future demands. The City’s 2005 UWMP used a 2000/2004 average APUD demand of 73,209 AF (based on customer sales, not production) to estimate water demand for the year 2005. For purposes of developing an updated existing water usage, the 2005 water demand of 69,277 AF was excluded from the 2000/04 average due to the unusually heavy rainfall which occurred during 2005. However, the 2005/06 sales of 70,243 AF, which was not a wet year, indicates the 2005 UWMP projections were conservative, which may be due to water conservation causing a permanent reduction in City-wide demands. To reiterate, the water demand projections contained in the City’s UWMP appear to overstate future demand when one analyzes actual demand versus the demand that was predicted. This is likely due to the success of the City’s water conservation programs and is also a likely result of water customers utilizing less water in response to price increases. To reflect the reduced growth in water demand that has occurred since the UWMP, updated water sales for 2006/07 of 73,871 AF (excluding unaccounted for water) and a total water demand of 76,687 AF (including unaccounted for water) was used as an estimate of existing (2008) water demand. Water demand for 2006/07 was used to estimate current use because that year experienced the highest water sales volume over the past seven years and is considered the most conservative estimate utilization of this year would overestimate the amount of water to be used). Projected water demands were calculated using the percentage growth rates developed in Table 4.1, using the updated 2008 estimated water demand as a starting point. As discussed in Section 4, this WSA uses a water demand growth rate equal to approximately 75 percent of the projected housing unit growth rate. Water demand is projected to increase at this reduced rate versus housing unit growth rate because much of the new development growth is occurring from increased densities in redevelopment areas that have existing water demands. In addition, new growth will tend to have newer, water conserving fixtures such as high efficiency clothes washers as well as more drought tolerant landscaping and more efficient irrigation systems. It should also be noted that the growth projections, and hence the water demand increases, include the proposed Mountain Park development. Past hydrologic data and their effect on historic water demand were considered to determine factors for single-dry and multiple-dry years, which is consistent with the City’s 2005 UWMP. The single-dry year for the City is estimated to increase 5 percent from the normal water year, and multiple-dry year demands (three-year period) are 5-26 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-27 September 2009 estimated to increase 6, 3, and 5 percent from the normal water year demand, respectively. The OCWD Basin Production Percentage (BPP) is calculated by dividing groundwater basin pumping by total water demands. For fiscal year 2008-09 the BPP was established at 69 percent. The average BPP for the past twenty years is 72.9 percent. Based on discussions with OCWD staff and background analysis provided for the January 7, 2009 OCWD Board of Directors meeting on annual water budget and water replenishment, an average projected BPP between 65 percent and 69 percent was documented. An average BPP of 67 percent is assumed to be a reasonable estimate for long-term planning purposes and is used in this WSA to project groundwater supply. OCWD staff have confirmed that the use of this BPP estimate is a reasonable assumption for this WSA. Importantly, and as has been stated above, the City or any producer can always produce groundwater above the BPP. If this occurs, the producer pays the BEA pump tax which is a higher payment as compared to the RA that is paid by a producer for groundwater produced within the BPP limits Imported water supply to the City as set forth in Tables 5-4 through 5-10 is calculated as 1.18 percent of Metropolitan’s available water supply (Table 5.3 above) based on Anaheim's share of allocation from MWD's 2009 Water Supply Allocation Plan. In February of 2008 Metropolitan’s Board adopted a Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) that sets out a formula for allocating water to its member agencies due to uncertain conditions related to Delta pumping operations, climate change and current dry conditions. Each year, Metropolitan updates their Water Supply Allocation Plan spreadsheet to reflect the current demand and supply situation and in April adopts an allocation level, if shortages in regional supply dictate. This Water Supply Allocation Plan analyzes available water supply resources.29 The City’s allocation of water from Metropolitan varies based on water supply availability. For example, on April 14, 2009, Metropolitan adopted a Level 2 Water Supply Allocation, which equates to a 10 percent loss of regional supply. This allocation will go into effect commencing on July 1, 2009. Using the latest information from Metropolitan (5/6/09 email included in Appendix Anaheim’s allocation percentage is 1.29 percent corresponding to a Level 2 Allocation (adopted for 2009) and 1.18 percent corresponding to a Level 10 Allocation. The percentage used (1.18 percent) to determine the City’s share of Metropolitan water in this WSA is the most conservative (lowest) allocation percentage provided by Metropolitan for the City. This percentage equates to a Level 10 Water Supply Allocation or a 50 percent loss of regional supply to Metropolitan and is the most severe allocation level Metropolitan has. All other scenarios call for a percentage higher than the 1.18 percent. Thus, this WSA is highly conservative insofar as it assumes possible extremely reduced supplies in the future year scenarios. Analysis shows that long-term groundwater and 29 MWD has a created a “Water Supply Allocation Plan”. This Water Supply Allocation Plan is essentially a water rationing plan. The Water Supply Allocation Plan contains Allocation Levels 1 through 10. Level 1 is the least severe Allocation Plan and Level 10 is the most severe Allocation Plan. Each Allocation Level represents a 5% reduction in water supplies otherwise made available to a jurisdiction in a non-allocation year Level 1 Allocation = 5% reduction, Level 2 Allocation = 10% reduction, etc.). This WSA’s use of a Level 10 Allocation represents the truly worst case scenario that will likely not materialize ---PAGE BREAK--- imported water in the above quantities are anticipated to remain stable to the City, based on studies and reports of OCWD and Metropolitan, respectively. Table 5.4 presents future normal year water demands based on growth factors developed in Section 4 of this WSA. Table 5.5 shows single dry water year supply and demand projections under normal groundwater supply conditions. Tables 5.6 through 5.10 show the multiple dry water years projected supply and demand projections. Demand values are adjusted to reflect additional water demands within the City resulting from proposed developments since the UWMP was adopted. These added demands include the Proposed Project, demands analyzed by the May 2007 WSA for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (KPMC), and demands associated with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion Project (ARSP) being concurrently analyzed in a separate WSA. The demand data includes unaccounted-for-water of 3.8 percent based on average water losses over the past six years as discussed in Section 4.1 of this WSA. The WSA completed by Psomas for the City of Anaheim in February 2005 included analysis of an additional intensification of land uses in The Platinum Triangle that generated an additional water demand of 2.371 mgd or 2,656 AFY. This additional demand was then included in the subsequent 2005 UWMP adopted by the City in December 2005. The projected additional water demands from the Proposed Project, as developed in Section 3 of this report, are added to the City’s projected demands in Tables 5.4 to 5.10. In light of MWD’s successful, decades long track record of providing reliable water supplies to MWD customers, the City’s imported water demands should continue to be met, as shown on the following tables. In addition, the following tables show that under reduced water supply conditions from Metropolitan, available supply continues to exceed demand in normal, single and multiple dry years. Finally, it should be noted that the supply conditions set forth in the following tables utilize a Level 10 Water Supply Allocation Percentage which, as has been discussed above represents the lowest Allocation percentage of Metropolitan supplies that would be available to the City during an Allocation year and (ii) include a 22 percent reduction in SWP supplies to deal with potential SWP cutbacks due to Delta smelt and other concerns. Thus, the water supply tables set forth below are predicated on the assumption that Metropolitan supply will be constrained in the future. It is certainly possible in future years that a more favorable Water Supply Allocation will be applied to the City and it is also possible that SWP supplies will not be reduced by as much as 22 percent. In these circumstances, imported water supplies available to the City will be significantly higher than the supply projections shown in this WSA. This analysis was completed for the end of the 20-year planning period. 5-28 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.4 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Normal Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Normal Water Years Imported[1] 29,090 30,430 29,560 29,640 29,640 Local (Groundwater)[2] 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310 Total Supply 81,200 84,930 86,020 88,000 88,950 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 76,170 78,040 79,760 81,500 81,960 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,440 1,940 2,450 2,950 3,450 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 540 990 1,440 1,800 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 210 330 330 330 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 610 740 880 980 Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 Supply/ Demand Difference 3,430 3,590 1,750 900 430 Difference as % of Supply 4.2 4.2 2.0 1.0 0.5 Difference as % of Demand 4.4 4.4 2.1 1.0 0.5 This figure represents Average Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Average Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Average Year Supply 2,465,140 2,579,140 2,505,040 2,512,040 2,512,040 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. 5-29 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.5 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Single Dry Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Single Dry Years Imported[1] 38,390 40,570 41,140 40,590 40,010 Local (Groundwater)[2] 54,970 57,500 59,560 61,570 62,570 Total Supply 93,360 98,070 100,700 102,160 102,580 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,360 82,340 84,140 85,980 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,520 2,050 2,580 3,110 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 570 1,040 1,520 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 220 350 350 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 640 780 930 1,030 % of Normal Year Demand 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 Total Single Dry Year Demand 82,040 85,820 88,890 91,890 93,390 Supply/ Demand Difference 11,320 12,250 11,810 10,270 9,190 Difference as % of Supply 12.1 12.5 11.7 10.1 9.0 Difference as % of Demand 13.8 14.3 13.3 11.2 9.8 This figure represents Single Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Single Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Single Dry Year Supply 3,253,640 3,438,180 3,486,560 3,439,560 3,390,560 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. 5-30 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- It should be noted that imported water supplies are increased in single and multiple dry years consistent with Metropolitan’s RUWMP and IRP Reports due to the fact that in dry years Metropolitan draws water from surface and groundwater storage programs. These withdrawals from storage are illustrated, numerically, in Appendix B, which are extracted from Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP. 5-31 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.6 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years 2006-2010 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 29,090 29,090 30,680 30,680 30,680 Local (Groundwater)[2] 50,890 51,130 54,820 53,630 54,970 Total Supply 79,980 80,220 85,500 84,310 85,650 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 74,690 75,060 80,480 78,600 80,360 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,260 1,260 1,340 1,400 1,520 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 0 0 0 0 90 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 0 0 0 40 40 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 0 0 0 0 30 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 75,950 76,320 81,820 80,040 82,040 Supply/Demand Difference 4,030 3,900 3,680 4,270 3,610 Difference as % of Supply 5.0 4.9 4.3 5.1 4.2 Difference as % of Demand 5.3 5.1 4.5 5.3 4.4 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,465,140 2,465,140 2,599,760 2,599,760 2,599,760 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 5-32 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.7 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years 2011-2015 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 30,430 30,430 31,310 31,310 31,310 Local (Groundwater)[2] 51,460 51,800 55,730 54,830 56,130 Total Supply 81,890 82,230 87,040 86,140 87,440 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 76,540 76,920 82,470 80,540 82,340 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,540 1,640 1,860 1,910 2,050 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 180 270 380 470 570 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 40 220 220 220 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 50 80 110 610 640 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 76,810 77,310 83,180 81,840 83,770 Supply/Demand Difference 5,080 4,920 3,860 4,300 3,670 Difference as % of Supply 6.2 6.0 4.4 5.0 4.2 Difference as % of Demand 6.6 6.4 4.6 5.3 4.4 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,579,140 2,579,140 2,653,060 2,653,060 2,653,060 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand based updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 5-33 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.8 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years 2016-2020 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 29,560 29,560 31,690 31,690 31,690 Local (Groundwater)[2] 53,510 53,810 57,750 56,450 57,830 Total Supply 83,070 83,370 89,440 88,140 89,520 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 78,390 78,730 84,370 82,350 84,140 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,050 2,150 2,400 2,430 2,580 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 630 720 870 940 1,050 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 210 210 220 220 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 640 660 740 740 780 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 79,870 80,320 86,200 84,250 86,320 Supply/Demand Difference 3,200 3,050 3,240 3,890 3,200 Difference as % of Supply 3.9 3.7 3.6 4.4 3.6 Difference as % of Demand 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.6 3.7 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,505,040 2,505,040 2,685,580 2,685,580 2,685,580 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 5-34 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.9 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years 2021-2025 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 29,640 29,640 31,600 31,600 31,600 Local (Groundwater)[2] 55,130 55,440 59,490 58,140 59,480 Total Supply 84,770 85,080 91,090 89,740 91,080 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,100 80,450 86,210 84,150 85,980 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,550 2,650 2,930 2,950 3,110 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,080 1,170 1,350 1,400 1,520 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 770 800 880 880 920 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 82,280 82,750 88,790 86,770 88,770 Supply/Demand Difference 2,490 2,330 2,300 2,970 2,310 Difference as % of Supply 2.9 2.7 2.5 3.3 2.5 Difference as % of Demand 3.0 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.6 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,512,040 2,512,040 2,677,580 2,677,580 2,677,580 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 5-35 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 5.10 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years 2026-2030 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 29,640 29,640 31,390 31,390 31,390 Local (Groundwater)[2] 56,510 56,660 60,600 59,050 60,130 Total Supply 86,150 86,300 91,990 90,440 91,520 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 81,590 81,680 87,250 84,900 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 3,050 3,150 3,470 3,470 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,530 1,620 1,830 1,870 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 900 930 1,020 1,020 1,030 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 84,350 84,560 90,450 88,130 89,750 Supply/Demand Difference 1,800 1,740 1,540 2,310 1,770 Difference as % of Supply 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.6 1.9 Difference as % of Demand 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.6 2.0 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,512,040 2,512,040 2,660,580 2,660,580 2,660,580 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 5-36 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6.0 POSSIBLE WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE As stated previously throughout this WSA, the past couple of years introduced a number of water supply challenges for Metropolitan and its service area. Critical dry conditions affected all of Metropolitan’s main supply sources. In addition, as discussed above, a ruling in the Federal Courts in August 2007 required protective measures for the Delta Smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta which raised uncertainty about future pumping operations from the SWP. This uncertainty, along with the impacts of recent dry conditions, raised the possibility that Metropolitan would not have access to the supplies necessary to meet total firm demands and would have to allocate shortages in supplies to its member agencies. Several relatively recent news articles based on Metropolitan press releases have estimated a 30 percent or perhaps greater reduction in water supply from the SWP for the coming year and possibly into the future dependent on weather conditions in the SWP tributary area. In fact on April 14, 2009, Metropolitan adopted a Level 2 Allocation, which equates to a 10 percent reduction in regional water supplies. As set forth above, this WSA has already included the use of a Level 10 Allocation percentage for calculation Anaheim’s share of water supplies in future years (the lowest water allocation scenario possible) and (ii) a 22 percent reduction in SWP supplies to account for Delta smelt and other possible systemic supply limitations on the SWP. The utilization of these two factors in this WSA already accommodates possible future supply reductions due to Delta smelt and reduced snow pack possibilities. However, in order to ensure that this WSA also included a worse-case scenario, this Section 6 includes analyses based on the assumption that SWP deliveries will be reduced by both 35 and 40 percent. Thus, this Section 6 analyses includes assumed 35 and 40 percent reductions in SWP supplies under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios. Section 5.4 above addresses these same scenarios (Tables 5.4 through 5.10) based on supply conditions projected in Metropolitan’s 2006 and 2007 IRP Implementation Reports. The following analysis, while potentially beyond the scope and requirements of a SB 610 analysis addressing a three-year drought scenario, was deemed necessary in light of the recent drought and environmental issues in the Delta. In Tables 5.4 through 5.10 preceding, Metropolitan supplies were projected based on their 2006 IRP Implementation Report with SWP supplies reduced by 22 percent based on Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report (Appendix Tables 6.1 through 6.14 following present the same normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios with two additional reductions in SWP supplies, over and above the 22 percent reduction from Section 5. The first set of additional scenarios, presented in Tables 6.1 through 6.7, analyzes an additional 13 percent reduction in SWP supplies or a total reduction in SWP supplies of 35 percent and the second set, presented in Tables 6.8 through 6.14, analyzes an additional 18 percent or a total reduction in SWP supplies of 40 percent (see Appendix B for the calculation of these various Metropolitan SWP supply shortages). 6-1 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Under the 35 percent SWP shortage scenarios, supply deficiencies occur during the normal water year demand conditions (Table 6.1) in year 2020 and beyond, but by definition, these supply shortage conditions are not really “normal year” scenarios. Shortages are also shown during the multiple dry year scenarios for years 2016 to 2020 (only in one year and by only 50 AFY) (Table 6.5), 2021 to 2025 (Table 6.6), and years 2026 to 2030 (Table 6.7). The 40 percent reduction scenarios show shortages during normal water year demand conditions (Table 6.8) in year 2010 and beyond, but again these are really not “normal year” scenarios. Shortages are also shown during the multiple dry year scenarios for the same years as the 35 percent reduction scenarios, but more exaggerated. From Tables 6.1 through 6.7 (35 percent SWP supply reduction), the most significant shortage of 2,660 acre-feet occurs during year 2030 under normal water year conditions (Table 6.1). The “normal year” supply and demand condition represents the worst case scenario because under normal conditions Metropolitan does not draw supply from storage as they typically would during times of shortage. In Table 6.1, it is assumed there is a 35 percent reduction in SWP supply with no supplemental water from Metropolitan’s storage programs. Even so, the 2,660 acre-feet shortage can be met by a 3.0 percent reduction in demand through conservation or alternatively by increased groundwater pumping. Similarly, from Tables 6.8 through 6.14 (40 percent SWP supply reduction), the most significant shortage is 3,850 acre-feet and corresponds to a 4.3 percent reduction in demand or increased groundwater pumping. Under temporary Metropolitan allocation shortages, the City would trigger its Conservation Ordinance and call for at least a 10% reduction in usage by all customer classes with rate penalties if users exceed 90 percent of their previous year’s water use. A 10 percent reduction in demand is included in the above tables as necessary (Tables 6.1, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7) which would eliminate any supply deficiencies. This small level of conservation reduction in demand should be easily achievable as demonstrated during past severe drought conditions in Anaheim and throughout other areas in southern California. Based on historical consumption data provided by the City of Anaheim (Appendix during drought conditions in 1991, when the City last implemented its Conservation Ordinance, consumption was reduced by over 13 percent from the previous year. Based on consumption records from 1986 through 1996, an average increase in consumption of 2 percent per year is calculated excluding the year 1991 (Conservation Ordinance Year). It could be assumed that under normal conditions the consumption in 1991 would have increased by 2 percent to account for average growth, as well. The 13 percent actual reduction in water use in 1991 when combined with the typical 2 percent increase under normal conditions would equate to approximately a 15 percent reduction in water consumption for that year. In addition, the City could order a mandatory reduction or cut in landscaping irrigation through its Water Conservation Ordinance. If this were to occur, it is estimated that the City could easily achieve a water reduction of 20 percent, which would equate to between 15,000 and 20,000 AFY at current or 2030 timeframes, respectively. 6-2 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- In addition to water conservation, any future water supply deficiencies during shortage conditions could alternatively be met by additional groundwater pumping in excess of OCWD’s assumed Basin Production Percentage of 67 percent. It should be noted that additional supplies would trigger higher rates via OCWD’s Basin Equity Assessment. Higher groundwater rates would likely be offset by penalties charged to the few customers that don’t achieve their individual conservation goal and exceed 90 percent of their previous year’s usage. The highest shortages experienced in these scenarios is 2,660 AF and 3,850 AF for the 35 and 40 percent reduction scenarios, respectively, in 2030 under a normal year condition and this is without any conservation. If necessary, this additional quantity of water could easily be produced from the City’s wells in the Anaheim Lake area (see Figure 5.1) without overtaxing any of these wells or adversely impacting the Basin or any other wells located within the Basin. Thus, extracting up to 3,850 AF from the groundwater basin from existing Anaheim wells would not cause any significant environmental effects. It should be noted that Metropolitan actually shows less supply being available during normal years than single and multiple dry years since they plan to pull water from their various storage programs during these dry periods as shown on the supply tables from their IRP in Appendix B. As set forth in this Section 6, even under the extreme assumption of a 35 percent SWP cutback and the use of a Level 10 Allocation percentage, it is anticipated that water supplies will remain stable in normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2030 with the exception of scenarios identified, where demand exceeds supply ranging from a low of 1,350 AF in year 2020, to 2,660 AF in year 2030 for the 35 percent reduction scenarios and a low of 740 AF in year 2010, to 3,850 AF in year 2030 for the 40 percent reduction scenarios. Again, it is unlikely that the severe assumptions contained in this Section 6 will materialize. In addition, as set forth above, it is anticipated that the utilization of the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance if needed, including the mandatory cuts authorized by section 10.18.070 of the Ordinance, could easily achieve water use savings in an amount sufficient to make up for the identified shortfalls set forth in the tables. Moreover, even assuming water conservation somehow does not achieve the necessary water use savings, the identified hypothetical shortfalls could easily be met through groundwater production from City wells. Extracting 2,660 to 3,850 AF from the groundwater basin from existing Anaheim wells would not cause any significant environmental effects. Thus, this WSA does not envision any significant impacts with respect to water resources resulting from approval of the Proposed Project. Nevertheless, in order to be conservative, recommended mitigation measures have been developed and are presented in Section 7, Conclusions. As set forth above, this WSA does not envision any significant impact resulting from approval of the Proposed Project; thus no significant impacts were identified that require mitigation. Nevertheless, because of the programmatic nature of the proposed project, these mitigation measures have been recommended in order to ensure that future water supplies are in fact available to serve future specific proposed projects. 6-3 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.1 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Normal Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Normal Water Years Imported[1] 26,080 27,420 26,460 26,550 26,550 Local (Groundwater)[2] 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310 Total Supply 78,190 81,920 82,920 84,910 85,860 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 76,170 78,040 79,760 81,500 81,960 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,440 1,940 2,450 2,950 3,450 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 540 990 1,440 1,800 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 210 330 330 330 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 610 740 880 980 Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 Supply/Demand Difference 420 580 -1,350 -2,190 -2,660 Percent Conservation Required - - 1.6% 2.5% 3.0% This figure represents Average Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Average Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Average Year Supply 2,209,950 2,323,950 2,242,700 2,249,700 2,249,700 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. 6-4 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.2 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Single Dry Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Single Dry Years Imported[1] 36,650 38,760 39,140 38,590 38,010 Local (Groundwater)[2] 54,970 57,500 59,560 61,570 62,570 Total Supply 91,620 96,260 98,700 100,160 100,580 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,360 82,340 84,140 85,980 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,520 2,050 2,580 3,110 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 570 1,040 1,520 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 220 350 350 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 640 780 930 1,030 % of Normal Year Demand 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 Total Single Dry Year Demand 82,040 85,820 88,890 91,890 93,390 Supply/Demand Difference 9,580 10,440 9,810 8,270 7,190 This figure represents Single Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Single Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Single Dry Year Supply 3,105,700 3,284,650 3,317,300 3,270,300 3,221,300 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. 6-5 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.3 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2006-2010 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 26,080 26,080 28,770 28,770 28,770 Local (Groundwater)[2] 50,890 51,130 54,820 53,630 54,970 Total Supply 76,970 77,210 83,590 82,400 83,740 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 74,690 75,060 80,480 78,600 80,360 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,260 1,260 1,340 1,400 1,520 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 0 0 0 0 90 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 0 0 0 40 40 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 0 0 0 0 30 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 75,950 76,320 81,820 80,040 82,040 Supply/Demand Difference 1,020 890 1,770 2,360 1,700 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,209,950 2,209,950 2,438,300 2,438,300 2,438,300 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-6 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.4 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2011-2015 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 27,420 27,420 29,580 29,580 29,580 Local (Groundwater)[2] 51,460 51,800 55,730 54,830 56,130 Total Supply 78,880 79,220 85,310 84,410 85,710 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 76,540 76,920 82,470 80,540 82,340 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,540 1,640 1,860 1,910 2,050 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 180 270 380 470 570 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 40 220 220 220 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 50 80 110 610 640 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 76,810 77,310 83,180 81,840 83,770 Supply/Demand Difference 2,070 1,910 2,130 2,570 1,940 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,323,950 2,323,950 2,506,550 2,506,550 2,506,550 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-7 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.5 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2016-2020 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 26,460 26,460 29,830 29,830 29,830 Local (Groundwater)[2] 53,510 53,810 57,750 56,450 57,830 Total Supply 79,970 80,270 87,580 86,280 87,660 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 78,390 78,730 84,370 82,350 84,140 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,050 2,150 2,400 2,430 2,580 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 630 720 870 940 1,050 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 210 210 220 220 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 640 660 740 740 780 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 79,870 80,320 86,200 84,250 86,320 Supply/Demand Difference 100 -50 1,380 2,030 1,340 Percent Conservation Required - 0.1% - - - This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,242,700 2,242,700 2,528,150 2,528,150 2,528,150 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-8 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.6 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2021-2025 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 26,550 26,550 29,740 29,740 29,740 Local (Groundwater)[2] 55,130 55,440 59,490 58,140 59,480 Total Supply 81,680 81,990 89,230 87,880 89,220 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,100 80,450 86,210 84,150 85,980 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,550 2,650 2,930 2,950 3,110 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,080 1,170 1,350 1,400 1,520 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 770 800 880 880 920 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 82,280 82,750 88,790 86,770 88,770 Supply/Demand Difference -600 -760 440 1,110 450 Percent Conservation Required 0.7% 0.9% - - - This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,249,700 2,249,700 2,520,150 2,520,150 2,520,150 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-9 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.7 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2026-2030 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 26,550 26,550 29,540 29,540 29,540 Local (Groundwater)[2] 56,510 56,660 60,600 59,050 60,130 Total Supply 83,060 83,210 90,140 88,590 89,670 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 81,590 81,680 87,250 84,900 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 3,050 3,150 3,470 3,470 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,530 1,620 1,830 1,870 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 900 930 1,020 1,020 1,030 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 84,350 84,560 90,450 88,130 89,750 Supply/Demand Difference -1,290 -1,350 -310 460 -80 Percent Conservation Required 1.5% 1.6% 0.3% - 0.1% This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,249,700 2,249,700 2,503,150 2,503,150 2,503,150 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-10 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.8 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Normal Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Normal Water Years Imported[1] 24,920 26,260 25,270 25,360 25,360 Local (Groundwater)[2] 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310 Total Supply 77,030 80,760 81,730 83,720 84,670 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 76,170 78,040 79,760 81,500 81,960 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,440 1,940 2,450 2,950 3,450 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 540 990 1,440 1,800 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 210 330 330 330 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 610 740 880 980 Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 Supply/Demand Difference -740 -580 -2,540 -3,380 -3,850 Percent Conservation Required 1.0% 0.7% 3.0% 3.9% 4.3% This figure represents Average Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Average Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Average Year Supply 2,111,800 2,225,800 2,141,800 2,148,800 2,148,800 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. 6-11 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.9 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Single Dry Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Single Dry Years Imported[1] 35,980 38,060 38,380 37,820 37,240 Local (Groundwater)[2] 54,970 57,500 59,560 61,570 62,570 Total Supply 90,950 95,560 97,940 99,390 99,810 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,360 82,340 84,140 85,980 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,520 2,050 2,580 3,110 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 570 1,040 1,520 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 220 350 350 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 640 780 930 1,030 % of Normal Year Demand 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 Total Single Dry Year Demand 82,040 85,820 88,890 91,890 93,390 Supply/Demand Difference 8,910 9,740 9,050 7,500 6,420 This figure represents Single Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Single Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Single Dry Year Supply 3,048,800 3,225,600 3,252,200 3,205,200 3,156,200 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. 6-12 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.10 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2006-2010 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 24,920 24,920 28,040 28,040 28,040 Local (Groundwater)[2] 50,890 51,130 54,820 53,630 54,970 Total Supply 75,810 76,050 82,860 81,670 83,010 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 74,690 75,060 80,480 78,600 80,360 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,260 1,260 1,340 1,400 1,520 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 0 0 0 0 90 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 0 0 0 40 40 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 0 0 0 0 30 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 75,950 76,320 81,820 80,040 82,040 Supply/Demand Difference -140 -270 1,040 1,630 970 Percent Conservation Required 0.2% 0.4% - - - This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,111,800 2,111,800 2,376,200 2,376,200 2,376,200 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-13 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.11 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2011-2015 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 26,260 26,260 28,910 28,910 28,910 Local (Groundwater)[2] 51,460 51,800 55,730 54,830 56,130 Total Supply 77,720 78,060 84,640 83,740 85,040 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 76,540 76,920 82,470 80,540 82,340 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,540 1,640 1,860 1,910 2,050 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 180 270 380 470 570 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 40 220 220 220 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 50 80 110 610 640 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 76,810 77,310 83,180 81,840 83,770 Supply/Demand Difference 910 750 1,460 1,900 1,270 This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,225,800 2,225,800 2,450,200 2,450,200 2,450,200 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-14 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.12 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2016-2020 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 25,270 25,270 29,120 29,120 29,120 Local (Groundwater)[2] 53,510 53,810 57,750 56,450 57,830 Total Supply 78,780 79,080 86,870 85,570 86,950 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 78,390 78,730 84,370 82,350 84,140 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,050 2,150 2,400 2,430 2,580 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 630 720 870 940 1,050 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 210 210 220 220 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 640 660 740 740 780 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 79,870 80,320 86,200 84,250 86,320 Supply/Demand Difference -1,090 -1,240 670 1,320 630 Percent Conservation Required 1.4% 1.5% - - - This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,141,800 2,141,800 2,467,600 2,467,600 2,467,600 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-15 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.13 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2021-2025 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 25,360 25,360 29,020 29,020 29,020 Local (Groundwater)[2] 55,130 55,440 59,490 58,140 59,480 Total Supply 80,490 80,800 88,510 87,160 88,500 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,100 80,450 86,210 84,150 85,980 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,550 2,650 2,930 2,950 3,110 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,080 1,170 1,350 1,400 1,520 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 770 800 880 880 920 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 82,280 82,750 88,790 86,770 88,770 Supply/Demand Difference -1,790 -1,950 -280 390 -270 Percent Conservation Required 2.2% 2.4% 0.3% - 0.3% This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,148,800 2,148,800 2,459,600 2,459,600 2,459,600 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-16 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6.14 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2026-2030 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 25,360 25,360 28,820 28,820 28,820 Local (Groundwater)[2] 56,510 56,660 60,600 59,050 60,130 Total Supply 81,870 82,020 89,420 87,870 88,950 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 81,590 81,680 87,250 84,900 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 3,050 3,150 3,470 3,470 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,530 1,620 1,830 1,870 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 900 930 1,020 1,020 1,030 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 84,350 84,560 90,450 88,130 89,750 Supply/Demand Difference -2,480 -2,540 -1,030 -260 -800 Percent Conservation Required 2.9% 3.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.9% This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction. MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,148,800 2,148,800 2,442,600 2,442,600 2,442,600 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). 6-17 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2009 7-1 7.0 CONCLUSION Water Demand The City’s water demand during the 20-year planning period is projected to range from 77,770 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2009/10 to 88,520 AFY in 2029/30. This projection is consistent with the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water demand increase projections to include overall City growth. The demand projections from the 2005 UWMP were adjusted to account for lower current water demand based on recent water purchases and sales data provided by the City. The 2005 UWMP projections for future demand were also adjusted upwards to reflect the recent OCP – 2006 Population Projections released in December of 2008. This demand projection also includes the added demands from The Proposed Project, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion Project. The City’s 2005 UWMP included water demand projections for The Platinum Triangle, as analyzed for FSEIR No. 332, from the previously adopted 2005 WSA. The build out demand included in the 2005 UWMP for The Platinum Triangle was 2,656 AFY. The Proposed Project would increase this demand by approximately 1,804 AFY. In order to be conservative and for purposes of this WSA, the build out of the Proposed Project is estimated to occur consistent within the 20-year time horizon typically associated with the General Plan; however total build out of the Proposed Project will likely extend beyond the 20-year period. While groundwater supply is expected to remain relatively stable throughout the forecast period, the development phasing plan also allows for the potential to have water demands met from sources that are currently being planned, developed and implemented within the region, including additional conservation programs, recycled water, and desalted water. Supply Projections Analysis of water supply projections for the City demonstrates that projected supplies will exceed demands through fiscal year 2029/30. These projections consider water development programs and projects as well as water conservation, as described in the City’s 2005 UWMP. The City’s groundwater and imported water supplies are anticipated to remain stable based on studies and reports from OCWD and Metropolitan, respectively. The City’s water supply projection is based on up to 67 percent groundwater, based on an expected average long-term Basin Production Percentage (BPP), and its share of imported water confirmed reliable by Metropolitan. Additionally, analysis of normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios also demonstrate the City’s ability to meet or exceed demand during the 20-year planning period, even under reduced imported water supply conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-2 September 2009 Additionally, if extraordinary circumstances require, the City can meet its water demand by increasing production of groundwater beyond the BPP up to the basin safe yield, increasing imported water purchases, and/or decreasing demand through water conservation measures. The City’s 2005 UWMP used an existing demand for 2004/05 of 73,772 AFY, which was based on the average of the previous five years exclusive of the actual 2004/05 sales (thrown out because it was such a wet year). To illustrate the effectiveness of conservation, the actual 2007/08 sales were 71,046 AF and if the existing demand from the 2004/05 based demand utilized in the 2005 UWMP is projected out to 2007/08 using the incremental growth rate assumed in the 2005 UWMP (6.3 percent from 2005 to 2010) it would be approximately 76,520 AF. Therefore, the City is more than 5,000 AFY below the demands projected in the 2005 UWMP just three years ago. This is almost entirely due to conservation efforts of residents, businesses, and City staff. To reflect the reduced growth in water demand that has occurred since the UWMP, updated water sales for 2006/07 of 73,871 AF (excluding unaccounted for water) and a total water demand of 76,687 AF (including unaccounted for water) was used as an estimate of existing (2008) water demand. Water demand for 2006/07 was used to estimate current use because that year experienced the highest water sales volume over the past seven years and is considered the most conservative estimate. Projected water demands were calculated using the recently released OCP – 2006 Population and Housing Projections and a water demand increase of 75 percent of projected housing unit growth using the updated 2008 estimated water demand as a starting point. Reliability of future water supplies to the region will be ensured through continued implementation of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan, local agency programs, and the combined efforts and programs among member and cooperative agencies of Metropolitan. These agencies include all water wholesalers and retailers, the Orange County Sanitation District, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. These programs are described in the City’s 2005 UWMP and supplemented in Section 5 of this water supply assessment. Collectively, the information included in this water supply assessment identifies a sufficient and reliable water supply for the City, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for The Platinum Triangle as projected in the February 2005 Platinum Triangle WSA, plus the currently proposed intensification of land use within The Platinum Triangle. These supplies are also sufficient to provide (and account) for growth projected in the 2005 UWMP, the previously approved May 2007 WSA for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion project being processed concurrently with this WSA by the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- As set forth in Section 6, even under the extreme assumption of a 35 percent SWP cutback and the use of a Level 10 Allocation percentage, it is anticipated that water supplies will remain stable in normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2030 with the exception of scenarios identified, where demand exceeds supply ranging from a low of 1,350 AF in year 2020, to 2,660 AF in year 2030 for the 35 percent reduction scenarios and a low of 740 AF in year 2010, to 3,850 AF in year 2030 for the 40 percent reduction scenarios. Again, it is unlikely that the severe assumptions contained in Section 6 will materialize. In addition, as set forth above, it is anticipated that the utilization of the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance if needed, including the mandatory cuts authorized by section 10.18.070 of the Ordinance, could easily achieve water use savings in an amount sufficient to make up for the identified shortfalls set forth in the Section 6 tables. Moreover, even assuming water conservation somehow does not achieve the necessary water use savings, the identified hypothetical shortfalls could easily be met through groundwater production from City wells. Extracting 2,660 to 3,850 AF from the groundwater basin from existing Anaheim wells would not cause any significant environmental effects. Thus, this WSA does not envision any significant impacts with respect to water resources resulting from approval of the proposed Platinum Triangle project. Nevertheless, in order to be conservative, the Mitigation Measures set forth below are recommended. It should be noted that impacts are less than significant even without the implementation of these mitigation measures. However, the implementation of these mitigation measures will assist the City in ensuring that water supplies remain reliable into the future. Mitigation Measure No. 1: City shall continue to collaborate with Metropolitan, its member agencies, and OCWD 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 10.18090, as appropriate. Mitigation Measure No. 2: All residential, office and commercial landscaping for projects located within The Platinum Triangle shall utilize drought tolerant plant materials with a plant factor of 0.5 or less pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Classification of Landscape Species” by the U. C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. Mitigation Measure No. 3: All new development within The Platinum Triangle shall include 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. Mitigation Measure No. 4: All new development within The Platinum Triangle shall construct separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. Mitigation Measure No. 5: In accordance with existing law, City shall require that all future projects exceeding the statutory thresholds set forth in SB 610 and SB 221 7-3 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- demonstrate that adequate water supply exists to serve the proposed project prior to approval. If it cannot be demonstrated that adequate water exists to serve the specific project, the project shall not be approved. 7-4 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8.0 REFERENCES The following documents were used, in conjunction with discussions with the City of Anaheim, in preparing this water supply assessment: American Water Works Association Website, Available: http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/WaterInformation/Conservation/Water UseStatistics/tabid/85/Default.aspx. December 2008 Center for Demographic Research, Orange County Facts and Figures, Available: http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/countyfacts.pdf. City of Anaheim, Draft Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP SEIR No. 334, 2008. City of Anaheim, Initial Study for The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Associated Actions, December 2004. City of Anaheim, Master Land Use Plan, The Platinum Triangle, October 25, 2005. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment, February 2005. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment Amendment, February 2007. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, The Platinum Triangle and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Water Supply Assessment, May 2007. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, Urban Water Management Plan, December 2005. Department of Water Resources (DWR), Bulletin 118-1 Basin Description for Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin Number 8-1, September 5, 2001. DWR, 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report. DWR, 2007 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, August 2008. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2008 Series C, Appendix A, July 2008. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), The Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, November 2005. September 2009 8-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-2 September 2009 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, July 2004. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2006 Integrated Water Resources Plan Implementation Report, October 2006. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan Implementation Report, October 2007. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2009 Water Supply Allocation Plan – Allocation Model, 2009. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), Regional Urban Water Management Plan, 2005. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), South Orange County Water Reliability Study: Phase 2 System Reliability Plan, September 2004. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) Website, Available: http://www.mwdoc.com. 2002. Office of the Secretary of State. Annexation No. 10 to State of California, December 11, 1961. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan Report, 2000. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Engineer’s Report, 2006-2007. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Water Resource Report. Orange County Board Meeting and Public Hearing, January 21, 2009. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Annual Water Budget and Water Replenishment Fund Balance. Orange County Board Meeting and Public Hearing, January 7, 2009. Orange County Water District (OCWD), The OCWD Act. Orange County Water District (OCWD), OCWD v. City of Chino, et al, (Civ. Case No. 117628), Judgment and Settlement Documents. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Draft Groundwater Management Plan Update 2009, May 8, 2009. University of California Cooperative Extension, Water Use Classification of Landscape Species, August 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A WATER DEMAND FACTOR SUPPORT DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- AWWA Home Search  Water Information Conservation Conservation at Home Conservation Outside Straight Talk on Conservation Drought Fact Sheet Water Use Statistics People Behind the Water Your Water Utility Home > Water Information > Conservation > Water Use Statistics Water Use Statistics Daily indoor per capita water use in the typical single family home is 69.3 gallons. Here is how it breaks down: Use Gallons per Capita Percentage of Total Daily Use Showers 11.6 16.8% Clothes Washers 15.0 21.7% Dishwashers 1.0 1.4% Toilets 18.5 26.7% Baths 1.2 1.7% Leaks 9.5 13.7% Faucets 10.9 15.7% Other Domestic Uses 1.6 2.2% By installing more efficient water fixtures and regularly checking for leaks, households can reduce daily per capita water use by about 35% to about 45.2 gallons per day Here's how it breaks down for households using conservation measures: Use Gallons per Capita Percentage of Total Daily Use Showers 8.8 19.5% Clothes Washers 10.0 22.1% Toilets 8.2 18.0% Dishwashers 0.7 1.5% Baths 1.2 2.7% Leaks 4.0 8.8% Faucets 10.8 23.9% Other Domestic Uses 1.6 3.4% Source: Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Amy Vickers ---PAGE BREAK--- If all U.S. households installed water-saving features, water use would decrease by 30 percent, saving an estimated 5.4 billion gallons per day. This would result in dollar-volume savings of $11.3 million per day or more than $4 billion per year. ƒ Water-conserving fixtures installed in U.S. households in 1998 alone save 44 million gallons of water every day, resulting in total dollar-value savings of more than $33.6 million per year. ƒ Average household water use annually: 127,400 gallons ƒ Average daily household water use : 350 gallons  Residential End Uses of Water (Denver, Colo.: AWWARF, 1999). Login Here Register 11/25/2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- IRWD Annual Recycled Water and Domestic Water Use for Dual-Plumbed Buildings (Building Use Only) Site Address Description No. of Floors Approx. Building SF Annual RW CCF RW gpd per ksf Annual Potable CCF Potable gpd/ksf Total Use gpd/ksf Percent Savings #3 Park Plaza Jamboree Center 19 400,000 10477 54 5118 26 80 67.2% #4 Park Plaza Jamboree Center 19 400,000 10913 56 5695 29 85 65.7% 15600 Sand Canyon IRWD Headquarters 2 50,000 197 8 128 5 13 60.6% 3512 Michelson IRWD Operations-Admin 2 50,000 342 14 0 14 100.0% 2020 Main Street Sun Microsystems Bldg. 12 282,000 3040 22 370 3 25 89.1% 1900 Main Street California Bank & Trust Bldg. 8 178,000 3246 37 1777 20 58 64.6% 18191 Von Karman Northwestern Mutual Bldg. 5 128,000 2157 35 1198 19 54 64.3% 18111 Von Karman Ernst & Young Bldg. 10 237,000 5093 44 1666 14 58 75.4% 1901 Main Street Smith & Barney 8 178,000 6648 77 3295 38 114 66.9% 7895 Gateway Ford Product Development Bldg. 2 77,000 5669 151 3446 92 243 62.2% 7905 Gateway Ford Motor Co. Bldg. 5 176,000 6420 75 5237 61 136 55.1% 2040 Main Street Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear Bldg. 14 300,000 8866 61 151 1 62 98.3% 17872 Gillette Avenue Washington Mutual 4 87,000 2139 50 25 1 51 98.8% Totals 2,543,000 65207 53 17165 14 66 79.2% ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ANAHEIM BUILDING WATER USE OFFICE/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Address # of stories Total Area (sf) Average Water Use (gpd)* Avg. Water Use per 1000 sf (gpd/ksf) CITY HALL EAST 200 S. Anaheim 6 130,350 9,327 72 CITY HALL WEST 201 S. Anaheim 11 219,274 12,002 55 RESOURCE ASSET MANAGMENT; CO LLC/Bank of America 200 Harbor 10 105,280 5,465 52 ARDEN REALTY FINANCE LP/WellsFargo 222 Harbor 10 195,000 7,845 40 TAORMINA, WILLIAM COSMO; TR 201 E. Center St. 6 28,103 2,112 75 GRE STADIUM CENTRE LLC/BALLY TOTAL FITNESS #60418 2099 State College 6 128,130 11,069 86 2401 KATELLA LLC 2401 Katella 6 112,800 8,356 74 918,937 Average 65 Weighted Avg. 61 APARTMENTS Address # of units Average Water Use (gpd)* Use per Unit (gpd/unit) ANAHEIM MEMORIAL MANOR 275 E. Center St. 75 9,044 121 VILLAGE CENTER APARTMENTS 200 E. Lincoln 100 13,669 137 Average 129 Weighted Avg. 129.79 *data collected from meter readings dated from 2005 to 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- Water Resources Master Plan 3-5 7/16/03 C:\Arcdata\WRMP2002\Ch3\chapter3wsa0716.fm Water Use Factors Land Use Local Demands Irrigation Demands Code Land Use description Agency Average Density Local Interior Local Exterior Total % Irrigated Area Irrigation Factor 1100 Residential DU/Ac Gal/DU/Day Gal/Ac/Day 1111 Res - Rural Density Orange 0.30 300 750 1,050 5 2,800 1121 Res - Estate Density Orange 1.20 300 300 600 8 2,900 1131 Res - Low Density Orange 4.00 300 300 600 15 2,900 1141 Res - Low-Medium Density Orange 10.50 200 100 300 22 3,300 1161 Res - Medium Density Orange 19.50 225 185 410 17 3,100 1122 Res - Estate Density Irvine 0.50 300 600 900 7 2,800 1132 Res - Low Density Irvine 3.00 225 180 405 16 3,000 1162 Res - Medium Density Irvine 7.50 200 110 310 20 3,100 1172 Res - Medium-High Density Irvine 17.50 165 15 180 25 3,600 1182 Res - High Density Irvine 32.50 180 20 200 20 3,300 1192 Res - High-Rise Density Irvine 40 180 20 200 20 3,300 1133 Res - Low Density Newport Beach 1.00 250 190 440 17 3,100 1153 Res - Medium-Low Density Newport Beach 2.75 250 200 450 10 2,800 1163 Res - Medium Density Newport Beach 5.00 190 60 250 22 3,300 1183 Res - High Density Newport Beach 12.25 155 20 175 25 3,600 1134 Res - Low Density PC Tustin 4.50 225 185 410 17 3,100 1164 Res - Medium Density PC Tustin 11.80 155 15 170 25 3,600 1184 Res - High Density PC Tustin 17.40 135 15 150 15 3,700 1115 Res - Rural Density County 0.26 300 750 1,050 5 2,800 1135 Res - Suburban Density County 9.25 225 180 405 16 3,000 1175 Res - Urban Density County 29.00 165 15 180 25 3,600 1126 Res - Estate Density Lake Forest 0.50 300 600 900 7 2,800 1136 Res - Low Density Lake Forest 3.00 225 180 405 16 3,000 1166 Res - Medium Density Lake Forest 7.50 200 110 310 20 3,100 1176 Res - Medium-High Density Lake Forest 17.50 165 15 180 25 3,600 1186 Res - High Density Lake Forest 32.50 180 20 200 20 3,300 1200 Commercial KSF/Ac Gal/KSF/Day Gal/Ac/Day 1210 Comm - General Office 25.00 56 4 60 30 4,000 1221 Comm - Community 9.09 209 11 220 30 3,500 1222 Comm - Regional 10.53 180.5 9.5 190 20 5,000 1230 Comm - Recreation 8.33 54 6 60 30 4,500 1240 Comm - Institutional 8.88 39.38 5.62 45 50 2,750 1244 Comm - Hospital 8.70 218.50 11.50 230 25 2,850 1260 Comm - School 13.33 14.25 0.75 15 50 2,500 1273 Comm - Military Air Field 1300 Industrial KSF/Ac Gal/KSF/Day Gal/Ac/Day 1310 Industrial - Light 25.00 56 4 60 25 4,000 1320 Industrial - Heavy 25.00 4,500 500 5,000 25 4,000 Open Space & Other Gal/Ac/Day 1820 Park - Community 90 3,400 1830 Park - Regional 85 2,100 2100 AG - Low-Irrigated 100 1,800 2110 AG - Low-Irrigated (TIC) 100 1,800 2200 AG - High-Irrigated 100 3,100 2210 AG - High-Irrigated (TIC) 100 3,100 Note: The database includes the following land use codes that do not use set factors or do not generate water demands: 0 = area not served by IRWD; 1411 = Airports; 1413 = Freeway and Major Roads; 1850 = Park-Wildlife Preserve; 1880 = Park-Open Space (Rec); 1900 = Vacant; 4100 = Water Body; 9100-9199 = Mixed Use (uses a combination of factors) Table 3-1 Land Use and Water Use Factors ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY SUPPORT DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Metropolitan Surface Storage 244,000 733,000 0 (DVL, Mathews, Skinner) Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 73,000 219,000 0 Groundwater Conjunctive-use Long Term Replenishment and Cyclic Storage 86,000 86,000 0 North Las Posas Storage 47,000 47,000 0 Proposition 13 Storage 65,000 65,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 515,000 1,150,000 0 Programs Under Development Groundwater Conjunctive-use Raymond Basin 22,000 22,000 0 Prop 13 Storage Programs 4,000 4,000 0 Walnut Park CUP 500 500 0 Additional Programs1 55,000 55,000 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 82,000 82,000 0 Maximum Supply Capability 597,000 1,232,000 0 1 Includes expansions of existing programs In Basin Storage Activities Program Capabilities Year 2010 (acre-feet per year) 1-34 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Metropolitan Surface Storage 248,000 745,000 0 (DVL, Mathews, Skinner) Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 73,000 219,000 0 Groundwater Conjunctive-use Long Term Replenishment and Cyclic Storage 86,000 86,000 0 North Las Posas Storage 47,000 47,000 0 Proposition 13 Storage 65,000 65,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 519,000 1,162,000 0 Programs Under Development Groundwater Conjunctive-use Raymond Basin 22,000 22,000 0 Prop 13 Storage Programs 4,000 4,000 0 Walnut Park CUP 500 500 0 Additional Programs1 80,000 80,000 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 107,000 107,000 0 Maximum Supply Capability 626,000 1,269,000 0 1 Includes expansions of existing programs In Basin Storage Activities Program Capabilities Year 2015 (acre-feet per year) 1-35 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Metropolitan Surface Storage 232,000 697,000 0 (DVL, Mathews, Skinner) Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 73,000 219,000 0 Groundwater Conjunctive-use Long Term Replenishment and Cyclic Storage 86,000 86,000 0 North Las Posas Storage 47,000 47,000 0 Proposition 13 Storage 65,000 65,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 503,000 1,114,000 0 Programs Under Development Groundwater Conjunctive-use Raymond Basin 22,000 22,000 0 Prop 13 Storage Programs 4,000 4,000 0 Walnut Park CUP 500 500 0 Additional Programs1 80,000 80,000 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 107,000 107,000 0 Maximum Supply Capability 610,000 1,221,000 0 1 Includes expansions of existing programs In Basin Storage Activities Program Capabilities Year 2020 (acre-feet per year) 1-36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Metropolitan Surface Storage 217,000 650,000 0 (DVL, Mathews, Skinner) Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 73,000 219,000 0 Groundwater Conjunctive-use Long Term Replenishment and Cyclic Storage 86,000 86,000 0 North Las Posas Storage 47,000 47,000 0 Proposition 13 Storage 65,000 65,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 488,000 1,067,000 0 Programs Under Development Groundwater Conjunctive-use Raymond Basin 22,000 22,000 0 Prop 13 Storage Programs 4,000 4,000 0 Walnut Park CUP 500 500 0 Additional Programs1 80,000 80,000 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 107,000 107,000 0 Maximum Supply Capability 595,000 1,174,000 0 1 Includes expansions of existing programs In Basin Storage Activities Program Capabilities Year 2025 (acre-feet per year) 1-37 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Metropolitan Surface Storage 200,000 601,000 0 (DVL, Mathews, Skinner) Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 73,000 219,000 0 Groundwater Conjunctive-use Long Term Replenishment and Cyclic Storage 86,000 86,000 0 North Las Posas Storage 47,000 47,000 0 Proposition 13 Storage 65,000 65,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 471,000 1,018,000 0 Programs Under Development Groundwater Conjunctive-use Raymond Basin 22,000 22,000 0 Prop 13 Storage Programs 4,000 4,000 0 Walnut Park CUP 500 500 0 Additional Programs1 80,000 80,000 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 107,000 107,000 0 Maximum Supply Capability 578,000 1,125,000 0 1 Includes expansions of existing programs In Basin Storage Activities Program Capabilities Year 2030 (acre-feet per year) 1-38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs SWP Deliveries 1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000 San Luis Carryover 3 93,000 285,550 285,550 SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000 0 Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000 Programs Under Development Delta Improvements 4 55,000 55,000 185,000 Market Transfer Options 150,000 200,000 0 Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0 Mojave Program 0 0 0 IRP SWP Target 5 0 0 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 330,000 355,000 185,000 Maximum Supply Capability 1,242,000 1,138,000 1,963,000 2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies 3 Includes DWCV carryover 4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity 5 Remaining supply needed to meet IRP target 1 Single Dry-year figure includes 76 TAF of additional SWP supplies in 1977 per DWR 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, which assumes 150 TAF of SWP carryover in San Luis Reservoir in addition to contractors' carryover California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2010 (acre-feet per year) 1-39 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs SWP Deliveries1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000 San Luis Carryover3 93,000 285,550 285,550 SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000 0 Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000 Programs Under Development Delta Improvements4 55,000 55,000 185,000 Market Transfer Options 0 200,000 0 Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0 Mojave Program 35,000 35,000 0 IRP SWP Target 0 8,450 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 215,000 398,000 185,000 Maximum Supply Capability 1,127,000 1,181,000 1,963,000 2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies 3 Includes DWCV carryover 4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity 1 Single Dry-year figure includes 76 TAF of additional SWP supplies in 1977 per DWR 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, which assumes 150 TAF of SWP carryover in San Luis Reservoir in addition to contractors' carryover California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2015 (acre-feet per year) 1-40 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs SWP Deliveries1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000 San Luis Carryover3 93,000 285,550 285,550 SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000 Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000 Programs Under Development Delta Improvements4 110,000 110,000 240,000 Market Transfer Options 0 200,000 0 Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0 Mojave Program 35,000 35,000 0 IRP SWP Target 29,000 74,450 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 299,000 519,000 240,000 Maximum Supply Capability 1,211,000 1,302,000 2,018,000 2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies 3 Includes DWCV carryover 4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity 1 Single Dry-year figure includes 76 TAF of additional SWP supplies in 1977 per DWR 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, which assumes 150 TAF of SWP carryover in San Luis Reservoir in addition to contractors' carryover California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2020 (acre-feet per year) 1-41 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs SWP Deliveries1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000 San Luis Carryover3 93,000 285,550 285,550 SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000 0 Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000 Programs Under Development Delta Improvements4 110,000 110,000 240,000 Market Transfer Options 0 200,000 0 Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0 Mojave Program 35,000 35,000 0 IRP SWP Target 29,000 74,450 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 299,000 519,000 240,000 Maximum Supply Capability 1,211,000 1,302,000 2,018,000 2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies 3 Includes DWCV carryover 4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity 1 Single Dry-year figure includes 76 TAF of additional SWP supplies in 1977 per DWR 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, which assumes 150 TAF of SWP carryover in San Luis Reservoir in addition to contractors' carryover California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2025 (acre-feet per year) 1-42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs SWP Deliveries1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000 San Luis Carryover3 93,000 285,550 285,550 SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000 0 Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0 Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000 Programs Under Development Delta Improvements4 110,000 110,000 240,000 Market Transfer Options 0 200,000 0 Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0 Mojave Program 35,000 35,000 0 IRP SWP Target 29,000 74,450 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 299,000 519,000 240,000 Maximum Supply Capability 1,211,000 1,302,000 2,018,000 3 Includes DWCV carryover 4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity 1 Single Dry-year figure includes 76 TAF of additional SWP supplies in 1977 per DWR 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, which assumes 150 TAF of SWP carryover in San Luis Reservoir in addition to contractors' carryover 2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2030 (acre-feet per year) 1-43 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Base Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 IID/MWD Conservation Program 85,000 85,000 85,000 Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0 PVID Land Management Program 111,000 111,000 111,000 Less: Coachella SWP/QSA Transfer (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) Forbearance for present perfected rights (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) Subtotal of Current Programs 675,000 675,000 675,000 Programs Under Development Lake Mead Storage Program 100,000 200,000 0 Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 95,000 95,000 95,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 195,000 295,000 95,000 Maximum Metropolitan Supply Capability 870,000 970,000 770,000 Additional Non-Metropolitan CRA Supplies SDCWA/IID Transfer 70,000 70,000 70,000 Coachella & All-American Canal Lining 94,000 94,000 94,000 Maximum CRA Supply Capability 1 1,034,000 1,134,000 934,000 Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries 1,034,000 1,134,000 934,000 1 Colorado River Aqueduct deliveries limited to 1.250 MAF annually Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2010 (acre-feet per year) 1-44 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Base Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 IID/MWD Conservation Program 80,000 80,000 80,000 Priority 5 Apportionment 0 0 0 PVID Land Management Program 111,000 111,000 111,000 Less: Coachella SWP/QSA Transfer (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) Forbearance for present perfected rights (62,000) (62,000) (62,000) Subtotal of Current Programs 644,000 644,000 644,000 Programs Under Development Lake Mead Storage Program 100,000 200,000 0 Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 210,000 210,000 210,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 310,000 410,000 210,000 Maximum Metropolitan Supply Capability 954,000 1,054,000 854,000 Additional Non-Metropolitan CRA Supplies SDCWA/IID Transfer 100,000 100,000 100,000 Coachella & All-American Canal Lining 94,000 94,000 94,000 Maximum CRA Supply Capability 1 1,148,000 1,248,000 1,048,000 Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries 1,148,000 1,248,000 1,048,000 1 Colorado River Aqueduct deliveries limited to 1.250 MAF annually Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2015 (acre-feet per year) 1-45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Base Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 IID/MWD Conservation Program 80,000 80,000 80,000 Priority 5 Apportionment 0 0 0 PVID Land Management Program 111,000 111,000 111,000 Less: Coachella SWP/QSA Transfer (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) Forbearance for present perfected rights (62,000) (62,000) (62,000) Subtotal of Current Programs 644,000 644,000 644,000 Programs Under Development Lake Mead Storage Program 200,000 400,000 0 Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 0 0 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 200,000 400,000 0 Maximum Metropolitan Supply Capability 844,000 1,044,000 644,000 Additional Non-Metropolitan CRA Supplies SDCWA/IID Transfer 193,000 193,000 193,000 Coachella & All-American Canal Lining 94,000 94,000 94,000 Maximum CRA Supply Capability 1 1,131,000 1,331,000 931,000 Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries 1,131,000 1,250,000 931,000 1 Colorado River Aqueduct deliveries limited to 1.250 MAF annually Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2020 (acre-feet per year) 1-46 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Base Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 IID/MWD Conservation Program 80,000 80,000 80,000 Priority 5 Apportionment 0 0 0 PVID Land Management Program 111,000 111,000 111,000 Less: Coachella SWP/QSA Transfer (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) Forbearance for present perfected rights (62,000) (62,000) (62,000) Subtotal of Current Programs 644,000 644,000 644,000 Programs Under Development Lake Mead Storage Program 200,000 400,000 0 Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 0 0 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 200,000 400,000 0 Maximum Metropolitan Supply Capability 844,000 1,044,000 644,000 Additional Non-Metropolitan CRA Supplies SDCWA/IID Transfer 200,000 200,000 200,000 Coachella & All-American Canal Lining 94,000 94,000 94,000 Maximum CRA Supply Capability 1 1,138,000 1,338,000 938,000 Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries 1,138,000 1,250,000 938,000 1 Colorado River Aqueduct deliveries limited to 1.250 MAF annually Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2025 (acre-feet per year) 1-47 ---PAGE BREAK--- Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year (1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004) Current Programs Base Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 IID/MWD Conservation Program 80,000 80,000 80,000 Priority 5 Apportionment 0 0 0 PVID Land Management Program 111,000 111,000 111,000 Less: Coachella SWP/QSA Transfer (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) Forbearance for present perfected rights (62,000) (62,000) (62,000) Subtotal of Current Programs 644,000 644,000 644,000 Programs Under Development Lake Mead Storage Program 200,000 400,000 0 Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 0 0 0 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 200,000 400,000 0 Maximum Metropolitan Supply Capability 844,000 1,044,000 644,000 Additional Non-Metropolitan CRA Supplies SDCWA/IID Transfer 200,000 200,000 200,000 Coachella & All-American Canal Lining 94,000 94,000 94,000 Maximum CRA Supply Capability 1 1,138,000 1,338,000 938,000 Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries 1,138,000 1,250,000 938,000 1 Colorado River Aqueduct deliveries limited to 1.250 MAF annually Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2030 (acre-feet per year) 1-48 ---PAGE BREAK--- Metropolitan's 2006 IRP Implementation Report 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Average Year In-Basin Storage Activities 0 0 0 0 0 California Aqueduct (SWP) 1,963,000 1,963,000 2,018,000 2,018,000 2,018,000 Colorado River Aqueduct 934,000 1,048,000 931,000 938,000 938,000 Total Average Year 2,897,000 3,011,000 2,949,000 2,956,000 2,956,000 Single Dry Year In-Basin Storage Activities 1,232,000 1,269,000 1,221,000 1,174,000 1,125,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 1,138,000 1,181,000 1,302,000 1,302,000 1,302,000 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,134,000 1,248,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Total Single Dry Year 3,504,000 3,698,000 3,773,000 3,726,000 3,677,000 Multiple Dry Years In-Basin Storage Activities 597,000 626,000 610,000 595,000 578,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 1,242,000 1,127,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,034,000 1,148,000 1,131,000 1,138,000 1,138,000 Total Multiple Dry Years 2,873,000 2,901,000 2,952,000 2,944,000 2,927,000 22% Reduction in SWP Supplies 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Average Year In-Basin Storage Activities 0 0 0 0 0 California Aqueduct (SWP) 1,531,140 1,531,140 1,574,040 1,574,040 1,574,040 Colorado River Aqueduct 934,000 1,048,000 931,000 938,000 938,000 Total Average Year 2,465,140 2,579,140 2,505,040 2,512,040 2,512,040 Single Dry Year In-Basin Storage Activities 1,232,000 1,269,000 1,221,000 1,174,000 1,125,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 887,640 921,180 1,015,560 1,015,560 1,015,560 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,134,000 1,248,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Total Single Dry Year 3,253,640 3,438,180 3,486,560 3,439,560 3,390,560 Multiple Dry Years In-Basin Storage Activities 597,000 626,000 610,000 595,000 578,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 968,760 879,060 944,580 944,580 944,580 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,034,000 1,148,000 1,131,000 1,138,000 1,138,000 Total Multiple Dry Years 2,599,760 2,653,060 2,685,580 2,677,580 2,660,580 ---PAGE BREAK--- 35% Reduction in SWP Supplies 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Average Year In-Basin Storage Activities 0 0 0 0 0 California Aqueduct (SWP) 1,275,950 1,275,950 1,311,700 1,311,700 1,311,700 Colorado River Aqueduct 934,000 1,048,000 931,000 938,000 938,000 Total Average Year 2,209,950 2,323,950 2,242,700 2,249,700 2,249,700 Single Dry Year In-Basin Storage Activities 1,232,000 1,269,000 1,221,000 1,174,000 1,125,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 739,700 767,650 846,300 846,300 846,300 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,134,000 1,248,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Total Single Dry Year 3,105,700 3,284,650 3,317,300 3,270,300 3,221,300 Multiple Dry Years In-Basin Storage Activities 597,000 626,000 610,000 595,000 578,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 807,300 732,550 787,150 787,150 787,150 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,034,000 1,148,000 1,131,000 1,138,000 1,138,000 Total Multiple Dry Years 2,438,300 2,506,550 2,528,150 2,520,150 2,503,150 40% Reduction in SWP Supplies 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Average Year In-Basin Storage Activities 0 0 0 0 0 California Aqueduct (SWP) 1,177,800 1,177,800 1,210,800 1,210,800 1,210,800 Colorado River Aqueduct 934,000 1,048,000 931,000 938,000 938,000 Total Average Year 2,111,800 2,225,800 2,141,800 2,148,800 2,148,800 Single Dry Year In-Basin Storage Activities 1,232,000 1,269,000 1,221,000 1,174,000 1,125,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 682,800 708,600 781,200 781,200 781,200 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,134,000 1,248,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Total Single Dry Year 3,048,800 3,225,600 3,252,200 3,205,200 3,156,200 Multiple Dry Years In-Basin Storage Activities 597,000 626,000 610,000 595,000 578,000 California Aqueduct (SWP) 745,200 676,200 726,600 726,600 726,600 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,034,000 1,148,000 1,131,000 1,138,000 1,138,000 Total Multiple Dry Years 2,376,200 2,450,200 2,467,600 2,459,600 2,442,600 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C ANAHEIM WATER CONSERVATION SUPPORT DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION (Sales) (HCF) CALENDAR YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 January 2,012,095 1,989,264 1,758,337 1,933,232 2,074,204 2,125,754 1,793,151 1,660,208 2,031,044 2,012,339 1,364,684 February 1,635,977 1,884,612 1,750,481 1,660,246 1,941,303 1,998,315 1,757,654 1,549,265 1,694,351 1,574,466 1,659,047 March 1,684,289 1,888,108 2,183,680 2,009,293 2,001,856 1,629,555 1,720,599 1,710,285 2,278,878 1,703,315 1,819,261 April 2,047,240 2,208,571 2,398,406 2,167,820 2,189,766 1,793,758 1,795,128 2,028,608 1,686,304 1,716,979 1,969,854 May 2,123,561 2,336,319 2,186,507 2,344,395 2,254,893 2,059,189 1,925,149 2,965,975 2,011,218 2,251,388 2,472,034 June 2,889,981 2,977,345 3,059,665 2,991,763 2,705,559 2,310,628 2,619,005 1,831,399 2,370,859 2,681,214 3,010,301 July 2,846,155 2,923,400 3,084,881 2,744,188 2,861,876 2,211,973 2,356,509 2,699,159 2,935,878 2,695,705 3,814,356 August 3,387,792 3,034,186 3,424,907 3,447,633 3,392,390 2,808,794 3,358,935 3,058,840 3,061,952 2,849,822 3,105,719 September 2,740,845 2,756,403 2,709,382 2,674,639 2,415,629 2,154,980 2,740,442 2,996,497 3,224,357 3,222,442 2,718,948 October 2,914,551 3,251,635 2,789,725 3,204,562 3,338,208 2,753,114 3,081,756 2,471,236 2,551,591 2,811,880 3,440,028 November 1,836,233 1,745,874 1,926,692 1,895,616 2,360,007 1,659,256 1,799,529 2,094,737 2,451,512 2,420,035 1,813,334 December 2,383,194 2,160,572 2,294,229 2,657,420 2,378,347 2,396,544 2,410,024 2,391,226 2,021,652 2,982,883 2,484,741 TOTAL (HCF) 28,501,913 29,156,289 29,566,892 29,730,807 29,914,038 25,901,860 27,357,881 27,457,435 28,319,596 28,922,468 29,672,307 TOTAL (AF) 65,426 66,928 67,871 68,247 68,668 59,458 62,800 63,029 65,008 66,392 68,113 HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION GROWTH RATE Annual % Inc. 2.30% 1.41% 0.55% 0.62% -13.41% 5.62% 0.36% 3.14% 2.13% 2.59% Avg. excl. 1991 2.08% 1991 at avg. increase (af) 70,096 Adjusted % -15.49% ---PAGE BREAK--- TOTAL HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION (AF/CALENDAR YEAR) 65,426 68,668 59,458 63,029 65,008 66,392 68,113 66,928 67,871 68,247 62,800 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION GROWTH RATE ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION PLAN PERCENTAGES ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D From: Nevills,Jennifer C [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:37 PM To: Mike Swan Cc: Aladdin Shaikh Subject: FW: Allocation Model Mike and Al, Here’s the full set of updated percentages. Not much change from the previous, +0.01% across the board. WSAP Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Anaheim % of Total 1.29% 1.29% 1.27% 1.26% 1.27% 1.26% 1.25% 1.23% 1.21% 1.18% ‐Jennifer From: Nevills,Jennifer C Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:03 AM To: 'Aladdin Shaikh' Subject: RE: Allocation Model Hi Al, Here are the percentages of the total allocation that goes to Anaheim at the different WSAP levels. This is based on the assumption that there are no allocation year losses of local supplies for other agencies. WSAP Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Anaheim % of Total 1.28% 1.28% 1.26% 1.25% 1.26% 1.25% 1.24% 1.22% 1.20% 1.17% Hope this helps, Jennifer From: Aladdin Shaikh [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:22 AM To: Nevills,Jennifer C Subject: RE: Allocation Model Jennifer, Could you please send me a copy of the Allocation Model that includes all member agencies. I need to figure out what percent of the total Allocation will go to Anaheim, and for that I need the total Allocation to all member agencies. Thank you, Al 714‐765‐5268 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix H Sewer Study Technical Memorandum ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC 1 T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) – Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339) PREPARED FOR: Khanh Chu/City of Anaheim Susan Kim/City of Anaheim PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL DATE: June 2009 Introduction CH2M HILL has been retained by the City of Anaheim to analyze the build-out condition modeling of the Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS1) for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project – Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (the “Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project will increase the permitted amount of development in The Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone as follows: Land Use Adopted Proposed Increase Residential Units 10,266 18,909 8,643 Commercial Square Feet 2,264,400 4,909,682 2,645,282 Office Square Feet 5,055,550 14,340,522 9,284,972 Institutional Square Feet 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 This technical memorandum summarizes the results of the modeling and outlines the sewer improvements that are recommended to accommodate the Proposed Project. Analysis Attachment 1 details the breakdown and distribution of the development intensities associated with the Proposed Project. Properties within the Platinum Triangle are currently designated for four types of land use by the General Plan: industrial, institutional, office and mixed-use. The PTMU Overlay Zone implements the mixed-use land use designation. The PTMU Overlay Zone divides the properties designated for mixed use into the following mixed use districts: Arena, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Orangewood and Stadium. The Proposed Project creates new ARTIC and Office districts and expands the boundaries for the Orangewood and Katella Districts. The development intensities proposed for the mixed-use districts are further divided into sub areas by the Proposed Project. 1 The CCAAMPSS evaluates the sewer system within the Central City of Anaheim generally located east of Euclid Street and west of the Santa Ana River. The CCAAMPSS identifies sewer system improvements for the existing and build-out land-use conditions. The CCAAMPSS was completed in September 2006. An addendum to the CCAAMPSS was completed in May 2007 to update the analysis of alternative sewer alignments and the total cost of build-out condition sewer improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC 2 The current General Plan (Tables LU-3 and LU-4) allows the following maximum development intensities within the Platinum Triangle: Land Use Maximum Development Intensity Industrial • 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) Institutional • 3.0 FAR Office • Office Development: 1,790,550 square feet • Office-High – No maximum FAR • Office-Low – 0.5 FAR • Commercial Development: 10,000 square feet, no maximum FAR Mixed-Use • Residential: 10,266 dwelling units at densities up to 100 dwelling units per acre • Office Development: 3,265,000 square feet, no maximum FAR • Commercial Development: 2,254,400 square feet, 0.4 FAR The Proposed Project does not include any changes in development intensity for the properties designated by the General Plan for industrial land uses. However, properties designated for institutional land uses, located east of Douglass Road and south of Katella Avenue, are proposed to be designated for mixed-use and comprise the newARTIC district. The remaining property designated for institutional uses, located on Katella Avenue, west of Lewis Street, will not change its land use designation. The properties within the Platinum Triangle that are currently designated for office uses are proposed to comprise the new Office district and the expanded Katella and Orangewood districts. The properties within the new Office district will remain designated by the General Plan for office uses; the properties within the Katella and Orangewood districts will be designated for mixed use by the General Plan. The Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision, June 2006, analyzed the development intensities currently permitted by the General Plan. Although the General Plan sets maximum total development thresholds for The Platinum Triangle, the June 2006 sewer study analyzed the sewer improvements required to allow any property within the Platinum Triangle to develop to its full potential based on maximum FAR and/or maximum dwelling units per acre. For instance, although the total amount of office development permitted on properties designated for office uses is 1,790,550 square feet, the sewer study generally analyzed each property at a maximum FAR of 2.0. This modeling allowed for the maximum flexibility for development. As a result the total amount of square feet of office development modeled by the June 2006 study for properties designated for office uses exceeds the square footage development threshold set by the General Plan. For properties with approved or pending development agreements, the maximum development intensity modeled by the June 2006 study reflected the proposed project. Overall, the development intensities modeled by the June 2006 study exceed the amount currently permitted by the General Plan. The development intensities analyzed by the June 2006 sewer study were incorporated into the CCAAMPSS, which was adopted in December 2006 by the City Resolution No. 2006-255. Sewer improvements that were ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC 3 recommended to accommodate the development intensities analyzed by the June 2006 sewer study are detailed in Attachment 2. The Proposed Project further breaks down the amount of development permitted into sub areas and removes the need to generalize the permitted development intensities for modeling purposes, which means the amount of development intensity modeled accurately reflects the total amount proposed to be permitted by the General Plan. As a result, some proposed development intensities show a decrease compared to the June 2006 study, even though the Proposed Project increases the total amount of permitted development intensities allowed in the Platinum Triangle. Using the data in Attachment 1, the twelve CCAAMPS build-out condition models that are located within the Platinum Triangle (Models 15, 28B, 47, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123) were analyzed following the sanitary flow modeling methodology2 of the CCAAMPSS. Model 8 used in the June 2006 study was revised in the CCAAMPSS as Models 15, 28B, and 47 due to changes in tributary areas. All of the parcels were grouped within the corresponding model and analyzed collectively in the model. The appropriate model numbers of the CCAAMPSS were associated to the old “Model 8” shown in Attachment 1. The old “Model 8” was a model boundary used in the June 2006 sewer study. “Model 8” was revised in the CCAAMPSS as Models 15, 28B, and 47 due to changes in tributary areas. The proposed Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (DSEIR No. 340) was incorporated into Model 15 to obtain the cumulative impact to Model 15 from the proposed development intensities for the Platinum Triangle and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP). As discussed with the City, two versions each of Models 121, 122, and 123 were reanalyzed that concentrated flows at the most upstream manhole of the basin to account for the worst-case development scenario and to ensure sewer pipe sizes are large enough for the total sewer flow from the Proposed Project. The two locations of the most upstream manholes in Model 121 are found in the northerly portion of the basin at Manhole No. 119-2-04, and in the southerly portion of the basin at Manhole No. 119-2-11. The two locations of the most upstream manholes in Model 122 are found in the northerly portion of the basin at Manhole No. P118-2-09, and in the southerly portion of the basin at Manhole No. P118-3-14. The two locations of the most upstream manholes in Model 123 are found in the westerly portion of the basin at Manhole No. P118-4-07, and in the easterly portion of the basin at Manhole No. P128-3-05. Models 122 and 123 contain private sewers, and no City sewers. In Model 122, there are sewer improvements as a result of the Proposed Project. In Model 123, the sewer improvements recommended from the June 2006 sewer study remain the same as a result of the Proposed Project. 2 The sanitary flow modeling methodology of the CCAAMPSS is based on using diurnal curves, rather than using the traditional peaking factor method. Overall, the diurnal curve method better represent the pattern of sanitary wastewater flows generated by a type of land use over a 24-hour period. Additional details can found in the CCAAMPSS. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC 4 Results Attachment 3 details the sewer improvements that are recommended to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project’s maximum development intensities. 7,373 linear feet of sewer pipe are recommended to be upsized to accommodate the Proposed Project in Models 15, 28B, 47, 119, 120, 121, and 122. There are no improvements proposed for Models 115, 116, 117, 118, and 123. Details of the recommended sewer improvements are summarized in the following sections. A map of the recommended sewer improvements is included as Attachment 4. Also shown in Attachment 4 are three stretches of new sewer that have been built in the Platinum Triangle since the June 2006 sewer study. One stretch is approximately 1,000 feet of new sewer along Katella Avenue just east of State College Boulevard within Model 117. The second stretch is a reverse sewer (flowing easterly instead of westerly), approximately 2,000 feet, along Katella Avenue in Model 28B between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard. The third stretch is approximately 3,000 feet of new sewer along Gene Autry Way and Santa Cruz Street just west of State College Boulevard in Model 47. All three stretches of new sewer are indicated in Attachment 4 as “Backbone Sewer,” which represents additional sewers to the City’s existing sewer system to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project. Model 15 1,064 linear feet of sewer pipe is recommended for replacement in Model 15, along Howell Avenue, within the Office District, to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project. The existing sewers are 8-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 10-inch diameter sewers. 8,095 linear feet of sewer pipe are recommended for replacement in Model 15 to accommodate build-out or the proposed Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The existing sewers range from 8-inch to 24-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 10- inch to 30-inch diameter sewers. The Proposed Project does not create cumulative impacts to these 8,095 linear feet of sewer pipe located west of the I-5 freeway. Model 28B 1,035 linear feet of sewer pipe is recommended for replacement in Model 28B along Wright Circle and Rigney Way, within Sub Area B of the Katella District, to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project. The existing sewers are 8-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 10-inch diameter sewers. Model 47 554 linear feet of sewer pipe is recommended for replacement in Model 47 along Gene Autry Way to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project. These improvements are located within the Gene Autry District. The existing sewers are 8-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 15-inch diameter sewers. Model 119 876 linear feet of sewer pipe is recommended for replacement in Model 119, along Douglass Road, within Sub Area D of the Katella District, to accommodate build-out of the Proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC 5 Project. The existing sewers are 8-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 10-inch and 15-inch diameter sewers. Model 120 2,717 linear feet of sewer pipe are recommended for replacement in Model 120, along State College Boulevard, Dupont Drive and Orangewood Avenue, within the Gateway and Orangewood Districts, to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project. The existing sewers are 8-inch to 12-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 10-inch to 15-inch diameter sewers. Model 121 927 linear feet of sewer are recommended for replacement in Model 121, along Rampart Street and a City easement, within the Orangewood District, to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project. The existing sewers are 8-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 10-inch and 12-inch diameter sewers. Model 122 200 linear feet of private sewer pipe is recommended for replacement in Model 122 from Manhole No. 118-1-08 to Manhole No. 118-1-06 within the Stadium District to accommodate build-out of the Proposed Project. The existing sewers are 15-inch in diameter and are recommended for replacement with 21-inch diameter sewers. OCSD Trunk Sewer Modeling and Potential Spills In June 2007, coordination was done with OCSD regarding their recent modeling results for trunk sewers along State College Boulevard, Howell Avenue, and Orangewood Avenue. OCSD provided modeling information of potential surcharging within these trunk sewers during wet- weather events. Wet weather events were assumed by OCSD to be a representative ten-year storm. To determine the potential of any spills within the City sewers in the Platinum Triangle due to surcharging found in the OCSD’s modeling of their trunk sewers during a ten-year storm event, the assumptions listed below were made in the Hydra analysis for Models 28B, 47, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, and 123: • Recommended sewer improvements for the Platinum Triangle area are constructed, • Recommended sewer improvements are constructed at same inverts of existing sewers, and • Flows within the OCSD trunk sewers based on the modeling results figures provided by OCSD. The peak flows from the Hydra analysis of the proposed development intensities for the Proposed Project are generally lower than the previous peak flows analyzed by the June 2006 study, which were incorporated in the CCAAMPSS. This is a result of the reduced flows generated from the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC 6 The table below summarizes the results of the surcharge levels within the City’s sewers due to OCSD’s surcharging flow within the trunk sewers during a representative ten-year storm event. Using the assumptions described above, the City sewers experienced surcharge above the pipe crown, but no potential for spills as the hydraulic grade line is below the ground surface during a ten-year storm event. Results of Surcharge within the City sewers in the Platinum Triangle during a representative Ten-Year Storm Event Model Depth of Sewer below Ground Elevation (ft) Surcharge Above Pipe Crown (ft) 28B 7 – 15 2 47 14 2 115 7 – 9 1 – 2 116 6 1 – 2 117 7 - 8 2 118 7 – 11 2 119 9 – 12 2 – 3 120 6 – 7 2 – 4 121 16 0 122 5 2 – 4 123 14 1 Where possible, sewer improvements should be constructed with larger than recommended diameters to maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe and the invert elevation of sewer laterals should be located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when they are above the pipe crown. In addition, backflow prevention devices should be installed at the lateral connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties. At the project level, it is recommended that additional analysis 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. Conclusion The latest proposed development intensities for the Platinum Triangle have resulted in additional build-out sewer improvements and/or increased pipe diameters for Models 15, 28B, 47, 117, 119, 120, and 122 in the CCAAMPSS. A total of 7,373 linear feet of sewer pipe are recommended for replacement to accommodate full build-out of the Proposed Project. Details of the recommended sewer improvements are outlined in Attachment 3. The map of recommended build-out sewer improvements is provided in Attachment 4. Following a sewer study is typically the design level. At this level, the recommended sewer improvements described herein can be prioritized and implemented for construction. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC Attachment 1 Proposed Development Intensities for the Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- Comparison of Development analyzed by The Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision, June 2006, Phase 1 and proposed for The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339) Proposed Project is a decrease in development compared to 2006 Study Proposed Project is an increase in development compared to 2006 Study Sewer Parcels have both an increase in one or more land uses and a decrease in one or more land uses Sewer Basin Sewer Parcel 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference Industrial 25C1 (Model 8) P01 Model 15 135,036 135,036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 25C1 (Model 8) P02 Model 15 150,500 150,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 27 (Model 8) P21 Model 15 277,259 277,259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 111 (Model 111) P43 Model 111 428,195 428,195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 111 (Model 111) P44 Model 111 165,310 165,310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 114 (Model 111) P45 Model 111 211,484 211,484 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 114 (Model 111) P46 Model 111 77,755 77,755 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 114 (Model 111) P47 Model 111 266,152 266,152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 116 (Model 116) P53 Model 116 259,835 259,835 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 116 (Model 116) P54 Model 116 199,723 199,723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 116 (Model 116) P56 Model 116 47,045 47,045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 117 (Model 117) P59 Model 117 409,246 409,246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 117 (Model 117) P60 Model 117 60,548 60,548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Institutional 25C1 (Model 8) P03 Model 15 0 0 0 380,279 380,279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 25C1 (Model 8) P04 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 114,998 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 25C1 (Model 8) P05 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 159,430 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 27 (Model 8) P22 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 394,654 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 25C1 (Model 8) P06 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 236,966 236,966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 25C1 (Model 8) P07 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,424 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 28A (Model 8) P31 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 338,897 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 25C2 (Model 8) P17 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 209,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 38B1 (Model 47) P37 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 194,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 38B1 (Model 47) P38 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,232 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 38B1 (Model 47) P40 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 383,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 38B1 (Model 47) P39 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,904 64,904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 27 (Model 8) P23 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 354,143 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (w/o St College) 27 (Model 8) P24 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 429,066 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (e/o St College) 115 (Model 115) P48 Model 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 506,821 383,250 -123,571 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (e/o St College) 116 (Model 115) P51 Model 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 155,727 58,700 -97,027 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (e/o St College) 116 (Model 116) P55 Model 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 267,458 267,458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (e/o St College) 117 (Model 116) P57 Model 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 67,954 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (e/o St College) 118 (Model 116) P58 Model 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 798,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office (e/o St College) 117 (Model 117) P61 Model 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 148,540 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arena 115 (Model 115) P49 Model 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 425 Arena 115 (Model 115) P50 Model 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 425 Arena 115 (Model 115) P52 Model 115 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 425 ARTIC 118 (Model 119) P68 Model 119 0 0 0 1,772,021 0 0 0 ARTIC 119 (Model 119) P69 Model 119 0 0 0 318,859 0 0 0 Gateway (Sub-Area A) 38B1 (Model 47) P41A Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 445,183 1,330 0 Gateway (Sub-Area A) 38B2 (Model 47) P41B Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 84,817 0 0 Gateway (Sub-Area A) 38B2 (Model 47) P42 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 311,890 1,330 0 Proposed Mixed Use District or General Plan Land Use Industrial (sq. ft) Institutional (sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) 0 0 716,127 -124,799 845,935 62,726 879,613 Commercial (sq. ft.) Residential (units) 358,000 669,082 356,321 358,000 520 520 -850 -135,771 438 538,250 -303,640 52,000 49,340 June 2006 425 100,000 1,500,000 -590,880 2,202,803 2,202,803 CCAAMPSS 438 -200,000 100,000 -200,000 1 02/03/2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Comparison of Development analyzed by The Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision, June 2006, Phase 1 and proposed for The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339) Proposed Project is a decrease in development compared to 2006 Study Proposed Project is an increase in development compared to 2006 Study Sewer Parcels have both an increase in one or more land uses and a decrease in one or more land uses Sewer Basin Sewer Parcel 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference Proposed Mixed Use District or General Plan Land Use Industrial (sq. ft) Institutional (sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) Commercial (sq. ft.) Residential (units) June 2006 CCAAMPSS Gateway (Sub-Area A) 38B2 (Model 47) AD6 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 250 -16 Gateway (Sub-Area B) 120 (Model 120) P72A Model 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 24,000 0 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 Gateway (Sub-Area B) 120 (Model 120) P72B Model 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 530,000 0 -530,000 1,330 0 -1,330 0 690 690 Gateway (Sub-Area B) 120 (Model 120) AD2 Model 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 352 0 Gateway (Sub-Area C) 120 (Model 120) PF11 Model 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,670 0 -48,670 1,132 878 -254 Gateway (Sub-Area C) 120 (Model 120) PF13 Model 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 341 16 Gene Autry (Sub-Area A) 25C2 (Model 8) AD9B (EAST) Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103,800 103,800 0 491 491 0 Gene Autry (Sub-Area B) 25C2 (Model 8) PF12 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219,000 219,000 31,500 118,000 86,500 509 1,208 699 Gene Autry (Sub-Area C) 25C2 (Model 8) P16A Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 38,800 0 Gene Autry (Sub-Area C) 25C2 (Model 8) P16B Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area A) 28A (Model 8) P27A Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 444,312 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area A) 28B (Model 8) P27B Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 320,602 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area A) 28B (Model 8) P27C Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 363,290 0 -363,290 0 60,000 60,000 0 350 350 Katella (Sub-Area A) 28B (Model 8) P33B Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 396,396 91,000 -305,396 0 45,500 45,500 0 364 364 Katella (Sub-Area A) 28A (Model 8) P33A Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 373,745 254,759 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area A) 28A (Model 8) P32 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,651 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area A) 25C1 (Model 8) P08 Model 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 118,483 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area A) 25C2 (Model 8) P09 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 157,687 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area A) 25C2 (Model 8) P12 Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 242,194 0 0 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) AD1 Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,659 10,659 0 390 390 0 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) AD4 Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 771 859 88 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) AD7 Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,248 1,298 50 336 336 0 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) AD9A Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126,000 1,741 Katella (Sub-Area B) 25C2 (Model 8) AD9B (WEST) Model 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 449 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) P26 Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 354,578 70,916 0 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) P29A Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,780 4,356 0 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) P29B Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 69,696 13,939 0 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) PF10 Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Katella (Sub-Area B) 28B (Model 8) P36 Model 28B 0 0 0 0 0 0 77,537 17,800 -59,737 15,507 8,900 -6,607 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area C) 117 (Model 117) P62 Model 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 775,000 105,000 -670,000 202,467 202,467 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area C) 117 (Model 117) P63 Model 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,848 17,708 5,860 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area C) 117 (Model 117) AD5 Model 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265 265 0 Katella (Sub-Area C) 117 (Model 117) AD8 Model 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,764 12,600 2,836 251 251 0 Katella (Sub-Area C) 118 (Model 118) AD3 Model 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,185 14,185 0 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area C) 118 (Model 118) P65 Model 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 775,000 643,482 -131,518 204,035 25,526 -178,509 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area D) 119 (Model 119) P66 Model 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 457,380 91,476 0 0 0 Katella (Sub-Area D) 119 (Model 119) P67 Model 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 162,043 32,409 0 0 0 Orangewood 120 (Model 120) P73 Model 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,028,016 0 0 Orangewood 120 (Model 120) P74 Model 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 512,266 0 0 Orangewood 121 (Model 121) P75 Model 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 929,570 0 0 Orangewood 121 (Model 121) P77 Model 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 265,716 0 0 209,419 -555,495 119,200 19,200 82,900 44,100 663 663 320 320 260,120 399,881 0 126,000 0 102,400 -343,654 51,200 -38,011 47,197 -572,226 142,000 50,524 1,402,855 -1,332,713 130,000 130,000 1,450 114,571 114,571 2,190 0 382 335 0 1,450 2 02/03/2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Comparison of Development analyzed by The Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision, June 2006, Phase 1 and proposed for The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339) Proposed Project is a decrease in development compared to 2006 Study Proposed Project is an increase in development compared to 2006 Study Sewer Parcels have both an increase in one or more land uses and a decrease in one or more land uses Sewer Basin Sewer Parcel 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference 2006 Proposed Difference Proposed Mixed Use District or General Plan Land Use Industrial (sq. ft) Institutional (sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) Commercial (sq. ft.) Residential (units) June 2006 CCAAMPSS Orangewood 121 (Model 121) P76 Model 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 279,655 0 -279,655 1,330 0 -1,330 0 321 321 Stadium 117 (Model 117) P64 Model 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 228,254 45,651 262 Stadium 122 (Model 122) P78 Model 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 633,362 126,672 727 Stadium 122 (Model 122) P79 Model 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 430,373 86,075 494 Stadium 122 (Model 122) P80 Model 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,453 25,091 144 Stadium 122 (Model 122) P81 Model 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,512,403 302,481 1,736 Stadium 122 (Model 122) P82 Model 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 946,994 189,399 1,087 Stadium 122 (Model 122) P83 Model 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,125,590 225,118 1,292 Stadium 122 (Model 122) P84 Model 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,341,648 268,330 1,540 Stadium 123 (Model 123) P85 Model 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 589,802 117,960 677 Stadium 123 (Model 123) P86 Model 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,100,326 220,065 1,263 Stadium 123 (Model 123) P87 Model 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,475,813 295,163 1,694 Stadium 123 (Model 123) P88 Model 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 899,078 179,816 1,032 2,955,000 1,686,183 3,725 -3,557 1,450 -3,216 3,125,000 -3,219,077 0 -4,065,019 165,368 -647,636 3 02/03/2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC Attachment 2 1) Recommended Build-Out Sewer Improvements for the Platinum Triangle (June 2006 Sewer Study) and 2) Map of the Recommended Build-Out Sewer Improvements for the (June 2006 Sewer Study) ---PAGE BREAK--- Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED BUILD-OUT SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE (JUNE 2006 SEWER STUDY) Model No. Upstream - Manhole Pipe Length (ft) Capacity (d/D)1 Existing Diameter (in) Parallel/ Replace No. of Manholes4 Estimated 2009 Cost5 incl. Eng, Contract, & CM Subtotal Location 115 126307-127102 334 0.53 10 R 12 2 $280,247 DOUGLASS ROAD 127102-127104 360 0.58 10 R 12 1 $292,268 DOUGLASS ROAD 127104-127105 56 0.61 10 R 12 1 $58,098 DOUGLASS ROAD 127105-127108 450 0.73 10 R 12 1 $361,572 DOUGLASS ROAD 127108-127301 500 0.75 10 R 12 1 $400,075 DOUGLASS ROAD 127301-127304 100 0.66 10 R 12 1 $92,057 DOUGLASS ROAD $1,484,317 117 117310-117309 124 0.72 8 R 10 1 $98,682 KATELLA AVE 117311-117310 249 0.72 8 R 10 1 $183,054 KATELLA AVE 117312-117311 64 0.66 8 R 10 2 $66,376 KATELLA AVE 117314-117313 350 1.00 8 R 15 2 $342,401 KATELLA AVE 117313-118103 174 1.00 8 R 15 1 $173,944 KATELLA AVE 118103-117312 54 1.00 8 R 15 1 $64,335 KATELLA AVE $928,791 118 117418-117415 229 0.81 8 R 12 2 $199,315 KATELLA/HOWELL $199,315 119 127308-127306 470 1.00 8 R 10 3 $348,136 DOUGLASS ROAD 127306-127304 406 1.00 8 R 12 2 $335,613 DOUGLASS ROAD $683,749 120 118306-119102 392 1.00 12 R 18 1 $435,401 ORANGEWOOD 118307-118308 158 1.00 12 R 15 1 $158,957 ORANGEWOOD 118308-118306 70 1.00 12 R 15 1 $78,500 ORANGEWOOD 118308-118307 218 0.76 12 R 15 1 $214,142 ORANGEWOOD 118309-118308 137 1.00 10 R 15 1 $140,086 ORANGEWOOD 119106-118309 278 0.78 8 R 12 1 $229,025 DUPONT DR 119107-119106 272 1.00 8 R 12 1 $224,717 DUPONT DR 119108-119107 274 1.00 8 R 10 1 $199,744 DUPONT DR 119209-119108 341 0.72 8 R 10 2 $252,959 DUPONT DR 119205-118404 295 - 8 R 10 2 $222,093 ORANGEWOOD 118404-118310 277 - 8 R 10 1 $202,021 ORANGEWOOD 118310-118309 244 - 10 R 12 1 $202,943 ORANGEWOOD $2,560,589 121 119206-129102 395 1.00 8 R 15 2 $383,470 EASEMENT 119211-119210 255 - 8 R 10 2 $195,094 RAMPART ST 119210-119206 277 - 8 R 10 3 $217,866 RAMPART ST $796,429 47 108111-108117 75 0.89 10 R 12 1 $72,806 GENE AUTRY WAY 108114-108301 145 1.00 10 R 15 1 $147,839 SANTA CRUZ ST 108115-108114 254 1.00 10 R 15 1 $246,864 GENE AUTRY WAY 108116-108115 175 1.00 10 R 15 1 $174,765 GENE AUTRY WAY 108117-108116 226 1.00 10 R 15 1 $221,310 GENE AUTRY WAY 108204-108111 359 1.00 8 R 12 1 $291,498 GENE AUTRY WAY 108205-108204 177 1.00 8 R 12 2 $159,504 GENE AUTRY WAY 108301-108302 358 1.00 8 R 15 1 $341,816 SANTA CRUZ ST 108302-108306 350 1.00 8 R 15 1 $334,507 SANTA CRUZ ST 108306-108307 351 1.00 8 R 15 1 $335,297 SANTA CRUZ ST 108307-108308 46 1.00 8 R 15 1 $57,184 SANTA CRUZ ST 108308-109102 256 1.00 8 R 15 1 $249,000 SANTA CRUZ ST $2,632,390 TOTAL 10,576 $9,285,580 Engineering costs 8% - City of Anaheim's capacity criteria of max d/D are as follows: Construction Mgmt (75% of Eng.) 7% 0.67 = d/D for pipe with diameters less than 12 in d = Depth of flow (in) 0.75 = d/D for pipe with diameters equal or greater than 12 in D = Diameter of the pipe (in) - City of Anaheim's design criteria of max d/D are as follows: 0.50 = d/D for pipe with diameters less than or equal to 12 in 0.60 = d/D for pipe with diameters greater than 12 in Selected Diam2,3 (in) Notes: 1. Capacity as a result of the June 2006 Sewer Study. See below for the City's criteria of max d/D. 2. Selected Diameter is not recommended by sewer modeling, but based on the City's criteria of recommending pipe improvements: Recommend pipe replacement instead of parallel system for existing small diameter 10", and 12") pipes. Either recommend pipe replacement or parallel system for existing 15" diameter pipes, on a case-by-case basis. Generally, recommend parallel system for existing 18" diameter pipes and larger. For pipe diameter 12" and larger, only downsizing by ONE pipe size is allowed. For pipe diameters 8" and 10", no downsizing is allowed. For gaps in the sewer design requirements when there is no sewer need in the sewer section being considered, but there is a sewer need on either or both sides of the sewer section, criteria through applies. Replace all 6" diameter pipes with 8" or larger 3. Selected Diameter is larger than the diameter recommended by the sewer modeling based on the following assumption: Maintain continuity of pipe diameter to match upstream and pipe diameters. Increase pipe diameter to provide better transition between upstream and pipe diameters. 4. Unit cost of manholes is $5,000/manhole. 5. Estimated 2009 Cost based on 3% escalation per year from 2006 to 2009. Build-Out Improvements PT Original Conditions.xls Page 1 of 1 JUNE 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 115 114 122 111 28B 123 117 120 116 119 121 118 15 47 INTERSTATE HWY 5 CA-57 FWY LEWIS ST HASTER ST THE CITY DR DOUGLASS RD CHAPMAN AVE KATELLA AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD HOWELL AVE ORANGEWOOD AVE Exhibit 1 Recommended Build Out Sewer Improvements for the Platinum Triangle (June 2006 Study) LEGEND ! Manhole Sewer Lines Backbone Sewer * Build Out Sewer Improvements 10 Inches 12 Inches 15 Inches 18 Inches OCSD Trunk Sewer Central Sewer Study Area Anaheim City Limits Models Platinum Triangle Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers 1 inch equals 1000 feet 0 500 1,000 Feet ³ Notes: * - Backbone sewers constructed since 2007 along Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, and Santa Cruz Street. June 2009 SCO \\GALT\PROJ\CITYOFANAHEIM\360985\MAPFILES\11X17_PLATINUMTRIANGLEORIGINAL_V2.MXD RANHORN 6/10/2009 13:07:50 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC Attachment 3 1) Recommended Build-Out Sewer Improvements for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, and 2) Additional Build-Out Sewer Improvements for Model 15 due to Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (DSEIR No. 340) ---PAGE BREAK--- Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED BUILD-OUT SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE REVISED PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION PROJECT (JUNE 2009) Model No. Upstream - Manhole Pipe Length (ft) Capacity (d/D)1 Existing Diameter (in) Parallel/ Replace No. of Manholes4 Estimated 2009 Cost5 incl. Eng, Contract, & CM Subtotal Location 15 107111-107110 358 0.73 8 R 10 2 $264,617 HOWELL AVE 107110-107109 342 0.74 8 R 10 1 $245,895 HOWELL AVE 107109-107108 364 0.65 8 R 10 1 $260,744 HOWELL AVE $771,255 28B 107402-107401 353 1.00 8 R 10 2 $261,242 WRIGHT CIRCLE 107401-107403 305 1.00 8 R 10 1 $220,920 RIGNEY WAY 107403-107411 230 1.00 8 R 10 1 $170,297 RIGNEY WAY 107411-108214 147 0.48 8 R 10 1 $114,274 RIGNEY WAY $766,733 47 108207-108206 197 1.00 8 R 15 2 $202,766 GENE AUTRY WAY 108206-108205 357 1.00 8 R 15 1 $340,867 GENE AUTRY WAY $543,633 119 127308-127306 470 1.00 8 R 10 3 $348,136 DOUGLASS ROAD 127306-127304 406 1.00 8 R 15 2 $393,509 DOUGLASS ROAD $741,645 120 108403-108404 212 0.76 8 R 10 2 $166,070 STATE COLLEGE BLVD 108404-108405 223 1.00 8 R 10 1 $165,572 STATE COLLEGE BLVD 108405-119101 69 0.69 8 R 10 1 $61,626 STATE COLLEGE BLVD 119209-119108 341 1.00 8 R 12 2 $285,560 DUPONT DR 119108-119107 274 1.00 8 R 12 1 $226,045 DUPONT DR 119107-119106 272 1.00 8 R 12 1 $224,504 DUPONT DR 119106-118309 278 0.65 8 R 12 1 $229,025 DUPONT DR 118309-118308 137 1.00 10 R 15 1 $140,086 ORANGEWOOD 118308-118307 218 0.75 12 R 15 1 $214,009 ORANGEWOOD 118307-118308 158 1.00 12 R 15 1 $159,250 ORANGEWOOD 118308-118306 70 1.00 12 R 15 1 $78,938 ORANGEWOOD 118306-119102 392 1.00 12 R 15 1 $372,809 ORANGEWOOD 119102-119101 73 1.00 12 R 15 0 $73,753 ORANGEWOOD $2,397,247 121 119211-119210 255 0.76 8 R 10 2 $195,094 RAMPART ST 119210-119206 277 0.49 8 R 10 1 $202,021 RAMPART ST 119206-129102 395 1.00 8 R 12 1 $319,220 EASEMENT $716,335 122 118108-118107 190 1.00 15 R 21 2 $250,566 PRIVATE 118107-118106 10 1.00 15 R 21 1 $27,031 PRIVATE $277,596 TOTAL 7,373 $6,214,445 Engineering costs 8% - City of Anaheim's capacity criteria of max d/D are as follows: Construction Mgmt (75% of Eng.) 7% 0.67 = d/D for pipe with diameters less than 12 in d = Depth of flow (in) 0.75 = d/D for pipe with diameters equal or greater than 12 in D = Diameter of the pipe (in) - City of Anaheim's design criteria of max d/D are as follows: 0.50 = d/D for pipe with diameters less than or equal to 12 in 0.60 = d/D for pipe with diameters greater than 12 in Selected Diam2,3 (in) Notes: 1. Capacity as a result of the Proposed Project. See below for the City's criteria of max d/D. 2. Selected Diameter is not recommended by sewer modeling, but based on the City's criteria of recommending pipe improvements: Recommend pipe replacement instead of parallel system for existing small diameter 10", and 12") pipes. Either recommend pipe replacement or parallel system for existing 15" diameter pipes, on a case-by-case basis. Generally, recommend parallel system for existing 18" diameter pipes and larger. For pipe diameter 12" and larger, only downsizing by ONE pipe size is allowed. For pipe diameters 8" and 10", no downsizing is allowed. For gaps in the sewer design requirements when there is no sewer need in the sewer section being considered, but there is a sewer need on either or both sides of the sewer section, criteria through applies. Replace all 6" diameter pipes with 8" or larger 3. Selected Diameter is larger than the diameter recommended by the sewer modeling based on the following assumption: Maintain continuity of pipe diameter to match upstream and pipe diameters. Increase pipe diameter to provide better transition between upstream and pipe diameters. 4. Unit cost of manholes is $5,000/manhole. 5. Estimated 2009 Cost based on 3% escalation per year from 2006 to 2009. Revised BO Plat Triangle Imprv_JUNE2009.xls Page 1 of 1 JUNE 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ADDITIONAL BUILD-OUT SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR MODEL 15 DUE TO AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN (DSEIR NO. 340) Model No. Upstream - Manhole Pipe Length (ft) Capacity (d/D)1 Existing Diameter (in) Parallel/ Replace No. of Manholes4 Estimated 2009 Cost5 incl. Eng, Contract, & CM Subtotal Location 15 088204-088203 176 0.75 8 R 10 2 $141,771 HASTER ST 088203-088202 174 0.87 8 R 10 1 $132,498 HASTER ST 088202-088201 351 1.00 8 R 10 1 $251,969 HASTER ST 088201-097310 302 1.00 8 R 10 1 $218,896 HASTER ST 097311-097310 312 0.84 21 R 24 1 $433,272 KATELLA AVE 087218-087401 196 0.76 12 R 15 2 $201,853 CLEMENTINE ST 087401-087402 413 0.82 12 R 15 1 $391,975 CLEMENTINE ST 087402-087406 386 0.81 12 R 15 1 $367,334 CLEMENTINE ST 087406-087410 396 0.86 12 R 15 1 $376,460 CLEMENTINE ST 087415-087414 147 0.77 21 R 24 2 $220,020 KATELLA AVE 087414-087413 103 0.83 21 R 24 1 $153,118 KATELLA AVE 087413-087317 329 0.85 21 R 24 1 $456,060 KATELLA AVE 087317-087315 125 0.88 21 R 24 1 $182,608 KATELLA AVE 087315-087318 93 0.83 21 R 24 1 $139,714 KATELLA AVE 087318-087313 115 1.00 21 R 24 1 $169,204 KATELLA AVE 087313-087311 128 0.89 21 R 24 1 $186,630 KATELLA AVE 087311-087309 212 0.91 21 R 24 1 $299,227 KATELLA AVE 087309-087307 319 0.90 21 R 24 1 $442,655 KATELLA AVE 087307-076411 59 0.90 21 R 24 1 $94,139 KATELLA AVE 076411-076424 55 1.00 24 R 30 1 $92,096 KATELLA AVE 088103-077202 125 0.68 8 R 10 2 $107,347 HARBOR BLVD 077202-077201 161 1.00 8 R 10 1 $123,724 HARBOR BLVD 076408-076407 66 0.75 24 R 27 2 $120,856 KATELLA AVE 076407-076405 320 0.68 24 R 27 1 $489,628 KATELLA AVE 076405-076433 56 0.74 24 R 27 1 $98,103 KATELLA AVE 076433-076308 373 0.74 24 R 27 1 $568,230 KATELLA AVE 066417-066422 277 1.00 24 R 27 2 $433,779 KATELLA AVE 066422-066421 329 0.75 24 R 27 1 $502,975 KATELLA AVE 066421-066420 249 0.78 24 R 27 1 $384,332 KATELLA AVE 066420-066419 79 0.72 24 R 27 1 $132,213 KATELLA AVE 066419-066418 339 0.78 24 R 27 1 $517,806 KATELLA AVE 066418-066328 329 0.77 24 R 27 1 $502,975 KATELLA AVE 066328-066327 330 0.78 24 R 27 1 $504,459 KATELLA AVE 066327-066325 331 0.78 24 R 27 1 $505,942 KATELLA AVE 066325-066324 299 0.75 24 R 27 1 $458,484 KATELLA AVE 066324-057444 41 0.75 24 R 27 1 $75,857 KATELLA AVE TOTAL 8,095 $10,478,209 Engineering costs 8% - City of Anaheim's capacity criteria of max d/D are as follows: Construction Mgmt (75% of Eng.) 7% 0.67 = d/D for pipe with diameters less than 12 in d = Depth of flow (in) 0.75 = d/D for pipe with diameters equal or greater than 12 in D = Diameter of the pipe (in) - City of Anaheim's design criteria of max d/D are as follows: 0.50 = d/D for pipe with diameters less than or equal to 12 in 0.60 = d/D for pipe with diameters greater than 12 in Selected Diam2,3 (in) Notes: 1. Capacity as a result of the Proposed Project. See below for the City's criteria of max d/D. 2. Selected Diameter is not recommended by sewer modeling, but based on the City's criteria of recommending pipe improvements: Recommend pipe replacement instead of parallel system for existing small diameter 10", and 12") pipes. Either recommend pipe replacement or parallel system for existing 15" diameter pipes, on a case-by-case basis. Generally, recommend parallel system for existing 18" diameter pipes and larger. For pipe diameter 12" and larger, only downsizing by ONE pipe size is allowed. For pipe diameters 8" and 10", no downsizing is allowed. For gaps in the sewer design requirements when there is no sewer need in the sewer section being considered, but there is a sewer need on either or both sides of the sewer section, criteria through applies. Replace all 6" diameter pipes with 8" or larger 3. Selected Diameter is larger than the diameter recommended by the sewer modeling based on the following assumption: Maintain continuity of pipe diameter to match upstream and pipe diameters. Increase pipe diameter to provide better transition between upstream and pipe diameters. 4. Unit cost of manholes is $5,000/manhole. 5. Estimated 2009 Cost based on 3% escalation per year from 2006 to 2009. Addl BO Imprv for Model 15 due to ARSP and CC Expansion_JUNE2009.xls Page 1 of 1 JUNE 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC Attachment 4 Map of Recommended Build-Out Sewer Improvements for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project ---PAGE BREAK--- 115 114 122 111 28B 123 117 120 116 119 121 118 15 47 INTERSTATE HWY 5 CA-57 FWY THE CITY DR CHAPMAN AVE LEWIS ST HASTER ST DOUGLASS RD KATELLA AVE STATE COLLEGE BLVD HOWELL AVE ORANGEWOOD AVE Exhibit 2 Recommended Build Out Sewer Improvements for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project LEGEND ! Manhole Sewer Lines Backbone Sewer * Build Out Sewer Improvements 10 Inches 12 Inches 15 Inches 21 Inches OCSD Trunk Sewer Central Sewer Study Area Anaheim City Limits Models Platinum Triangle Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers 1 inch equals 1000 feet 0 500 1,000 Feet ³ Notes: * - Backbone sewers constructed since 2007 along Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, and Santa Cruz Street. June 2009 SCO \\GALT\PROJ\CITYOFANAHEIM\360985\MAPFILES\11X17_PLATINUMTRIANGLE_V2.MXD RANHORN 6/10/2009 13:07:04 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINALTECHMEMO_UPDATEDPLATINUMTRIANGLE_JUNE2009.DOC References 1. Draft Amendment to the Platinum Triangle MLUP SEIR, Project Description, City of Anaheim, 2008. 2. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers, City of Anaheim, September 2006. 3. Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision, Merit Civil Engineering, Inc., June 2006. 4. City of Anaheim General Plan, Land Use Element, May 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix I Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan • Appendix I.1. Redline • Appendix I.2. Clean Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix I.1 Redline ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- DSEIR No. 339 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Amendments 10 1.21 General Plan Framework 1011 1.21.1 Land Use Designations 1012 1.32 Environmental Requirements 1213 1.43 Existing Opportunities 1213 2.0 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE VISION 1314 2.1 Planning Principles 1314 2.1.1 Balance and Integrate Uses 1314 2.1.2 Stimulate Market-Driven Development 1314 2.1.3 Create a Unique, Integrated, Walkable Urban Environment 1314 2.1.4 Develop an Overall Urban Design Framework 1314 2.1.5 Reinforce Transit Oriented Development Opportunities 1415 2.1.6 Maintain and Enhance Connectivity 1415 2.1.7 Create Great Neighborhoods 1415 2.1.8 Provide for Installation and Maintenance of Public Improvements 1415 2.2 Urban Design Elements and Attributes 1516 2.2.1 Build on a Connected Street Network with Appropriate Block Size 1516 2.2.2 Provide Variation in Housing Type 1516 2.2.3 Provide Parks and Recreational-Leisure Areas 1718 2.2.4 Create a Street/Ground Floor Zone that is Attractive, Safe and Engaging 1718 2.2.5 Provide a Centerpiece Walking and Shopping District – The Market Street 1819 3.0 MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERVIEW 2122 3.1 Development Intensities 2122 3.2 Stadium District 2324 3.3 Arena District 2425 3.4 Katella District 2526 3.5 Gene Autry District 2627 3.6 Gateway District 2728 3.7 Orangewood District 2829 3.8 ARTIC District 30 3.9 Office District 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 4 4.0 PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE AND IDENTITY PROGRAM2932 4.1 Streetscape Elements 2932 4.1.1 Gateways 2932 4.1.2 Public Art 2932 4.1.3 Light Standards 3033 4.1.4 Street Furniture 3235 4.1.5 Signs 3235 4.2 Landscape Concept Plan and Cross Sections 3336 4.2.1 Katella Avenue 3639 4.2.2 State College Boulevard 4043 4.2.3 Gene Autry Way 4548 4.2.4 Orangewood Avenue 4750 4.2.5 Douglass Road (North of Katella Avenue) 5154 4.2.6 Anaheim Way 5356 4.2.7 Lewis Street 5558 4.2.8 Amtrak/Metrolink LineRailroad Right-of-Way 5861 4.2.9 Secondary Streets: Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street and Cerritos Avenue 6063 4.2.10 Market Street 6265 4.2.11 Connector and Collector Streets 6467 4.2.12 Intersections with Supplemental Lanes 6670 APPENDICES The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone Appendix A The Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Appendix B Mixed Use Districts Appendix B1 Office District Appendix B2 Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106CA for The Platinum Triangle Appendix C Standard Detail for Newspaper Racks Appendix D The Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Appendix E A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program Appendix F PTMU Overlay Zone District Sub-Area Development Intensities Appendix G ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: General Plan Development Intensities 10 Table 21: Building Types 1516 Table 32: PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities 2122 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map 7 Figure 2: Aerial Photo 8 Figure 3: General Plan Designations 1112 Figure 4: The Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan 2021 Figure 5: Mixed-Use and Office Districts 2223 Figure 6: Stadium District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 2324 Figure 7: Arena District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 2425 Figure 8: Katella District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 2526 Figure 9: Gene Autry District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 2627 Figure 10: Gateway District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 2728 Figure 110A: Orangewood District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 2829 Figure 12: ARTIC District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 30 Figure 13: Office District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 31 Figure 141: Anaheim Resort Light StandardCity of Anaheim Street Light Special Design No. 744 Anaheim Recreational Area 3033 Figure 152: Connector and Collector Street Light Standard 3033 Figure 162A: Market Street Light Standard 3134 Figure 172B: Market Street Pedestrian Light Standard 3134 Figure 183: Citywide Standard Bus Bench 3235 Figure 19: Street Identification Sign 35 Figure 2014: Landscape Concept Plan 3437 Figure 2115: Cross Section Map 3538 Figure 2216: Katella Avenue: - Santa Ana Freeway to East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) 3740 Figure 2317: Katella Avenue: - Highway of National Significance, East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) to Orange Freeway 3841 Figure 2418: Katella Avenue: - Orange Freeway to East City Limits 3942 Figure 2519: State College Boulevard: - South City Limits to Gene Autry Way 4144 Figure 260: State College Boulevard: - Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 4245 Figure 271: State College Boulevard: - Katella Avenue to 500’ North of Howell Avenue 4346 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 6 Figure 282: State College Boulevard: - 500’ North of Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 4447 Figure 293: Gene Autry Way: - Santa Cruz Street Betmor Lane to State College Boulevard 4649 Figure 3024: Orangewood Avenue: - Santa Ana Freeway to State College Boulevard 4851 Figure 3125: Orangewood Avenue: - State College Boulevard to 800’ e/o State College Blvd.Dupont Drive 4952 Figure 3225A: Orangewood Avenue: – Dupont Drive to East City Limits– 800’ e/o State College Boulevard to Caltrans Right-of-Way 5053 Figure 3326: Douglass Road: North of Katella Avenue 5255 Figure 3427: Anaheim Way 5457 Figure 3528: Lewis Street: - Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 5659 Figure 3629: Lewis Street: - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 5760 Figure 3730: Railroad Amtrak/Metrolink Right- of- Way 5962 Figure 3831: Secondary Streets (Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street , and Rampart Street)and Cerritos Avenue) 6164 Figure 3932: Conceptual Market Street 6366 Figure 4033: Conceptual Connector Street 6568 Figure 41: Collector 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan envisions an exciting future for the area surrounding Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim and the Honda Center. Amidst millions of square feet of new development opportunities for office, restaurant and residential projects, is an established destination featuring high- rise lofts, two championship sports teams, an exciting array of dining and entertainment, plus immediate access to the rest of Southern California from three freeways and a major transit center. This plan is intended to provides for mixed-use development to enhance this create a dynamic mix of uses and upscale, high-density urban housing and provide cohesion through innovative design standards and integrated by a carefully planned network of pedestrian walkways, streetscape improvements and recreation spaces – that will designed to create an urban environment of a scale never before seen in Orange County. The 820-acre Platinum Triangle will blend leading- edge businesses and employment, world champion entertainment and exciting residential neighborhoods, Figure 1: Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 8 creating a unique opportunity in the heart of Orange County. Located in the City of Anaheim, at the confluence of the I-5 and SR-57 Freeways, the 820-acre Platinum Triangle is traversed by a major intercity/commuter railroad line, encompasses Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheimand has tremendous visibility (see Figures 1 and ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 9 Figure 2: Aerial Photo ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 10 On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan Update which included new land use designations intended to implement the vision for Tthe Platinum Triangle. The General Plan Update changed the General Plan designations within the area from Commercial Recreation and Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office High, Office Low, Industrial, Open Space and Institutional (see Figure 3) to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed- use, residential, office and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the maximum development intensity for the Platinum Triangle to be 9,500 dwelling units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 and institutional development at a maximum floor area ratio of 3.0. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, which added an additional 325 dwelling units and 210,100 square feet of additional commercial square footage to the maximum development intensity for The Platinum Triangle. On June 5, 2007, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No, 2006-00449, which added an additional 67 dwelling units to the maximum development intensity for The Platinum Triangle. On August 21, 2007, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00446, which added an additional 699 dwelling units to the maximum development intensity for The Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan also serves as the blueprint for public improvements within Tthe Platinum Triangle, including conceptual park locations, a proposed street network and streetscape design. Private development is regulated through the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter referred to as “PTMU Overlay Zone”) and the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement (see Appendices A and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan replaces and supersedes the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. This A previous planning study, approved in March 1999, the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan, provided a plan for office, sports, entertainment and retail uses around a sports entertainment destination known as Sportstown. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan replaces and supersedes the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 11 The PTMU Overlay Zone replaces and supersedes the (SE) (Sports Entertainment Overlay) Zone, which was the implementing zone for the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. However, unlike the (SE) Overlay Zone, the PTMU Overlay Zone does not apply to all of the properties within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The PTMU Overlay Zone only applies to properties within the Platinum Triangle designated by the General Plan for Mixed- Use and to a 3.8-acre area on the south side of Orangewood Avenue between East and West Dupont Drive designated for Office High land uses (this 3.8- acre area is the PTMU Overlay, Office District) Office uses. In addition to utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone, these properties may also continue to develop using their underlying zones, which vary from include I (Industrial), O-L (Low Intensity Office), O-H (High Intensity Office), PR (Public Recreational), T (Transitional), SP (Semi-Public) to and C-G (General Commercial). The underlying zones for properties within the area designated for Mixed-Use and Office uses by the General Plan are shown on Figures 6-13. Properties within the Platinum Triangle that are not designated for Mixed-Use and Office uses by the General Plan are designated for Office High, Office Low, Open Space, Industrial and Institutional uses. The respective implementing zones are O-H (High Intensity Office), PTMU Overlay Zone, Office District, O-L (Low Intensity Office), I (Industrial), OS (Open Space), I (Industrial) and SP (Semi-Public). ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 12 1.1 Previous Amendments On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, which added an additional 325 dwelling units and 210,100 square feet of commercial development to the maximum development intensity permitted for mixed use development within the Platinum Triangle. On June 5, 2007, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No, 2006-00449, which added an additional 67 dwelling units to the maximum development intensity permitted for mixed use development within the Platinum Triangle. On August 21, 2007, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment Nos. 2006-00446 and 2006-00455. General Plan Amendment No. 2006- 00446 added an additional 699 dwelling units to the maximum development intensity permitted for mixed use development within the Platinum Triangle. General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00455, added an additional 50,550 square feet of office uses and 10,000 square feet of commercial uses to the maximum development intensity permitted for properties within the Platinum Triangle designated by the General Plan for office development. On the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471, which increased the development intensity for properties designated by the General Plan for mixed use and office development to a maximum of 18,909 dwelling units; 4,909,682 commercial square feet; 14,340,522 office square feet; and 1,500,000 institutional square feet. Table 1: General Plan Development Intensities Land Use Designation Maximum Amount of Development Permitted Mixed-Use  Residential 18,909 Dwelling Units  Commercial 4,909,682 Square Feet  Office 9,862,166 Square Feet  Institutional 1,500,000 Square Feet Office-High and Office-Low 4,478,356 Square Feet* Institutional 3.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Industrial 0.5 FAR Open Space 0.1 FAR * The maximum FAR for properties designated Office-Low is 0.5; the maximum FAR for properties designated Office-High is 2.0. . ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 13 1.21 General Plan Framework As mentioned previously, tThe General Plan provides the overall vision for tThe Platinum Triangle. Goal 15.1 of the General Plan’s Land Use Element envisions tThe Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades. This goal is implemented through the following policies:  Continue more detailed planning efforts to guide the future development of tThe Platinum Triangle.  Encourage a regional inter-modal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim.  Encourage mixed-use projects integrating retail, office and higher density residential land uses.  Maximize and capitalize upon the view corridor from the Santa Ana (I-5) and Orange (SR-57) Freeways.  Maximize views and recreation and development opportunities afforded by the area's proximity to the Santa Ana River. The Community Design Element provides further policies related to development within tThe Platinum Triangle:  Develop comprehensive, Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and Design Guidelines to implement the vision for tThe Platinum Triangle.  Provide a mix of quality, high-density urban housing that is integrated into the area through carefully maintained pedestrian streets, transit connections, and arterial access.  Develop a Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program to enhance the visibility and sense of arrival into tThe Platinum Triangle through peripheral view corridors, gateways, and specialized landscaping.  Develop a strong pedestrian orientation throughout the area, including wide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, gathering places, ground-floor retail, and street-level landscaping.  Encourage extensive office development along the highly visible periphery of the area to provide a quality employment center.  Develop criteria for comprehensive property management agreements for multiple-family residential projects to ensure proper maintenance as the area develops.  Identify and pursue opportunities for open space areas that serve the recreational needs of Platinum Triangle residents and employees. 1.21.1 Land Use Designations The General Plan provides several land use designations for tThe Platinum Triangle (see Figure Below is a description of these uses. Mixed-Use Located in the heart of tThe Platinum Triangle, the area designated for Mixed-Use allows office, retail and residential uses to occur in close proximity or within the same building. An eclectic mix of land uses, building types and walkable streets will provide an exciting new live/work environment. The maximum density for tThe Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use designation is 9,50018,909 dwelling units, 9,862,1663,265,000 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. The designation will be implemented through the Mixed Use Districts in the PTMU Overlay Zone area which will provides for quality neighborhoods and building design through carefully created zoning regulations. The PTMU Overlay Zone also allows existing underlying zoning to remain in place. Property owners may either develop or continue operating under the existing zoning designation or, if they choose, they couldmay take advantage of the ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 14 opportunities to develop under the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone. Office High and Office Low Located along the freeways and the periphery of tThe Platinum Triangle, the high and low density office areas will be implemented through the O-H (Office High), Office District designation of the PTMU Overlay, Office District and O-L (Office Low) Zones and will provide new workplace opportunities within easy access to a variety of housing, retail, entertainment and sports facilities within the Mixed- Use areas. The maximum amount of allowable office square footage in these office high and low designations is 1,790,5504,478,356 square feet. Industrial At the northern periphery of tThe Platinum Triangle there are industrial uses, which will continue to provide needed important employment opportunities withinjobs for the area. Industrial uses may have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranging from 0.35 to 0.50. The implementing zone for these uses is the I (Industrial) Zone. Open Space The Open Space designation includes those areas intended to remain in naturalas open space including utility easementseasements that are anticipated to be developed as recreational trails in the future that will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents. The implementing zone is the OS (Open Space) Zone. Institutional The Institutional designation covers a wide variety of public and quasi-public land uses and is applied to existing public facilities. Institutional uses may have a FAR of 3.0. The implementing zone is the SP (Semi- Public) Zone. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 17 1.32 Environmental Requirements An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2004 General Plan Update (EIR No. 330), which included an analysis of the maximum development intensity for tThe Platinum Triangle, was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. EIR No. 330 identified impacts associated with the General Plan Update Program, including the planned intensity and types of land uses set forth in the General Plan for tThe Platinum Triangle and recommended mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. Since EIR No. 330 was a general plan level of environmental impact analysis, a Ssubsequent EIR (SEIR) was prepared for tThe Platinum Triangle (SEIR No. 332) to further analyze environmental impacts related to the implementation of tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and other associated actions. This SEIR No. 332 was certified in October 2005 and modified and updated the mitigation measures from EIR No. 330 (see Appendix C – Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for The Platinum Triangle). SEIR No. 335 was prepared for The Gene Autry Experience project, a mixed-use project located on 17.6 acres at the southeast corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard. This project includes the development of up to 1,208 residential units; 50,000 square feet of commercial uses and, 100,000 square feet of office uses. The project required amendments to the General Plan, Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and PTMU Overlay Zone to add 699 residential units to the number of units permitted in the Gene Autry District of The Platinum Triangle.339 was certified in and was prepared to analyze the environmental impacts associated with amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and other associated actions to expand the PTMU Overlay Zone boundaries, increase residential, office, commercial and institutional intensities and create the ARTIC and Office Districts. This SEIR modified and updated the mitigation measures from SEIR No. 332. These mitigation measures (Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C for the Platinum Triangle) are included as Appendix C to the Master Land Use Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 18 1.43 Existing Opportunities A number of factors have are creating created thean impetus for tThe Platinum Triangle to transition from a low density industrial area to an urban, mixed use center including: A strong residential market demand combined with a a lack of available land in the region for new housing; this type of large-scale, high-density development in a prime infill location aAn existing stock of aging, low density industrial buildings; and, aA key location at the confluence of three freeways. Two other factors provide an unusual dimension to the ultimate character of the district. First is the opportunity for entertainment related development associated with Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center (formerly the Arrowhead Pond) of Anaheim and The Grove of Anaheim. Previous planning studies have explored how the stadium can provide an anchor for sports and entertainment related food, shopping and other experiential commercial uses. Second areisis the existing and existing and future transit opportunities associated with . Thethe Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). ARTIC is proposed to provide enhanced access to existing bus, Amtrak and Metrolink services as well as a link to both the proposed California High Speed Rail system and the California/Nevada maglev rail line. ARTIC is proposed to The proposed location be developed on the northern portion of the Stadium District, which currently is developed with incorporates the existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and parking lot, and property adjacent to Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue, within the ARTIC District. While this station is still in the planning stages, it could provide the engine for a major high density Transit Oriented Development that could be a model for Smart Growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 19 2.0 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE VISION As discussed under the General Plan Framework, tTThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan envisions an exciting future for the area surrounding Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim Honda Center and The Grove of Anaheim. 2.1 Planning Principles In order to further implement the General Plan polices and establish a framework for the implementation of tThe Platinum Triangle Vision, several certain planning principles have been established.: 2.1.1 Balance and Integrate Uses In order to maximize long-term property value, tThe Platinum Triangle will not only provide new, balanced development opportunities for office, residential and sports/entertainment and allow existing industrial uses to continue, but link the various uses together with walkable streets, open space and consistent landscape. Regardless of market for any one use at a given time, the opportunity and value for all uses will be enhanced by a supportive, integrated and multi-use district approach. 2.1.2 Stimulate Market-Driven Development The Master Land Use Plan is intended to encourage and facilitate and encourage new development within tThe Platinum Triangle and capture the strong residential market demand within the region. The PTMU Overlay Zone is designed intended to guide, not inhibit, current market forces. Development scenarios are encouraged that will lead to strong economic return is encouraged and added value to the community and quality of housing stock. The growth of housing in tThe Platinum Triangle will also stimulate high quality office development since few locations within the region allow for office development provide for both adjacent to housing and local services. 2.1.3 Create a Unique, Integrated, Walkable Urban Environment To achieve the potential of tThe Platinum Triangle in terms of both quality of life and land value, a vibrant, walkable urban environment is required. Comfortable walking environments linking between jobs, attractive housing, open space and local services, while that reduceing the need to drive, and attractive buildings and integrated open space are attributes that require guidance and facilitation. It will be essential that each new project make a contribution toward this new urban quality and character. 2.1.4 Develop an Overall Urban Design Framework Ground floor retail, urban parks and street landscape treatments will be most effective more cohesive if combined into a larger planning vision. These elements, along with new street locations, density concentrations and pedestrian linkages are part of tThe Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan (see Figure It is also important to link employment and housing so that each supports and facilitates the other. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 20 2.1.5 Reinforce Transit Oriented Development Opportunities The Master Land Use Plan and PTMU Overlay Zone provide opportunities for Transit Oriented Development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities. Entertainment, retail, high density housing and office are envisioned as potential uses for this emerging new regional activity and mixed use center, situated near the existing Amtrak/Metrolink and , the proposed ARTIC stations, The Grove of Anaheim, and Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Honda Center. A loop road connecting Gene Autry Way with Douglass Road could also be provided to facilitate linkages in this area. 2.1.6 Maintain and Enhance Connectivity The linkage between The Anaheim Resort and tThe Platinum Triangle will be enhanced, connecting key activity centers the jewels of the City including the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim, the Honda Center, the Anaheim Convention Center and The Disneyland Resort. On a more local level, emerging neighborhoods will be connected by a newly expanded functional and convenient street network creating a finer-grained network of streets and pedestrian walkways. The system will allow high capacity event-based networks to work in conjunction with an everyday, pedestrian-friendly local circulation system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 21 2.1.7 Create Great Neighborhoods A major goal of the Master Land Use Plan is to create long lasting neighborhoods that maintain their value and socio-economic vitality. Therefore, the plan provides a fundamentally strong and appropriately scaled framework of blocks, streets, and open space. In addition, service providers will be encouraged to locate their facilities within the Platinum Triangle, based on resident need and site availability. These services may include library facilities, schools, day care centers and locations for community and/or religious assembly. and services. Only by providing these essentials can a really rich, sustainable urbanity be achieved. 2.1.8 Provide for Installation and Maintenance of Public Improvements Financial Mechanisms (such as the approved Community Facilities District and a potential Assessment District) will be established to provide for an equitable contribution towards installation and long term maintenance of infrastructure, street trees, sidewalks, and parks. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 22 2.2 Urban Design Elements and Attributes The Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan (Figure 4) identifies key physical elements and attributes which are summarized in this section and, where noted, have been incorporated into zoning code standards. These elements and attributes are intended to ensure the development of high quality, sustainable neighborhoods and mixes of uses which will achieve and maintain the highest economic value over the long-term. Sustainability, when applied to neighborhood and district development, means that as economic and market values shift over the coming decades, the inherent visual quality, level of maintenance, and economic value of the building stock and public spaces are maintained or increased along with the region. 2.2.1 Build on a Connected Street Network with Appropriate Block Size The existing street pattern within tThe Platinum Triangle will create lacks a connected local street network. The addition of several carefully located street segments will assist in achieving better traffic distribution, alternative trip routing and smaller sized blocks. This system can provide access to the interior of the existing large industrial parcels so that a mix of moderately scaled residential and office blocks can be developed. This network also provides improved emergency access, refuse pick-up, access to parking areas and a more pedestrian friendly access system to local services, workplaces and transit. This finer grain street pattern will encourage a greater diversity in housing type by reducing the size of projects and making it easier to mix housing types within a single large ownership. The smaller blocks create a more walkable pedestrian network by providing a variety of alternate routes to multiple various routings to a variety of destinations. The conceptual location of these connector streets is shown on Figure 4. Dedication and improvement of these streets is will be required pursuant to tThe Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement (see Appendicesx B1 and B2) which would be is entered into between the property owner and the City of Anaheim for properties that choose to develop utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone. When a street width is located on more than one property, the first development is will be required to provide all improvements adjacent to their project sidewalks, parkways, landscaping, bike lanes, and parking as indicated in the Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program in Section 4.0 of this document) and two vehicle travel lanes. The property owner/developer may request creation of a reimbursement agreement or other mechanism to provide for the reimbursement for one of the two the second vehicle travel lanes at such time as the adjacent property develops. 2.2.2 Provide Variation in Housing Type Variety in housing and building types not only provides stability in times of market transition but allows a healthy mix of ownership/rental opportunities and household types. It is especially important for tThe Platinum Triangle to have a balance of for-sale and rental housing, if the districts are to maintain strong economic values. Ideally, four attached building types should be encouraged as shown in Table 21 and further explained in the descriptions that follow. Table 21: Building Types Building Type Unit Type Typical Ownership Density Range Units/Acre Tuck-under Townhomes For sale 16-24 Flats Rental 18-30 Wrapped deck Flats Rental 45-80 Podium Townhomes For sale 16-32 Flats/Townhomes For sale 36-65 Flats Rental 48-100 High-rise tower Flats For sale 65-100 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 23 Tuck-under buildings Tuck-under buildings have parking garages located under the living units that and are accessible accessed by surface driveways. Wrapped deck buildings Wrapped deck buildings are buildings that surround, or wrap around, a free-standing (not subterranean) parking structure. Podium buildings Podium buildings have dwelling units located above a subterranean parking structure. High-rise tower buildings A high-rise tower is a building with a height over fifty- five (55) feet. Although market conditions will largely influence dictate which building types are ultimately builtmay or may not be feasible, if a residential development of more than 400 units is proposed on a parcel of five acres or greater, then more than one building type is required to achieve a healthy diversity and mix (i.e.e.g., one building could be a tuck-under building type and another a wrapped deck type building). The building types proposed to meet this requirement must vary by at least twoone (12) storyies in height. This criteria encourages projects of a size and scale that are not overwhelming and provides a rich mix of block, building and unit configurations. Height and coverage criteria will also guide projects toward variations in density and open space. A mix of parking alternatives solutions is also encouraged by providing incentives (tandem and valet parking) for subterranean parking so that higher ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 24 density podium and high-rise tower projects can be achieved. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 25 2.2.3 Provide Parks and Recreational- Leisure Areas Higher density neighborhoods need parks and open space to offset building height and coverage and provide space for informal leisure activities. Well- crafted and programmed public space also encourages people gathering, neighborhood events and community interactionengagement. Residential Ddevelopment on parcels larger than eight acres will be required to provide a mini park based on the number of dwelling units developed on the parcel. These parks will be programmed with flexible -use turf areas, picnicking, child play areas and seating. In addition, every residential development will be required to provide a minimum of two hundred square feet of recreational- leisure area for each dwelling unit within private and/or common areas. The General Plan and tThe Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan (Figure 4) also identify a larger active neighborhood sports park in the vicinity of the southnorthwestern portion of tThe Platinum Triangle to meet organized field sport needs. 2.2.4 Create a Street/Ground Floor Zone that is Attractive, Safe and Engaging Great urban neighborhoods have attractive, safe and interesting streets that are enjoyable to experience as both a pedestrian and driver. Such streets require quality ground floor architectural treatments, consistent setbacks, landscape and sufficient interaction with the adjacent uses, so that a sense of community an “eyes on the street” sense of naturaland security is achieved. On the arterial streets this will be achieved through landscape, street trees, entries, patios and attractive architecture. On the connector streets, individual dwelling entries and stoops will enhance additionally activate the pedestrian zoneexperience. Setbacks have been established that provide a balance between full utilization of the site for development and creating sufficient room for landscape. The setbacks are the narrowest on the connector streets with lower traffic volumes, encouraging and the desire for a more intimate, humanand human-scale street space. The major intersections within tThe Platinum Triangle will be framed by landmark architecture that addresses the intersections and lets visitors know they have arrived at a major destination. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 26 Ground floor commercial uses will also activate the pedestrian zone. While ground floor retail is encouraged throughout the mixed use areas, their location will only be required adjacent to Market Street and along Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street (see 2.2.5) to insure that retail and other support commercial uses occur in locations supportive of the overall framework plan.Ground floor commercial uses will also activate the pedestrian zone. To insure that retail and other support commercial uses occur in locations supportive of the overall framework plan, their location will only be required adjacent to Market Street and along Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street (see 2.2.5); however they may be located anywhere within the PTMU Overlay Zone. If the square footage of commercial exceeds the amount analyzed for that district by EIR No. 332, further environmental review will be required. 2.2.5 Provide a Centerpiece Walking and Shopping District – The Market Street A key feature of the plan is to create a new, animated walking street, Market Street, which allows convenient access to local services and links together neighborhoods and districts as shown in Figure 4. This Market Street will create the backbone for a dynamic urban district by promoting mixed use and the opportunity for residents and workers to be less dependent on the automobile. Many notable and high energy value urban neighborhoods have as their centerpiece a great local walking and shopping street. These walkable streets are small-scale and provide convenient shopping, cafes and professional offices. Union Street in San Francisco, Larchmont Boulevard in Los Angeles, Gaylord Street in Denver and 4th Street in Berkley are good examples of small scale active local streets. Although their scale and character may vary, these streets provide a backbone public space and place for residents to gather, people-watch, and meet daily needs with less dependence on the car. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 27 Market Street will be a two lane street with parking on both sides that will provide for continuous commercial uses on the ground floor. Wide sidewalks, street trees, benches, thematic street lights and opportunities for sidewalk cafes and urban parks will make this street section an “outdoor living room” and the a gathering place for the local residents, as well as draw shoppers and diners from nearby employment areas. Although interior to the existing “superblocks,” Market Street will intersect Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way, creating retail exposure and encouraging access from surrounding neighborhoods. Larchmont Boulevard Gaylord Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 28 Ground Floor Commercial Uses are required on Market Street and along Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street. Ground Floor Commercial Uses along Gene Autry Way will provide an important link between Market Street and the Stadium District. The PTMU Overlay Zone provides a list of retail and non- retail uses which accommodate meet this Ground Floor Commercial use requirement. Non-retail uses include local services, commercial, multi-tenant offices, community facilities, fitness, leasing offices or child care. It is anticipated that initially there may be more non-retail uses may have a stronger presence during the earlier stages of development until such time as sufficient residential units are built to support retail uses. It is also envisioned that larger retail services uses such as a grocery stores, drug stores, larger restaurants and entertainment uses will locate along Katella Avenue or Gene Autry Way where they share frontage and provide gateways to Market Street or along Gene Autry Way as it connects Market Street to Angel Stadium of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 31 3.0 MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERVIEW Several distinct mixed-use districts have been identified within the portions of tThe Platinum Triangle designated for by the General Plan for mixed- use development by the General Plan (see Figure These districts are the Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Stadium and Orangewood Districts. These districts to create greater neighborhood identity and take advantage of site opportunities. There is also one Office District for a 3.8-acre area south of Orangewood Avenue between East and West Dupont Drive. An Office District has also been identified for properties designated by the General Plan for office uses. These districts are identified in tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and in the PTMU Overlay Zone. 3.1 Development Intensities The total maximum development for The Platinum Triangle mixed use designationwithin the PTMU Overlay Zone is 10,19918,909 residential dwelling units, 3,265,000 14,340,522 square feet of office development, and 2,254,4004,909,682 square feet of commercial development; the Office District allows up to 590,000 square feet of office development and 10,000 square feet of commercial development and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional development.. Table 32 indicates the maximum permitted mixed-use development intensity established for each district. This maximum intensity is based on planning and infrastructure considerations analyzed by SEIR No.s. 330, 332 and 335 339, such as traffic capacity, access and availability of infrastructure and proximity to existing and proposed transit. destination areas. In cases where existing buildings are removed to accommodate new development, Tthe existing square footage may be demolished and replaced with new construction as long as the total square footage does not exceed the maximum assigned to each district. If development intensities are proposed to exceed those analyzed by EIR No. 335, further environmental analysis and potentially an amendment to the density identified in the General Plan for The Platinum Triangle will be required Table 2: Development Intensities District Housing Units Office Square Feet Commercial Square Feet Stadium (153 ac) 1,750 1,760,000 1,300,000 Arena (41 ac) 425 100,000 100,000 Katella (99 ac) 4,250 775,000 630,300 Gene Autry (33 ac) 1,699 100,000 174,100 Gateway* (56 ac) 2,075 530,000 50,000 Orangewood (3.8 ac) 0 590,000 10,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 32 *The Gateway District encompasses Sub Areas A, B and C (see Section 3.6 – Gateway District.; 321 housing units are specifically designated for Sub-Area Table 3:2 PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities* District Acres Housing Units Office Square Feet Commercial Square Feet Institutional Square Feet Arena 41 425 100,000 100,000 0 ARTIC 17 520 2,202,803 358,000 1,500,000 Gateway 50 2,949 562,250 64,000 0 Gene Autry 33 2,362 338,200 304,700 0 Katella 141 5,707 2,131,058 832,614 0 Orangewood 35 1,771 1,402,855 130,000 0 Stadium 153 5,175 3,125,000 3,120,368 0 Total Mixed Use 470 18,909 9,862,166 4,909,682 1,500,000 Office 121 0 4,478,356 0 0 Total PTMU Overlay Zone 591 18,909 14,340,522 4,909,682 1,500,000 *Development intensities are further described identified in detail in Appendix G. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 35 3.2 Stadium District The underlying zone for the Stadium District is the PR, (Public Recreational) Zone, which regulates City- owned properties and facilities. The PTMU Overlay Zone sets forth a maximum density for this district of 5,1751,750 dwelling units, 3,125,0001,760,000 square feet of office uses, and 3,120,3681,300,000 square feet of commercial uses and stadiums consisting of no more than 119,543 total seats (including the existing 49,043 Angel Stadium of Anaheim and a potential future 70,500-seat stadium). for this District, but does not set forth any new zoning standards for this area. In addition, a potential new stadium and 150,000 square foot exhibition center were analyzed in EIR Nos. 330 and 332. The design for this district will be determined at a later date. Within this District and the adjacent ARTIC District, there is the potential for the emergence of another major activity hub for Anaheim. The existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and the proposed Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center (ARTIC) station provide the impetus for major Transit Oriented Development. If properly integrated with the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim, and the Honda Center, development in this area could lead to an exciting highly sustainable mix of high energy uses, 18-hour/365-day activity and while providingwhile providinge additional housing in the areacity. Parallel experiences in other parts of the country, such as Denver, Washington D.C., Dallas and Atlanta suggest that the true long-term potential for a site with transit stations of this size could generate a high density, transit-oriented, mixed-use hub unparalleled in this part of the country. As market trends combine with transit oriented development goals, the concept of a high-rise, mixed-use, urban village, compleimented by sports and entertainment venues would allow thousands of residents and workers to meet their daily needs with minimal auto use, vehicle miles traveled and the resulting congestion and air quality issues. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 36 Development principles include:  Create a sustainable balance between everyday land uses/services and more intermittent special event activity.  Separate major event circulation and parking from existing and future rail and bus facilities, office, retail and residential uses.  Provide an internal, pedestrian-scale “promenade” street that allows walkable access to the transit stations and links the transit oriented development to the adjacent districts.  Balance regional transit access and mixed use place-making to allow the maximum number of workers and residents to be within a five minute walking distance from the stations.  Provide attractive urban streets lined with active ground floor uses and a scale of street width and building placement that creates security, a comfortable human scale and energizes ground floor retail and entertainment uses.  Encourage a full compliement of uses including corporate offices, for -sale residential,and rental residential development, local professional offices, local support retail, and community services to create activity 365 days a year. Figure 6: Stadium District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 37 3.3 Arena District The underlying zones for the Arena District are PR (Public Recreation), which regulates City-owned properties and facilities including Honda Center and T (Transition). The PTMU Overlay Zone sets forth a maximum density for this district of 425 dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of office and 100,000 square feet of commercial uses, in addition to the existing Honda Center. for this district but does not set forth any new zoning standards for this area. The design for this area will be determined at a later date. The Arena District has high visibility from the 57 Freeway. This District will also benefit from affected by the future development of ARTIC station and will be particularly attractive to restaurants, retail and office uses. A landscape promenade is provided along Douglass Road to link to the ARTIC and Stadium Districts. A regional bicycle path is adjacent to this District and is proposed to connect to the Amtrak/Metrolink and the future ARTIC stations. Development principles include:  Create a balance between everyday land uses/ services and more intermittent special event activity.  Provide a connection with the existing and future transit stations in the Stadium District through Douglass Road.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of Katella Avenue/Douglass Road. Figure 7: Arena District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 38 3.4 Katella District The underlying zones for the Katella District are I (Industrial), O-L (Office-Low) and CG (General Commercial). The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/ and fabrication. The O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically three stories or less in height. The CG Zone allows a variety of commercial uses. This district includes properties adjacent to Katella Avenue, a regional Smart Street which links tThe Platinum Triangle to The Anaheim Resort. In addition, Katella Avenue provides access to Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim, the Arrowhead PondHonda Center of Anaheim and the existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and the future proposed ARTIC location stations. These attributescircumstances support a “Grand Avenue” concept, expressed by a bold palm grove landscape statement, which will provide a majestic entrance to the City to the east and link tThe Platinum Triangle to The Anaheim Resort to the west. Additionally, Market Street will provide a vibrant, pedestrian oriented connection between the Katella District and the Gene Autry District. The Katella District permits a maximum of 5,707 dwelling units, 2,131,058 square feet of office development and 832,614 square feet of commercial development and is divided into Sub Areas A, B, C and D. These Sub-Areas and their corresponding maximum development intensities are further described in Appendix G. Development principles include:  Implement the double palm tree grove along Katella Avenue (see the Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program in Section 4.0 of this document) and provide setbacks sufficient for implementation.  Allow a variety of landscape and hardscape treatments where ground floor commercial and residential uses transition to the street parkway, including shop fronts, outdoor dining and planters.  Introduce connector streets that provide access into the deep parcels located along Katella Avenue. These walkable, residential-lined streets are important in achieving sustainable neighborhoods. Such streets may be implemented incrementally as adjacent parcels develop.  Provide additional public open space in the form of mini parks within larger parcels.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersections of Katella Avenue/State College BoulevardAvenue and Katella Avenue/Sportstown.  Provide ground floor commercial uses and attractive pedestrian walkways along Market Street. Figure 8: Katella District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 39 Figure 8: Katella District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 40 3.5 Gene Autry District The underlying zone for the Gene Autry District is the I (Industrial) Zone. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/ and fabrication. With Market Street as a primary feature, the Gene Autry District provides the opportunity for a sophisticated mixed use neighborhood that provides both for-sale and rental housing types. At completion, these factorsis could create one of the most animated and desirable urban neighborhoods in the County. Market Street traverses the heart of this district intersecting with Gene Autry Way. While small local retail shops, restaurants and professional services are required on Market Street, they are also envisioned to extend along Gene Autry Way to State College Boulevard. The availability of need for local services in this district is important to allow the choice for a more pedestrian, less auto-oriented lifestyle. Connector streets and mini parks are also proposed. These additions not only provide better access to the deep parcels but provide a system of walking streets and open spaces that will allow the goal of providing walkable neighborhoods to be realized. The Gene Autry District permits a maximum of 2,362 residential units, 338,200 square feet of office uses and 304,700 square feet of commercial uses. The Gene Autry District is divided into two sub-areas; these sub- areas and their corresponding maximum development intensities are further described in Appendix G. Development principles include:  Provide ground floor commercial uses and attractive pedestrian walkways along Market Street.  Implement a street tree program that alternates palm trees and lower level canopy trees.  Provide additional public open space in the form of mini parks within larger parcels. Investigate, as the opportunity presents, the implementation of a neighborhood park west of this district to accommodate sports and other active park needs.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of State College AvenueBoulevard/Gene Autry Way. Figure 9: Gene Autry District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 41 3.6 Gateway District The underlying zones for the Gateway District are the I (Industrial), PR (Public Recreational) and O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/ and fabrication. The PR Zone regulates City-owned properties and facilities. The O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically three stories or less in height. Aptly named, this district provides the entry experience into both the cCity and tThe Platinum Triangle from the south and west. The Gateway District is divided into Sub Areas A, B, and C, in order to provide for the development of Sub Area B pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763 and to designate 321 housing units within the Gateway District for development of Sub Area C The Gateway District is divided up into three sub areas and permits a maximum development intensity of 2,949 residential units, 562,250 square feet of office development and 64,000 square feet of commercial development. The sub-areas and their corresponding maximum development intensities are further described in Appendix Development Principles include:  Implement the palm tree and canopy tree plantings along Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue.  Provide bike lanes along Orangewood Avenue and connector streets to provide an important link to the Santa Ana River regional trail system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 42 Figure 10: Gateway District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 43 3.7 Orangewood District The underlying zones for the Orangewood District areis the I (Industrial), C-G (General Commercial), PR (Public Recreational) and O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/ and fabrication. The C-G Zone allows a variety of commercial uses. The PR Zone regulates City-owned properties and facilities. The O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically three stories or less in height. This district includes properties adjacent to Orangewood Avenue, West Dupont Drive, and East Dupont Drive.The Orangewood District permits a maximum of 1,771 residential units, 1,402,855 square feet of office development and 130,000 square feet of commercial development. This district and the permitted amount of development are further described in Appendix G. Development principles include:  Implement the palm tree and canopy tree plantings along Orangewood Avenue. Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of Orangewood Avenue / East and West Dupont Drive.  Introduce a collector street that connects Dupont Drive to Towne Centre Place to provide access to Rampart Street. Implement a street tree program that alternates palm trees and lower level canopy trees.  Provide bike lanes along Orangewood Avenue and collector streets to provide an important link to the Santa Ana River regional trail system.  Provide additional public space in the form of mini parks within larger parcels. Encourage a full compliment of uses including corporate office, for sale residential, rental residential, local professional office, local support retail and community services to create year around activity. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 44 Figure 110A: Orangewood District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 45 3.8 ARTIC District The underlying zone for the ARTIC District is the SP (Semi-Public) Zone. The SP Zone allows for a wide range of public and quasi-public uses, including transportation facilities. Other typical uses include government offices, public or private colleges and universities, public utilities, hospitals, large assisted living facilities, community centers, museums and public libraries. The PTMU Overlay Zone sets forth a maximum intensity of 520 residential units, 2,202,803 square feet of office development, 358,000 square feet of commercial development, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses for this district. The ARTIC District is named for the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The ARTIC District is intended to combine a transportation gateway and a mixed-use activity center on a 17-acre site owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 46 3.9 Office District The underlying zones for the Office District are the O- H (Office High), O-L (Office Low), I (Industrial and C-G (General Commercial) Zones. The O-H Zone provides for higher intensity office uses in buildings that are four stories or more in height and the O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically in buildings three stories or less in height. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/fabrication. The C-G Zone allows a variety of commercial, retail service and office uses. This District will permit office uses per the O-H and O-L zoning standards. A maximum of 4,478,356 square feet of office will be allowed in this District with the permitted amount of development within the Office District sub-areas further described in Appendix G. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 32 4.0 PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE AND IDENTITY PROGRAM Streetscape elements, including gateways, public art, light fixtures, street furniture and signs, will be coordinated with a Landscape Concept Plan unique to tThe Platinum Triangle, to establish and reflect tThe Platinum Triangle's distinctive image and character. The Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program will:  Establish a visual identity with a hierarchy of identity elements which reinforces the land use, circulation, open space, and landscape systems of the Master Land Use Plan.  Celebrate the unique combination of a cosmopolitan urban area with sports and entertainment imagery.  Reinforce linkages to The Anaheim Resort. 4.1 Streetscape Elements Streetscape elements will unify and identify tThe Platinum Triangle and provide directions for visitors to the area. Streetscape elements include gateways, public art, light fixtures, street furniture and signs. The identity program includes the following:  Street furniture within the public right-of-way, such as bus shelters and benches, that is consistent throughout tThe Platinum Triangle.  An area-wide banner system on the arterial roads, which will create a vehiclestreet-oriented identity for the entire Platinum Triangle, especially in connection with events.  Site furnishings that meet the needs of the residents, visitors and workforce of tThe Platinum Triangle on an area and need specific basis. Individual projects within tThe Platinum Triangle may have their own individual project identity within their project boundaries, but the character of the streetscape elements within the public right-of-way will be consistent throughout tThe Platinum Triangle. 4.1.1 Gateways Gateways will set the scale and image of tThe Platinum Triangle for visitors as they enter and pass though by, identify and enter the area. It is anticipated that these gateways will be located on or in close proximity to the Stadium District. The design of the gateways will be determined at a later date aswhen the Stadium District is developed. In order to effectively create the proper sense of arrival, these gateways should achieve the following:  Provide a scale that contrasts with the surrounding features.  Reflect the design character of the area and incorporate sports and entertainment related imagery.  Provide a lasting visual impression.  Express a variety of imagery through layering of Gateways.  Create public icons at the edges of the Stadium and Arena Districts. 4.1.2 Public Art Public art provides added interest, variety, and beauty to the City's public places. Well-designed public art creates a connection between the public and the culture of the community by designing places that incorporatinge symbols that serve to entertain and enrich urban areas. Public art will be encouraged in the mini parks and new gathering places that will be developed within tThe Platinum Triangle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 33 4.1.3 Light Standards The light standard used in The City of Anaheim Resort light standard will be used on all arterial streets throughout tThe Platinum Triangle (Figure 141) to provide a visual link between tThe Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim Resort. New light standards will be implemented on Connector and Collector Streets (Figure 152) and Market Street (Figures 162A and 172B) to enhance the pedestrian-friendly environment of these two street conditions. Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way Arterial Streets Figure 141: City of Anaheim Anaheim Resort Light Light Special Design No.744 Anaheim Recreational Area Connector and Collector Streets Figure 152: Connector and Collector Street Light Standard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 34 Market Street Standards Figure 162A: Market Street Light Standard Figure 172B: Market Street Pedestrian Light Standard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 35 4.1.4 Street Furniture Street furniture within tThe Platinum Triangle will includebe the standard street furniture used throughout the City. Street furniture includes bus shelters (Figure 18), benches and trash receptacles. Newspaper racks, as shown in Appendix D, will be allowed adjacent to bus shelters. Figure 1318: Citywide Standard Bus Bench 4.1.5 Signs Within tThe Platinum Triangle, civic signage will play three major roles: identification of tThe Platinum Triangle, directional assistance to arriving visitors and reinforcement of the visual themes of cosmopolitan urban activities, sports and entertainment. Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs provide timely information to visitors to tThe Platinum Triangle. These existing changeable message signs will remain in the current locations unless otherwise determined in conjunction with future development of the Stadium, ARTIC or Arena Districts. Street Information Signs On arterial streets, informational signs, such as “Stop” and “No Parking”, will be the same design as similar signs in The Anaheim Resort. Standard signs will be used on all other streets. Street Identification Signs Street identification signs will be on 96-inch wide by 18-inch tall panels (DG3 Material). The signs will include the Platinum Triangle logo and the street name in 8-inch high white letters (Clearview Highway 38 Font) on a green (P3) background (Figure 19). Directional Signs Signs which provide directional instructions to arriving or departing visitors will become increasingly important within tThe Platinum Triangle as new development occurs. The number, type and location of signs should be determined prior to development of the Stadium District, potentially in connection with the future design of the gateways. This will ensureassure that the overall character of the signs is consistent, and interrelated circulation issues for Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim and the proposed ARTIC station, can be addressed. Banners All street light standards on arterial roads within tThe Platinum Triangle will have a removable armature for banners that will be changed out regularly. Banners will be installed in accordance with a banner program approved by the City and will be colored, festive and may be fabricated as sewn, silk screened on nylon or photo image reproduction on an exterior grade substrate. Figure 19: Street Identification Sign ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 36 4.2 Landscape Concept Plan and Cross Sections The intent of the Landscape Concept Plan is to create a memorable, unified and civic-scaled public landscape for tThe Platinum Triangle. To achieve this, the Landscape Concept Plan proposes extensive landscape improvements within the area’s public rights-of-way and landscape setback areas. This section describes the landscape goals for tThe Platinum Triangle and provides typical plans and cross sections which establish the basic requirements for landscape development. Implementation of the Landscape Concept Plan within the public right-of-way will occur with development of new projects within the area unless otherwise determined by the City. Figure 1420 shows how the Landscape Concept Plan applies to tThe Platinum Triangle and provides the overall unifying landscape framework. The full-street cross sections and plans that follow show the landscape treatment of the typical conditions on each of tThe Platinum Triangle’s major streets. The right-of-way dimensions may vary subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The treatment shown for each street is based on the Landscape Concept Plan. Whenever possible, utilities will be placed underground. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 39 See Figure 31 for Secondary Streets (Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street and Cerritos Avenue) See Figure 34 for Secondary Streets (Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street and Cerritos Avenue) See Figure 36 for Conceptual/Connector Street See Figure 37 for Collector Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 41 4.2.1 Katella Avenue The central feature of Katella Avenue, between the Santa Ana Freeway and the entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim and the Amtrak/Metrolink station, is the grove-style planting of Date Palms. This planting continues the treatment of Katella Avenue in The Anaheim Resort west of the Santa Ana Freeway. A single species mMass plantings of Fort Night Lily or other white or Agapanthus, a purple flowering shrub, provides a low shrub under-story for the Date Palms located in the parkway. A second row of matching Date Palms will be planted in the setback area in six- foot square cut-outs. The maintenance of the setback area is the responsibility of the property owner. The median will also consist of Date Palms, with flowering vines such as Bougainvillea ‘San Diego Red’ or Blood Trumpet Vine attached to the trunk of the palm, and a single species mass of Kangaroo Paw or a similar orange or yellow flowering compliment tree in combination with alternate mass plantings of Agapanthus shrubs and Star Jasmine ground cover. Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, the setback area will be paved to provide pedestrian access. The landscaping for Katella Avenue changes near the railroad grade separation and further east to the City limits. Along this section of Katella Avenue, the Date Palms are eliminated within the Pedestrian/Landscape Realm and large-scaled Mexican Fan Palms are planted within the parkways. Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera) Kangaroo Paw (Anigozanthos) Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia reginae) Agapanthus (Agapanthus Africanus) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 42 Figure 2216: Katella Avenue Santa Ana Freeway Manchester Avenue to East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 43 Figure 2317: Katella Avenue Highway of National Significance East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) to Orange Freeway *Parkway Detail ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 44 Figure 2418: Katella Avenue Orange Freeway to East City Limits Honda Center ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 45 4.2.2 State College Boulevard The primary landscape treatment for State College Boulevard consists of alternating Mexican Fan Palms and pedestrian-scaled flowering canopy trees such as Golden Trumpet trees and a single species of low flowering ground cover such as Trailing Lantana Vinca Major – Periwinkle ground cover within parkways and a single row of Camphor trees in the median. To further facilitate pedestrian access, the setback area may be paved adjacent to ground floor commercial uses. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Vinca Major – Periwinkle (Apocynaceae) Golden Trumpet Tree (Tabebuia Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum comphora) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 46 Figure 2519: State College Boulevard South City Limits to Gene Autry Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 48 Figure 260: State College Boulevard Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 49 Figure 271: State College Boulevard Katella Avenue to 500’ North of Howell Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 50 Figure 282: State College Boulevard 500’ North of Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 51 4.2.3 Gene Autry Way On Gene Autry WayLarge canopy trees, the in the medians and parkways from east of Santa Cruz Street to State College Boulevard will be planted with Crape Trees and Mexican Fan Palms will be required in the setback area. The median east of Market Street will include large canopy trees and Star Jasmine. This landscaping is intended to provide both a grand scale and pedestrian-friendly environment on this major entry into the Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Flowering vines will be attached to the palm trees and orange DayliliesBird of Paradise or a similar orange flowering hedge will be planted in the parkway. To provide for pedestrian circulation a 7½ -foot wide sidewalk within the public right-of-way is required with 2½ foot by 2½ foot scoring. Adjacent to this sidewalk, the setback area, may be paved and/or landscaped and outdoor restaurant seating area may encroach into this area. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia Robusta) Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia reginae) Crape Tree (Lagerstroemia indica) Star Jasmine Crape Tree (Lagerstroemia indicaTrachelospermum ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 52 Figure 293: Gene Autry Way Santa Cruz Betmor Lane to State College Boulevard A single row of green canopy trees will be planted in the median from Market Street to State College Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 53 4.2.4 Orangewood Avenue The treatment of Orangewood Avenue consists of alternating Mexican Fan Palms and a pedestrian-scaled flowering canopy tree such as a Tipu tree Magnolia trees within the parkways, which will also be planted with Natal Plum or some other low flowering shrub Halls Honeysuckle ground cover. The palms will have Boston Ivy or a similar vine attached to an orange flowering shrub planted at the base of the tree trunk. Small trees and flowering shrubs accent the landscape setback adjacent to the residential uses. Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, the setback area will be paved to provide pedestrian access. To provide for additional pedestrian circulation while maintaining the right-of-way widths prescribed by the General Plan, east of State College Boulevard, a 5-foot wide sidewalk within the public right-of-way is required with 2 ½ foot by 2 ½ foot scoring. Adjacent to this sidewalk, within the setback area, an additional 2 ½ foot wide walkway shall be provided with matching scoring. An easement for this walkway shall be provided to the City. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Magnolia Tree (Magnolia grandiflora) Halls Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) Orange Day Lilly Hemerocallis fulva ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 54 Figure 3024: Orangewood Avenue Santa Ana Freeway to State College Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 56 Figure 3125: Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard to 800 feet east of State College BoulevardDupont Drive ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 57 Figure 3225A: Orangewood Avenue 800 feet east of State College Boulevard to Caltrans right-of-way (including bridge improvements not depicted here Dupont Drive to East City Limits ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 58 4.2.5 Douglass Road The Douglass Road street landscape North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road will contain four travel lanes and bike lanes. The street landscape will consist of a double row of Mexican Fan Palms in the parkway and setback areas. Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) will be attached to the base of the palm trunks and yellow and orange Daylilies or a similar low red flowering shrub will be planted at the base of the palm trees. will consist of a double row of Mexican Fan Palms in the parkway and setback areas. Adjacent to the Honda Center, tThe median will will be a painted median not be landscaped to allow for better traffic flow in and out of Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim the Honda Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Figure 33). North of the Honda Center, the median will be a raised median planted with a single row of green canopy trees and a single species of massed flowering groundcover. Yellow Trumpet or similar vines will be attached to the base of the palm trunks and red Daylilies or a similar low red flowering shrub will be plantedin the parkway. South of Katella Avenue, the streetscape design will be determined as part of the development process for ARTIC. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) OrangeRed Daylily (Hemerocallis flava) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 59 8’ bike lane 8’ bike lane 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 16’ 32’ 32’ 80’ 106’ Primary ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 60 Figure 3326: Douglass Road North of Katella Avenue Honda Center Parking Lot Painted median adjacent to Honda Center; landscaped median north of Honda Center Painted median adjacent to Honda Center Landscaped median north of Honda Center 106’ 80’ ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 61 4.2.6 Anaheim Way Anaheim Way is a one-way northbound frontage road on the east side of the Santa Ana Freeway. The landscape for Anaheim Way will be integrated into a large-scale landscaped open space treatment intended to attract the attention of passing motorists on the Santa Ana Freeway. The treatment will consist of Mexican Fan Palms with flowering vines Bougainvillea attached to their trunks in parkways along with Bird of Paradise with a single species mass of Daisy or other yellow flowering shrubs. Mexican Fan Palms will also be planted in the setback area along with small accent trees and flowering shrubs. Boston Ivy will be attached to the wall per Santa Ana Freeway standards. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Boston Ivy (Parthenocissus tricuspidata) Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia reginae) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 62 Figure 3427: Anaheim Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 63 4.2.7 Lewis Street The Lewis Street landscape will consist of Mexican Fan Palms with Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) attached to the trunks of the trees and India Hawthorn shrub and a single species of flowering low hedge in the parkways. A single row of green canopy trees Gold Medallion trees and a single species of massed flowering ground cover will be provided in the median south of Katella Avenue. North of Katella Avenue, the median will be eliminated to provide for left turn lanes. The setback area will consist of canopy trees and a pink flowering low shrub or groundcover. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Yellow Trumpet Vine (Campsis) Gold Medallion Tree (Cassia India Hawthorne (Rhaphiolepis indica) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 64 Figure 3528: Lewis Street Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue green ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 65 12’ 12’ ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 66 Figure 3629: Lewis Street Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 67 4.2.8 Railroad Right-of-WayAmtrak/Metrolink Line The landscape adjacent to the railroad right-of-way Amtrak Metrolink Line consists of a Mexican Fan Palm alternating with citrus trees. Citrus Trees (Citrus) Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 68 Figure 370: Railroad Amtrak/Metrolink Right-of-Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 69 4.2.9 Secondary Streets Including: Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street and Rampart StreetCerritos Avenue The Secondary Street landscape consists of a Brisbane Box or similar canopy trees with a low flowering pink shrub or groundcover in the parkway. The landscape setback consists of a canopy tree to match the species of parkway tree in spacing and height with purple and pink flowering low shrub or ground cover. Brisbane Box (Tristania conferta) India Hawthorne (Rhaphiolepis indica) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 70 Figure 381: Secondary Streets (Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street and Rampart Street Cerritos Avenue) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 71 4.2.10 Market Street The Market Street landscape consists of a large canopy tree, Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba), in tree grates with interlocking precast concrete pavers in the parkway. The from Katella Avenue to Market Street will be identified with rows of Date Palm Trees. The setback area may be paved to provide access for pedestrians. Angled parking will be provided on the west side and parallel parking will be provided on the east side of Market Street. Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) Date Palm-Medjool variety (Phoenix dactylifera) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 72 Figure 392: Conceptual Market Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 73 4.2.11 Connector and Collector Streets The Connector Streets’ landscape palette consists of a variety of large canopy trees, including the Southern Magnolia, Southern Live Oak, Fern Pine and Bradford Pear, which may be planted in tree wells with interlocking precast concrete pavers in the parkway or in parkways with turf or groundcover as approved by the City. A minimum 3-foot wide area will be planted with low flowering shrubs in the setback area adjacent to the sidewalk. Parkways on Collector Streets will be landscaped with Brisbane Box trees and India Hawthorne shrubs or another similar ground cover. Bike lanes will be located on designated Collector Streets in the Orangewood District to connect the bike lanes on Orangewood Avenue to the Santa Ana River Bike Trail. Fern Pine (Podocarpus Gracilior) Southern Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) Southern Magnolia Tree (Magnolia grandiflora) Bradford Pear (Pyrus calleryana) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 74 Figure 4033: Conceptual Connector Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 75 Figure 41: Collector (Dupont Drive and Towne Centre Place) Collector Possible 3’ Use Encroachment (refer to PTMU Overlay Zone) 3’ 3’ Possible 3’ Use Encroachment (refer to PTMU Overlay Zone) Private patios may encroach 7’ into setback area Collector ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 76 4.2.12 Intersections with Supplemental Lanes The City of Anaheim designates eleven intersections within The Platinum Triangle that Within the Platinum Triangle these intersections require supplemental lanes to provide adequate level of service and operational improvements:  Cerritos Avenue/Sunkist Street  Katella Avenue/Anaheim Way  Katella Avenue/State College Boulevard  Katella Avenue/Howell Avenue  Katella Avenue/Sportstown Way  Katella Avenue/Lewis Street  Katella Avenue/Douglass Road  Gene Autry Way/Lewis Street  Gene Autry Way/State College Boulevard  Orangewood Avenue/Anaheim Way  Orangewood Avenue/State College Boulevard  Orangewood Avenue/Dupont Drive  Orangewood Avenue/Rampart Street  State College Boulevard/Stadium WayGateway  State College Boulevard/Artisan Court The typical improvements for these intersections include additional left-turn lanes and a dedicated free right-turn lane. Where a dedicated free right-turn lane is required, right-of-way widths will be widened and setback areas will be pushed back. Supplemental lanes will also be required where Connector Streets and Market Street intersect with arterials at signalized intersections. The number and type of supplemental lanes will be determined through project-specific traffic impact studies. Where a dedicated free right-turn lane is required, right-of-way widths will be widened and setback areas will be pushed back. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 A APPENDIX A The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Chapter 18.20 PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Sections: 18.20.010 Purpose and intent. 18.20.020 Applicability. 18.20.030 Uses. 18.20.040 Development districts. 18.20.050 Structural heights. 18.20.060 Coverage. 18.20.070 Project size. 18.20.080 Floor area. 18.20.090 Structural setbacks. 18.20.100 Structural location and building orientation. 18.20.110 Public parks, recreational-leisure areas and landscaping 18.20.120 Parking, loading and vehicular access. 18.20.130 Refuse storage and recycling facilities, and private storage areas 18.20.140 Design standards. 18.20.150 Signs. 18.20.160 Compatibility standards. 18.20.17018.20.165 Gateway District Sub-Area B standards. 18.20.166 18.20.180 Orangewood District standards. 18.20.190 ARTIC, Stadium and Arena District standards. 18.20.20018.20.170 Implementation. 18.20.010 PURPOSE AND INTENT. .010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter referred to as the "PTMU Overlay Zone") to provide opportunities for well-designed development projects that combine residential with non- residential uses, including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the portions of the The Platinum Triangle designated with the Mixed-Use, and Office High and Office Low land use designations in the City of Anaheim General Plan, and consistent with the policy direction in the General Plan. .020 Objectives. The PTMU Overlay Zone has the following major objectives: .0201 Create a unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and reduces dependence on the automobile for everyday needs, through a streetscape that is connected, attractive, safe and engaging. .0202 Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 .0203 Encourage compatibility between residential, office, commercial and sports entertainment uses. .0204 Reinforce Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities around the existing Amtrak/Metrolink and the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARCTIC) stations. .0205 Maintain and enhance connectivity and linkages with convenience services, dining, retail and recreation facilities within walking distance, by providing ground floor commercial uses in key locations. .0206 Provide a mix of housing types. .0207 Create great long-lasting neighborhoods that maintain value through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes. .0208 Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreational-leisure areas and public parks. .0209 Create a balance of landscape and architecture by providing sufficient planting space. .0210 Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable neighborhood design. .0211 Stimulate market-driven development investment. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6075 § 1: September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.020 APPLICABILITY. .010 The Platinum Triangle comprises approximately eight hundred twenty (820) acres generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company Easement on the north. The PTMU Overlay Zone covers an area consisting of approximately three hundred and ninety-three (393) four hundred and seventy five (475) acres designated for mixed use and office uses within the The Platinum Triangle, as depicted in Figure 3 (General Plan Designations) of the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan approved by the City Council on August 17, 2004 and amended on April 26, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-54), September 13, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-188) September 25, 2005 (Resolution Nos. 2005-208 and 2005-212), June 5, 2007 (Resolution No. 2007-81), and on August 21, 2007 (Resolution Nos. 2007-169 and 172) April 8, 2008 (Resolution No. 2008-40), October 14, 2008 (Resolution No. 2008-179) and (Resolution No. and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Said Figure 3 is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 .020 Applicable Regulations. The provisions of this chapter shall supersede the corresponding regulations of the underlying zones, except as provided below. .030 Option to Use Underlying Zone. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to parcels that have been, or are proposed to be, developed entirely under the underlying zone; provided that all requirements of the underlying zone are met by the project, except as specifically approved otherwise by variance or other official action by the City. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004; Ord. 5948 § 2: November 9, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6014 § 1; January 31, 2006: Ord. 6075 § 2; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.030 USES. .010 Office District. The uses set forth in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) for the O-H (High Intensity Office) Zone shall apply to properties within the Office District designated by the General Plan for Office-High land use. The uses set forth in Chapter 18.08 for the O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones shall apply to properties within the Office District designated by the General Plan for Office-Low land use. .020 Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Orangewood and Stadium Districts. Tables 20A, 20-B and 20-C only apply to properties within the Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Orangewood and Stadium Districts. .03010 Primary Uses. Table 20-A (Primary Uses: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) sets forth allowable primary uses for the PTMU Overlay Zone, listed by classes of uses as defined in Section 18.36.030 (Residential Primary Use Classes) and Section 18.36.040 (Non-Residential Primary Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .04020 Accessory Uses. Table 20-B (Accessory Uses and Structures: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) sets forth allowable accessory uses and structures for the PTMU Overlay Zone, listed by classes of uses as defined in Section 18.36.050 (Accessory Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .05030 Temporary Uses. Table 20-C (Temporary Uses and Structures: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) sets forth allowable temporary uses and structures for the PTMU Overlay Zone, listed by classes of uses as defined in Section 18.36.060 (Temporary Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .06040 The allowable uses in Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C are established by letter designations as follows: .06401 designates classes of uses permitted by right; .06402 designates classes of uses permitted with a conditional use permit; .06403 designates classes of uses that are prohibited; and ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 .06404 "GF" designates classes of uses that are considered ground floor commercial for the PTMU Overlay Zone. .07050 Ground-Floor Commercial Uses. In order to encourage an active street life while accommodating market demand, ground floor commercial uses facing the street are required along Market Street and on Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street, as identified on Figure 4 (The Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan) in the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Permitted Gground floor commercial uses are identified in Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C, and may include the non-residential portion of live/work units, or may be designed so that the space may be used for either residential or non-residential uses where the residential portion does not face the street. Ground floor commercial uses are also permitted along all other streets within the PTMU Overlay Zone. .07501 Ground floor commercial uses, as designated in Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C, shall have a minimum depth of no less than thirty (30) feet and shall be provided along the property frontage adjacent to Market Street and Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street, as identified on Figure 4 of the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .08060 Live/Work Units. Within the Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Orangewood and Stadium Districts aA commercial land use may be combined with a residential land use within one unit to create a space that contains both a residence and commercial area, such as an office. .070 Unlisted Uses. Any class of use that is not listed in Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C is prohibited, unless a determination is made by the Planning Director to allow the submission of an application for a conditional use permit to approve the use. .0980 Interpreting Classes of Uses. The provisions for interpreting the classes of uses in Tables 20-A, 20-B or 20-C are set forth in Section 18.36.020 (Classification of Uses) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .10090 Special Provisions. Special provisions related to a use are referenced in the "Special Provisions" column of Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C. Such provisions may include references to other applicable code sections or limitations to the specified land use. Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Residential Classes of Uses Dwellings–Multiple-Family P ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Dwellings–Multiple-Family in the Gateway District, Sub-Area B C Subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, as may be amended from time to time, and subject to the conditions and showings of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits), and further subject to paragraph 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] and .0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions). Dwellings–Single-Family Attached P Dwellings–Single-Family Detached N Senior Citizen Housing C Subject to Chapter 18.50 (Senior Citizens Apartment Projects) Non-Residential Classes of Uses Alcoholic Beverage Sales–Off- Sale C GF Conditional use permit not required if use is in conjunction with Markets–Large Alcoholic Beverage Sales–On- Sale C GF Antennas–Broadcasting P Subject to 18.38.060 (Antennas – Telecommunications) Automotive–Public Parking C Automotive-Car Sales and Rental, truck, trailer and other vehicle sales N Except as permitted as an accessory use. Automotive–Service Stations C Bars & C GF Billboards N Business & Financial Services P GF ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Breweries C GF Including the on-premise sales and consumption of beer or ale Commercial Retail Centers C Community & Religious Assembly C GF Computer Internet & Amusement Facilities C GF Convenience Stores C GF Conversions of hotels or motels to semi-permanent living quarters N Dance & Fitness Studios–Large P GF Dance & Fitness Studios–Small P GF Day Care Centers C GF Drive -up or drive-through Facilitiesservices N Educational Institutions- Business C GF Educational Institutions- General C GF Educational Institutions- Tutoring P GF Hotels & Motels P/C/N Hotels are permitted, extended-stay hotels are permitted by conditional use permit, motels are not permitted (See Chapter 18.92 for definitions) Markets–Large P GF Outdoor farmer's markets are allowed with a conditional use permit Markets–Small P GF ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Medical and Dental Offices P GF Offices-General P GF Pawnshops N Personal Services–General P GF On-site dry cleaning not allowed; conditional use permit required for laundromats; laundromats are subject to § 18.38.150 Personal Services–Restricted C GF Public Services P GF Recreation–Bowling & Billiards P GF Recreation–Commercial Indoor P GF Recreation–Commercial Outdoor C Recreation–Low-Impact P Recreation–Swimming & Tennis P Recycling Services-Consumer P Subject to Chapter 18.48 (Recycling Facilities); reverse vending machines located entirely within a structure do not require any zoning approval Repair Services–Limited P GF Rescue missions, shelters for the homeless N Research and Development Facilities C Restaurants-Drive-Through N Restaurants–General P GF Restaurants–Semi-Enclosed P GF Subject to 18.38.220 (Restaurants – Outdoor Seating and Dining) ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Restaurants–Walk-Up P GF Retail Sales–General P GF Retail Sales–Kiosks P Retail Sales–Regional P GF Retail Sales-Used Merchandise Secondhand shops N Sex-oriented businesses, as defined in Chapter 18.54 (Sex- Oriented Businesses) N Studios–Broadcasting CP GF Broadcasting antennas require a Conditional Use Permit. Studios–Recording P GF Swap meets, indoor and outdoor N Transit Facilities P GF Utilities–Major C Utilities–Minor P Use or activities not listed, nor specifically prohibited C As determined by the Planning Director Commission to be compatible with the intended purpose of the PTMU Overlay Zone. Table 20-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Amusement Devices P Subject to Chapter 4.14 (Amusement Devices) ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Table 20-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Animal Keeping P Subject to 18.38.030 (Animal Keeping) Antennas–Broadcasting C Antennas–Private Transmitting P Subject to 18.38.040 (Antennas – Private Transmitting) Antennas–Receiving P Subject to 18.38.050 (Antennas – Receiving) Antennas– Telecommunications- Stealth Building-Mounted T Subject to § 18.38.060 and 18.62.020 Antennas– Telecommunications- Stealth Ground-Mounted T Subject to § 18.38.060 and 18.62.020 Antennas–Telecommunications Ground-Mounted (Non-Stealth) N Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P GF Subject to § 18.36.050.035 Automotive-Car Rental P Subject to a maximum of five parking spaces for on-site parking of vehicles available for rental in reserved parking spaces. The provision of more than 5 parking spaces for rental vehicles shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Said spaces shall be in addition to those required by Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). Caretaker Units C Subject to 18.38.090 (Caretaker Units) Day Care–Large Family PC Subject to 18.38.140 (Large Family Day Care Homes) Day Care–Small Family P Fences & Walls P This use may occur on a lot with or without a primary use. (Ord. 5948 § 3; November 29, 2004.) Home Occupations P Subject to 18.38.130 (Home Occupations) ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Table 20-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Landscaping & Gardens P Subject to Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) Mechanical & Utility Equipment –Ground Mounted P Subject to 18.38.160 (Mechanical and Utility Equipment–Ground Mounted) Mechanical & Utility Equipment –Roof Mounted P Subject to 18.38.170 (Mechanical and Utility Equipment–Roof Mounted) and 18.20.140 (Design Standards) of this chapter Murals P/C Permitted when not visible from right-of-way or adjacent properties. Conditional use where visible from any public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Parking Lots & Garages P Portable Food Carts C Recreation Buildings & Structures P GF Recreation-Low-Impact P Recycling Services-Consumer P Subject to Chapter 18.48 (Recycling Facilities); reverse vending machines located entirely within a structure do not require any zoning approval Retail Kiosks P Signs P Subject to Chapter 18.44 (Signs) and 18.20.150 (Signs) of this chapter Solar Energy Panels P Must be mounted on the roof and, if visible from the street level, must be parallel to the roof plane Thematic Elements P Utilities-Minor P Vending Machines P Shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way and shall not encroach onto ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Table 20-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions sidewalks Table 20-C TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Contractor’s Office & Storage P Subject to 18.38.105 (Contractor's Office & Storage) Open-Air Festivals P Requires all applicable City permits Real Estate Tract Offices P The office shall be removed at the end of two years from the date of the recording of the subdivision map, or the sale of the last dwelling unit, whichever is earlier Special Events P Subject to 18.38.240 (Special Events) (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 5948 § 3; November 9, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6004 § 2; November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.040 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. .010 Purpose. To permit the maximum amount of development in the The Platinum Triangle consistent with the General Plan and the infrastructure capacity analyzed by EIR No. 330, SEIR No. 332, and EIR No. 335 and SEIR No. 339,, the PTMU Overlay Zone establishes land use intensities for each of the following development districts: Arena District, ARTIC District, Gateway District, Gene Autry District, Katella District, Orangewood District, Office District and Stadium District. The boundaries of the development districts are depicted in theThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, which boundaries are incorporated herein by this reference. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 .020 Table 20-D (Development Intensities: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) indicates the maximum land use intensities analyzed by EIR No. 330, SEIR No. 332, and EIR No. 335, and SEIR No. 339. .0201 The permitted development intensities are further described by sub area in Appendix G of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .0202 The Planning Department will maintain an accounting of the total amount of dwelling units and square footage approved within each district. Development shall not exceed the overall total land use intensity for the PTMU Overlay Zone or the intensity identified for each district, unless a dwelling transfer unit is approved in accordance with Section 18.20.040.030 (Dwelling Unit Transfer). (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 5996 § 1; September 27, 2005: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6031 § 18; August 22, 2006: Ord. 6062 § 1; June 17, 2007: Ord. 6073 § 1; September 11, 2007 Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008) .030 Dwelling Unit Transfer. A request for approval of a dwelling unit transfer shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the City in accordance with the following: .0301 A transfer of dwelling units from the Stadium District to the Katella, Gene Autry and Gateway Districts shall be permitted subject to approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council at noticed public hearings, provided that the Planning Commission’s decision shall be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council and provided that the applicant demonstrates the following: .01 That the transferred units are proposed to be located within the density transfer boundaries indicated in Figure A of the Platinum Triangle Supplement Sewer Study, dated January, 2006, as it may be amended, on file in the City, or other areas in the Katella, Gene Autry and Gateway Districts where environmental impacts are within the parameters of EIR No. 332, as substantiated by additional analysis approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. .02 That the request for the dwelling unit transfer shall be submitted by a verified owner of property where the units are proposed to be located and that the request shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed in Chapter 18.80 (Fees), no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant except as set forth in Section 118.60.070 (Withdrawal of Application). .03 That the density of the property where the units are proposed to be located shall not exceed a maximum of 100 residential dwelling units per acre. .04 That the dwelling unit transfer request has been submitted concurrently with the processing of a development agreement prepared pursuant to Section 18.20.170.020 (Development Agreement) and that the final site plan or master site plan, attached as an exhibit to the development agreement, incorporates the transferred units and has been prepared in compliance with the PTMU Overlay Zone. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 .0302 That issuance of grading and building permits and approval of subdivision plans for projects incorporating an approved dwelling unit transfer, shall only be permitted if there is a valid development agreement recorded on the property. .0303 That if the development agreement were to expire or be terminated or otherwise determined invalid, no permits, including but not limited to, grading and building permits, shall be issued for the transferred units or subdivision plans approved for the transferred units, until such time as the property owner amends the development agreement or enters into another development agreement incorporating the transferred units. .0304 The transfer of dwelling units may be subject to additional criteria as established by the City. (Ord. 6031 18, 19; August 22, 2006.) Table 20-D DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *District Maximum Dwelling Units Maximum Office Square Footage Maximum Commercial Square Footage Arena (41 ac) 425 100,000 100,000 Gateway** (53 ac) 2,142 530,000 50,000 Gene Autry (33 ac) 1,699 100,000 174,100 Katella (99 ac) 4,250 775,000 630,300 Orangewood (3.8 ac) 0 590,000 10,000 Stadium (153 ac) 1,750 1,760,000 1,300,000 Total (382.8 total acres) 10,266 3,855,000 2,264,400 Table 20-D ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE District Acres Maximum Housing Units Maximum Office Square Feet Maximum Commercial Square Feet Maximum Institutional Square Feet Arena 41 425 100,000 100,000 0 ARTIC 17 520 2,202,803 358,000 1,500,000 Gateway 50 2,949 562,250 64,000 0 Gene Autry 33 2,362 338,200 304,700 0 Katella 141 5,707 2,131,058 832,614 0 Orangewood 35 1,771 1,402,855 130,000 0 Stadium 153 5,175 3,125,000 3,120,368 0 Total Mixed Use 470 18,909 9,862,166 4,909,682 1,500,000 Office 121 0 4,478,356 0 0 Total PTMU Overlay 591 18,909 14,340,522 4,909,682 1,500,000 * For properties along Gene Autry Way, the additional 4'6" of public right-of-way per General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420 may be counted toward the property’s total acreage when determining density. The Gateway District encompasses Sub-Areas A, B and C as depicted in The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (321 dwelling units within the Gateway District are specifically allocated to Sub-Area 18.20.050 STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS. The height requirements for the PTMU Overlay Zone are shown in Table 20-E (Maximum Structural Height: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and apply in addition to the Structural Height Limitations in Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards). Greater heights are permitted in connection with a conditional use permit, as set forth in Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permit). Table 20-E MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Maximum Height in Feet ARTIC, Arena and Stadium Districts Unlimited All other properties 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 §1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.060 COVERAGE. .010 Site Coverage. The maximum site coverage for the PTMU Overlay Zone is seventy- five percent .0101 “Coverage” is the sum of the area of all building footprint areas and the area of exposed parking, divided by the gross area of the parcel, excluding Market Street or connector streets and/or any required public right-of-way. For purpose of coverage calculations, parking is not considered exposed when landscape, patios and pool decks are located on the top level of a parking structure. .0102 Accessory Buildings and Structures. All accessory buildings and structures, shall be included in the maximum site coverage calculation. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.070 PROJECT SIZE. The residential project size requirements are as follows: .010 The minimum residential project size shall be fifty (50) dwelling units. .015 The minimum and maximum densities permitted shall be as indicated by building type in Table 20-F (Building Types: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone), based on the gross number of dwelling units and the gross lot size excluding public and private streets, alley rights-of-way, and public and private easements for ingress and egress. .020 Residential projects of more than four hundred (400) dwelling units on parcels of five acres or greater shall consist of more than one building type, as defined in Table 20-F (Building Types: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone). The building types proposed to meet this requirement must vary by at least onetwo (12) storyies in height. .030 Building Site Requirements in Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards) shall also apply. Table 20-F BUILDING TYPES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Building Type Unit Type Typical Density Range Definition ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Units/Acre Tuck-Under Townhomes Flats 16-24 18-30 Residential buildings in which individual parking garages are located under the living unit but still accessed by surface driveways Wrapped Deck Flats 45-80 Residential buildings that surround, or wrap around, a freestanding (not subterranean) parking structure Podium Townhomes Flats/Townhomes Flats 16-32 36-65 48-100 Residential buildings located above a subterranean parking structure High-Rise Tower Flats 65-100 Residential buildings over 55 feet in height (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.080 FLOOR AREA. The minimum floor area for dwelling units is shown in Table 20-G (Minimum Floor Area: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone). .010 Calculations. For purposes of this section, a "Bedroom" is a private habitable room planned or used for sleeping, separated from other rooms by a door or a similar partition. Further, all rooms (other than a living room, family room, dining room, bathroom, hall, lobby, closet or pantry) having seventy (70) square feet or more of floor area, or less than fifty percent (50%) of the total length of any wall open to an adjacent room or hallway, shall be considered a "Bedroom." Table 20-G MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Unit Type Minimum Floor Area Studio Units: 550 square feet; provided, however, that the number of studio units shall not exceed 20% of the total number of units per residential building One-Bedroom Units: 650 square feet Two-Bedroom Units: 825 square feet Three-Bedroom Units: 1,000 square feet More Than a Three-Bedroom Unit: 1,000 square feet plus 200 square feet for each bedroom over three ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.090 STRUCTURAL SETBACKS. Every building or structure erected under the provisions of this zone shall be provided with setbacks as follows: .010 Setbacks Abutting Public Rights-of-Way, Private Streets and Alleys. .0101 Minimum Open Setback. All properties shall have a minimum open setback for the full width of the property, as indicated in Table 20-H (Structural Setbacks Abutting Public Rights-of-Way, Private Streets and Alleys) and the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .01 Setbacks abutting public rights-of-way shall be parallel to the centerline of the adjoining public rights-of-way, and shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way, as indicated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. .02 Setbacks abutting private streets or alleys shall be parallel to the centerline of the adjoining private street or alley, and measured from the private access easement. .0102 Required Improvement of Setbacks. Setbacks abutting public rights-of-way, private streets and alleys shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or other plants, and/or decorated hard surface expansion of the sidewalk, as set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening), Table 20-H and theThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Setback areas shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly manner. .0103 Permitted Encroachments. Setbacks abutting public rights-of-way, private streets and alleys may include the following encroachments: .01 Patios, residential buildings and ground floor commercial uses that encroach into the required street setback no more than the maximum amount allowed per Table 20-H and the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .02 Walkway connections to building entrances, provided that special paving treatment or modular paving materials are used. .03 Vehicular and bike accessways. .04 Transit stops. .05 Outdoor seating and dining areas in conjunction with full-service restaurants, coffee shops, and bakeries, provided that such areas shall be designed to not adversely affect the safe and efficient circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 .06 Public art displays, fountains, ponds, planters, outdoor seating areas, benches, decorative trash receptacles, planters, public plazas, or other similar amenities and attractive street furnishings that create public gathering places. .07 Newsracks that are designed to be aesthetically harmonious with the character of the area, and not cause obstruction or adversely affect the safe and efficient circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. .08 Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses and fireplaces that encroach into the required street setback no more than thirty-six (36) inches. .09 Awnings, canopies and arcades. .10 Open, unenclosed balconies that encroach into the required street setback no more than three feet. .11 Covered or uncovered entrances that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building, and that include a wall not more than thirty-six (36) inches in height that encroaches into the required street setback no more than five feet. .12 Fences, walls and hedges that comply with Section 18.46.110 (Screening, Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) and subsection 18.20.30.020 (Accessory Uses). .0104 Improvement of Walkways Required. Adjacent to Orangewood Avenue, the portion of the setback adjacent to the right-of-way shall be improved with a walkway, as indicated in Table 20-H and as shown in The the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. An easement for said walkway shall be provided to the City. Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Katella Avenue 18 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 4 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway (see below) shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved • A date palm matching the date palm in the public right-of-way in spacing and height shall be installed 5 feet from the right-of- way, as indicated on the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan State College Boulevard South of Gene Autry Way: 13 feet North of Gene Autry Way to railroad grade separation: 16 feet North of railroad grade separation: 20 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 4-8 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway (see below) shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Gene Autry Way 9.5 feet Patios: 5 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 5 feet (outdoor seating areas may encroach 9.5 feet) • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway (see below) shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 100% of the setback area may be paved provided required Mexican Fan Palm trees in setback areas are provided 20 feet on-center • A 2.5 foot walkway shall be provided adjacent to right-of- way, scored to match adjacent sidewalk, and an easement provided to the City Orangewood Avenue West of State College Boulevard: 12 feet East of State College Boulevard: West of West Dupont Drive: 12 feet East of West Dupont Drive: 15 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 8 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway (see below) shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved • East of State College Boulevard, A 2.5 foot walkway shall be provided adjacent to right-of- way, scored to match adjacent sidewalk, and an easement provided to the City, east of State College Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Douglass Road 14 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 3 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved Anaheim Way West side: 5 feet East side: 20 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Lewis Street South of Katella Avenue: 20 feet North of Katella Avenue: 12 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Railroad Right-of-Way 10 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Howell Avenue Sunkist Street Rampart Street 20 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Market Street 10 feet Ground floor commercial: 4 feet • A maximum 30% of setback area may be landscaped ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Connector Streets Collector Streets Private Streets Wright Circle Private Streets Dupont Circle 10 feet Patios: 7 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 3 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved Alleys 10 feet Patios: 2 feet Residential buildings: 2 feet* Ground floor commercial: 2 feet • A minimum 4-foot-wide pedestrian walkway shall be provided parallel to the alley. All other portions of the setback area shall be fully landscaped. Freeways 25 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped * Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. .020 Setbacks – Other. An open setback shall be provided between buildings and interior lot lines, and between buildings located on the same project site. Minimum setback requirements shall be measured perpendicular to building walls. .0201 Required Improvement of Setbacks. Required setbacks abutting interior property lines and setbacks between buildings shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or other plants, as indicated above and as set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening). Setback areas shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly manner. .0202 Setbacks Abutting Interior Property Lines. A minimum five foot wide fully landscaped setback area shall be provided for structures abutting an interior property line along the entire length of the building. Where a fence or wall is provided along or adjacent to the ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 interior property line, the five foot wide fully landscaped setback shall be measured from the side of the fence or wall facing the property. .0203 Setbacks Between Buildings. A minimum twenty (20) foot wide setback between parallel walls of two separate buildings shall be provided. At least forty percent (40%) of the setback area between buildings shall be landscaped. .01 Permitted Encroachments. The following encroachments are permitted, provided a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the setback area is landscaped: Open, unenclosed balconies and/or private patios for ground floor residential units may encroach no more than five feet. Covered or uncovered entrances that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building and that include a wall not more than thirty-six (36) inches in height may encroach no more than five feet. Outdoor recreational facilities. Fountains, ponds, sculptures and planters. Fences, walls and hedges that comply with Section 18.46.110 (Screening, Fences, Walls and Hedges). Paved walkways, benches and plazas. Vehicular accessways. .030 Parking, loading or unloading of privately owned and operated automobiles and other vehicles shall be prohibited in all required setbacks. .040 Required vehicle site distances shall be maintained. No landscaping or other elements such as signs or fences exceeding twenty-four (24) inches in height shall be permitted within the line-of-sight triangle described in Section 18.44.080 (Freestanding and Monument Signs– General) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs) and as shown on the applicable Engineering Standard Detail pertaining to commercial drive approaches unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. .050 Modifications. The setbacks prescribed in this section may be modified in connection with a conditional use permit as set forth in Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permit), provided that minimum landscape requirements are met. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 5948 § 4; November 9, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6031 § 20: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6075 § 5; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 18.20.100 STRUCTURAL LOCATION AND BUILDING ORIENTATION. All buildings shall have the following orientation to the street: .010 All buildings shall be aligned either parallel or at right angles to the street rights-of- way. .020 All buildings adjacent to a public street shall maintain a continuous "street wall," formed by the edge of the building, for a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the lot/parcel frontage adjacent to the street. .030 With the exception of parking lots and structures for hotels and office buildings, and Except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, parking lots and structures shall not be located directly adjacent to a public street, but shall be placed internal to the block, in a location screened from view of the public right-of-way or subterranean to the building. .040 Parking Structures. Except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, parking structures shall be screened from view of the public right-of-way. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6075 § 6; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.110 PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING .010 Public Parks. Public parks shall be provided as follows: .0101 Parcels eight (8.0) acres or larger with residential development totaling more than 325 units, shall provide and construct an on-site public park, at a minimum size of forty-four (44) square feet per residential dwelling unit. .01 Said park shall be bounded on at least one side by a public street with on-street parking. .02 This requirement is in addition to the payment of park-in-lieu fees; however, the value of the parkland dedication will be credited against overall park-in-lieu fees paid for the project. This credit will be given for park land dedication only. No credit will be given for improvements to the park or for recreational-leisure areas, as required subject to subsection 18.20.110.020 (Recreational-Leisure Areas). .0102 Parcels less than eight (8.0) acres in size shall pay a park-in-lieu fee. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 .020 Recreational-Leisure Areas. Two hundred (200) square feet of recreational-leisure area shall be provided for each dwelling unit, and may be provided by private areas, common areas, or a combination of both. .0201 Common Recreational-Leisure Areas. All common recreational-leisure areas shall be conveniently located and readily accessible from all dwelling units located on the building site, and shall be integrated with, and contiguous to, other common areas on the building site. The common recreational-leisure area may be composed of active or passive facilities, and may incorporate any required setback areas other than setback areas adjacent to public rights-of-way, private streets and alleys and interior property lines, but shall not include or incorporate any driveways or parking areas, trash pickup or storage areas or utility areas. The common recreational-leisure area shall have a minimum dimension of ten (10) feet. .01 Improvement of Common Recreational-Leisure Areas. All common recreational- leisure areas shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or other plants, as set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening), with the exception of reasonably required pedestrian walkways and paved recreational facilities, such as swimming pools and decks and court game facilities. Fountains, ponds, waterscape, sculpture, planters, benches and decorative screen-type walls installed incidentally to the primary plants in the landscaping shall be permitted and encouraged. All required common recreational-leisure areas and other required open space areas shall be developed and professionally maintained in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plans. Courtyards internal to a project, or enclosed on at least three sides, shall have a minimum width of forty (40) feet, and shall be landscaped with a ratio of hardscape to planting not exceeding a ratio one square foot of landscape to one square foot of hardscape. Pools and spas shall be excluded from this ratio. The base of a building shall be separated from adjacent common recreational- leisure area by a planter allowing a minimum thirty (30) inches planting width. .0202 Private Recreational-Leisure Areas. In order for private patios and balconies to count toward the recreational-leisure area requirement, they must comply with the following: .01 Any private patios for ground floor units shall not be less than one hundred (100) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of eight feet. .02 Private balconies for dwelling units located entirely above the ground floor shall not be less than seventy (70) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of seven feet. Private balconies for dwelling units located in high-rise towers, eight stories or higher, shall not be less than thirty-five (35) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of five feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 .030 Landscaping. Landscaping, including fences, walls and hedges, shall be permitted and/or required subject to the conditions and limitations set forth herein and in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) except that the minimum plant size for a Date Palm, which shall be 30-foot, brown-trunk height, and a Mexican Fan Palm, which shall be 20-foot, brown-trunk height. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord 6004 § 3; November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.120 PARKING, LOADING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS .010 Number of Parking Spaces. .0101 Number of Spaces for Residential Uses. The following minimum parking requirements shall be used in determining parking need: Table 20-I MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Per Unit 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces 2 bedroom 2.0 spaces 3 bedroom 2.5 spaces 4 bedroom 3.5 spaces .0102 Number of Spaces for Non-Residential Uses. The number of parking spaces for non-residential uses shall be determined by the type of use (use class) specified in Table 42-A (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). .0103 Number of Spaces for Mixed-Use Projects. Due to variations in parking demand and the needs of each project, vehicle parking requirements, the demand for drop-off and pick-up locations and the design of the parking areas, including ingress and egress, shall be determined as part of the final site plan review process by the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department and/or its designee based upon information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer, as approved by the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department and/or its designee. The parking demand study shall be prepared at the property owner/developer’s expense and provided as part of the final site plan application. .0104 On-Street Parking. Parking located on a private or public street directly in front of a use may be considered for parking credit; providing a parking management plan is approved ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 by the City Engineer, which adequately addresses how parking will be limited to the use that it is intended to serve. .0105 Tandem Parking. Tandem Parking may be permitted in conjunction with subterranean parking and tuck-under buildings, where both spaces are assigned to the same designated dwelling unit. .0106 Valet Parking. Valet parking may be permitted in conjunction with subterranean parking, provided valet services are provided for and managed by an on-site management company or homeowner's association. .0107 Drop-off and Pick-Up Locations. Drop-off and pick-up locations shall be incorporated into the design of parking areas, and the number, location and design shall be approved by the City Engineer. .020 Designation of Parking for Residential and Non-Residential Uses. Parking spaces specifically designated for non-residential and residential uses shall be marked by the use of posting, pavement markings, and/or physical separation. Parking design shall incorporate separate entrances and exits, or a designated lane, for residents, so that residents are not waiting in line behind non-residential drivers. .030 Vehicle Access. All vehicle access shall be designed and improved in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. .0301 Primary Vehicle Access. Parcels located adjacent to connector or collector streets shall have their primary vehicle access off of said streets. .0302 Minimum Distance Between Driveways of Arterials. The minimum distance between adjacent driveways on the same site or adjacent properties located along arterials shall be not less than three hundred and fifty (350) feet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. .0303 Vehicular Access from Katella Avenue. When two or more parcels or lots located adjacent to Katella Avenue are considered as a single, integrated development, additional driveways may be permitted, subject to the Standard Driveway Detail requirements of the Public Works Department. .0304 Driveway Width Dimensions. Driveways shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet wide, and a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet wide, in order to enhance the pedestrian experience. Wider widths may be allowed if pedestrian circulation is not significantly compromised, subject to the approval of the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager, based on sound engineering practices. .040 Streets. As provided in the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, connector and collector streets and a Mmarket Sstreet will be required within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The location of these streets shall be in conformance with the The Platinum Triangle Master ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Land Use Plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer, based on an access and alignment study. Additional connector streets may be required by the City Engineer, based on projected traffic volumes as determined by a traffic study. .0401 The streets shall be designed to comply with the cross sections in the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; provided that the final width, including supplemental turn lanes if required, shall be determined, based on anticipated traffic volumes analyzed as part of a project specific traffic impact study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. .0402 Traffic-calming and special street design features, such as enhanced paving and parkway tapers at intersections, are permitted and encouraged, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. .050 Loading Areas. Off-street loading spaces shall be provided as follows: .0501 Non-residential uses off-street loading requirements shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.42.100 (Loading Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). .0502 Residential Uses. .01 Residential uses shall have one off-street loading space or moving plaza for every one hundred and fifty (150) units. .02 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be located near entries and/or elevators. .03 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be incorporated into the design of vehicular access areas. .04 Decorative paving, removable bollards and potted plants are permitted and encouraged to enhance loading spaces or moving plazas. .05 Loading spaces or moving plazas may be located on a local or connector street, with the approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. The adjacent parkway and setback landscape treatment shall be designed to allow for loading and unloading. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6101 § 13; April 22, 2008: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.130 REFUSE STORAGE AND RECYCLING FACILITIES, AND PRIVATE STORAGE AREAS. .010 Refuse Storage and Recycling Facilities. Refuse storage areas and recycling facilities shall conform to the standards set forth in the document entitled "Refuse Container Enclosure for Multiple-Family Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Use" (Form 139), on file with the City of Anaheim or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works, with the additional ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 requirement that the refuse storage facilities for residential and non-residential users shall be maintained as separate facilities, and shall not allow commingling of the separate facilities. The storage areas shall be screened from adjacent public or private rights-of-way, or railroads. .020 Private Storage Areas. General storage cabinets, with a minimum size of one hundred (100) cubic feet capacity, shall be required for each dwelling unit. Provision of said storage areas shall be in addition to the minimum floor area of the unit. Storage areas may be located inside the dwelling unit, adjacent to the dwelling unit's balcony or patio, or in close proximity to the dwelling unit. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.140 DESIGN STANDARDS. .010 The design of buildings within The the Platinum Triangle shall be of the highest quality in massing, design details and amenities. .020 Amenities. High quality recreational and service amenities to serve the tenants of the residential complexes shall be provided. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, private health clubs or fitness centers, meeting rooms, recreational rooms, pools, spas, dry cleaning collection and distribution, computer facilities, barbecues, decks, court game facilities, and community fireplaces. .030 Integrated Design. The design of buildings, signs, landscaping and other structures or elements shall feature a unified and integrated theme. .040 Architectural Massing. With the exception of office buildings and hotels, and as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, buildings shall comply with the following: .0401 Except as otherwise provided for in the Orangewood District,R regardless of style, a building shall not have a continuous roof or parapet line exceeding one hundred twenty (120) feet in length, without vertical breaks that cause a change in height of at least six feet. .0402 WExcept as otherwise provided for in the Orangewood District, when a building exceeds two hundred forty (240) feet in length, building height shall step down, in at least one location at least one floor, for a minimum length of twenty-four (24) feet. .0403. TExcept as otherwise provided for in the Orangewood District, the wall plane of a building facade shall not extend longer than eighty (80) feet, without a break in the plane no less than three feet in depth. .050 Facades. ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 .0501 Street wall facades shall be architecturally enhanced through the use of arcades, colonnades, recessed entrances, window details, bays, variation in building materials, and other details such as cornices and contrasting colors. Total blank wall areas (without windows or entrances) are prohibited. In addition to architectural massing requirements, building facades shall be articulated through the use of separated wall surfaces, contrasting colors and materials, variations in building setbacks, and attractive window fenestrations. .0502 Street wall facades shall be integrated with public plazas, mini parks, outdoor dining, and other pedestrian-oriented amenities. .0503 Buildings at corners of any street intersection not identified as requiring landmark architecture in the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, shall receive special treatment to enhance the pedestrian experience, and create visual interest and focal points at the such as but not limited to, building cut-offs and corner entrances with additional architectural detail. .0504 Tops of building facades shall be visually terminated through the use of cornices, stepped parapets, hip and mansard roofs, stepped terraces, domes and other forms of multifaceted building tops. .060 Architectural Detail. .0601 Buildings on corners must address both streets with an equal level of architectural detail. .0602 Projecting features to create visual interest and distinction between units, such as balconies, porches, bays, and dormer windows, are required. Trim detail on rooflines, porches, windows and doors on street-facing elevations are required. .0603 When trim is used, a minimum of one-inch by four-inch x trim is required. .0604 With stucco walls, a minimum one-inch deep, raised relief around the window is required. .0605 With brick, a minimum two-inch wide brickmold is required around windows. .0606 “Corner Boards” (the board upon which siding is fitted at the corner of a frame structure) are required with wood or simulated wood sidings. .0607 Dormers must be authentic and either be habitable or provide attic ventilation and have a symmetrical gable, hip, shed or curved form. .0608 Windows shall have clear glazing, (panes or sheets of glass) or tinted glazing e.g., low emissivity, solar or spandrel glazing (opaque glass for concealing structural elements). Other types of mirror glazing (including tinted or opaque glass) are not permitted. ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 .0609 Windows shall be recessed (not flush with the wall plane) to create shadow lines and to impart a three-dimensional design feature. .0610 All first floor exterior doors shall be hinged. Sliding glass doors are permitted only above the first floor, and on rear or interior side yard elevations not visible from public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. .0611 Primary wall materials used on the front facade must be repeated on the rear and side elevations. .0612 The lower thirty percent (30 portion of balcony rails shall be finished with a permanent, solid, building material that matches or is otherwise compatible with the building. .0613 Balconies shall provide penetrations in the building mass at least three feet, create shadow, and expose extended wall thickness. .070 Roof Treatments. .0701 Roofs shall be of a monochromic color, and all penetrations and appurtenances shall be painted to match, or be compatible with, the roof color so that their visibility is minimized. .0702 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be mounted behind major rooftop elements such as stair or elevator penthouses, parapets or architectural projections, so that the equipment is not visible from the adjacent public rights-of-way or adjacent property at grade level. .080 Parking Treatments. .0801 Parking structures shall be screened from view, and shall include architectural detailing, facade treatment, artwork, landscaping, or similar visual features to enhance the street façade, except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District. .0802 With the exception of parking structures for office buildings and hotels, and as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, The portions of any parking structure facing the street, excluding vehicular access areas, shall be lined with residential, live/work or other usable space, to clad the face of the structure so that it is not visible from the adjacent street, except as otherwise provided for in the Orangewood District. .0803 Subterranean parking structures can extend above grade up to two feet six inches without requiring cladding treatment as required above, except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District. .0804 Parking structures for office buildings and hotels facing the street shall screen and enhance the design of the parking structure through architectural detailing, landscaping, façade treatment, or similar visual features. ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 .08054 Parking structures shall include a squeal-free floor treatment. .090 Service Areas. Service areas and mechanical/electrical/ backflow prevention equipment shall be located and screened to reduce their visibility from public and communal gathering areas; methods of screening that are compatible with the project's architecture shall be utilized. .100 Landmark Architecture. Building architecture on key intersection corners, as shown on the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, requires special treatment. This treatment shall consist of the following: .1001 Tower element that demonstrates distinctive architectural features on the facade, by providing both greater height and off-set from the building wall plane. .1002 Enhanced pedestrian entry on the corner defined as including at least three of the following characteristics: .01 Oriented on a diagonal to the corner. .02 Setback at least three feet behind the building facade. .03 Two story entrance height and twenty (20) foot entrance width. .04 Canopy, overhang or other architectural covering over the building entry. .05 Other architectural elements of a size and scale easily visible from at least one block away, and customized for that specific corner location. .06 Decorative landscaping, hardscape, planters and/or fountains. .110 Building Treatment Adjacent to Streets. Consistent with the goal of creating walkable and safe neighborhoods, the ground floor of a building, and the space between the building and street, require "pedestrian friendly" design treatments. .1101 Commercial Ground Floor Treatment. Except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, when the ground floor is intended for retail or other commercial use in a vertically mixed use building, the ground floor elevation exposed to the street shall provide: .01 Primary pedestrian access directly from the adjacent public street frontage. .02 A maximum eighteen (18) inch deep area, measured out from the face of the building, within which a commercial tenant may customize store front design. .03 A pedestrian signage area at least twenty-four (24) inches in height integrated into the front ground floor elevation of the building. ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 .04 An average of fourteen (14) foot floor to ceiling height on the retail ground floor. .05 Projecting signs. .06 Approximately twice the amount of window area on the ground floor compared to other floors. .07 At least one of the following devices shall be used to visually differentiate the retail from other levels: Minimum two foot and maximum six foot setback between the ground and upper floors, up to six feet setback is allowed; Use of overhangs, awnings or trellis work for at least sixty percent (60%) of the frontage. .1102 Arterial Streets – Residential Ground Floor. When residential ground floor use is adjacent to an arterial street, the ground floor shall be designed to provide the following: .01 At least one residential entry into a communal lobby or courtyard per block. .02 Dwelling unit patios shall be located at least eighteen (18) inches above the sidewalk grade. .1103 Connector Streets – Residential Ground Floor. When residential ground floor use is adjacent to a connector street, regardless of the number of floors, the ground floor shall be designed to provide the following: .01 Communal or individual dwelling unit entries accessible from the adjacent street and/or individual dwelling unit walkway connections to the adjacent street sidewalk. .02 Residential entry stoops, patios or communal entries shall be at least eighteen (18) inches above the sidewalk grade, for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the entries along connector streets. .120 Pedestrian Circulation. On-site pedestrian circulation shall be continuous, connect various on-site uses and, where feasible, connect to off-site transit stops. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6075 7-9 September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.150 SIGNS. ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 .010 Coordinated Program. A coordinated sign program is required to be submitted to the Planning Department, per the requirements of subsection 18.44.060.040 (Coordinated Sign Program), prior to the issuance of the first sign permit and shall address the following: .0101 Signs shall complement the architecture of the building and provide a unifying element along the streetscape. .0102 The size, scale, and style of signs shall be internally consistent, and consistent with the scale of the buildings of which they are a part. .0103 Wall signs for ground floor uses shall be placed between the ground floor doorways and the upper facades, and shall be located at approximately the same height as all other ground floor wall signs to create a unifying, horizontal pattern. .020 Applicability of Other Regulations. The provisions in Chapter 18.44 (Signs) shall apply to projects within the PTMU Overlay Zone except as listed below. Residential uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.44.070 (Signs in Residential Zones). , except as provided below: .0201 Awning signs and projecting signs are permitted for buildings with ground floor commercial uses. .0202 Thematic elements, three-dimensional objects or non-habitable structures, such as a gateway, tower, sculpture, spire and similar architectural features to entertain pedestrians, are permitted. .030 Banners used as temporary Real Estate signs in Mixed Use Developments. In conjunction with obtaining a Special Event Permit (Section 18.38.240), Mixed Use Developments within the PTMU Overlay Zone are permitted to use banners as real estate signage (as defined in Section 18.44.030) if all of the following provisions are met: .0301 Banners shall be kept clean, neatly maintained, with no missing sign copy, or ripped or faded material. Any un-maintained or damaged portion of the banners shall be repaired or replaced immediately. Non-compliance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate termination of the permit. .0302 Banners shall be no greater than 225 square feet or one percent of the building face to which the banner is attached, whichever is greater. .0303 Banners shall be safely affixed to the building in a manner which ensures the safety of the public. .0304 A maximum of one banner shall be permitted per street frontage. .0305 Banners shall only apply to projects implementing the PTMU Overlay Zone. ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 .0306 Banners shall not be permitted on the same street frontage of a lot that concurrently contains a freestanding real estate sign advertising the same project, as defined by Sections 18.44.180 and 18.44.190. .0307 Banners shall be subject to the time limitations contained in Section 18.44.190.060 regarding Temporary Tract Signs. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.160 COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. The following standards are intended to ensure the compatibility of uses in a mixed-use project. .010 Security. Residential units shall be designed to ensure the security of residents, through the provision of secured entrances and exits that are separate from the non-residential uses, and are directly accessible to parking areas. Non-residential and residential uses shall not have common entrance hallways or common balconies. These separations shall be shown on the development plan, and the separations shall be permanently maintained. .020 Restriction on Activities. Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited, so that neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries or late night activity. No use shall produce continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. .030 Vibrations and Odors. No use, activity or process shall produce continual vibrations or noxious odors that are perceptible without instruments by the average person at the property lines of the site or within the interior of residential units on the site. .040 Lighting. Outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses shall not adversely impact surrounding residential uses, but shall provide sufficient illumination for access and security purposes. Such lighting shall not blink, flash or oscillate. .050 Windows. Residential windows shall not directly face loading areas and docks. To the extent windows of residential units face each other, the windows shall be offset to maximize privacy. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.17065 GATEWAY DISTRICT SUB-AREA B STANDARDS. Multiple-Family development in the Gateway District Sub-Area B shall be subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, as may be amended from time to time, as set forth in Table 20-A (Primary Uses: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 Zone) and shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 18.20 (The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) and shall comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 18.20 (The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone), except as set forth in Section 18.20.210170 (Implementation) or as set forth below: .010 The required setbacks prescribed in Section 18.20.090 (Structural Setbacks) shall be applicable, except as set forth below. .0101 No minimum setback area is required adjacent to the interior southerly property line abutting the City boundary adjacent to the City of Orange. .0102 Where an on-site driveway is provided between two buildings, no minimum landscaped area is required; however, building walls shall be planted with clinging vines. .020 The required public park provision and construction requirements prescribed in subsection 18.20.110.010 (Public Parks) shall not be applicable to development in Sub-Area B; however, payment of park-in-lieu fees is required. .030 The standards prescribed in subsection 18.20.140.040 (Architectural Massing) paragraph .0403 shall not be applicable. .040 The standards prescribed in subsection 18.20.140.060 (Architectural Detail) paragraph .0610 shall not be applicable. .050 The standards prescribed in paragraph 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] (Arterial Streets - Residential Ground Floor) shall not be applicable. (Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.18066 ORANGEWOOD DISTRICT STANDARDS. Office development in the Orangewood District shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 18.20 (The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) or as set forth below: .010 Architectural Massing. .0101 An office building is permitted to have a continuous roof or parapet line exceeding two hundred forty (240) feet in length without vertical breaks or stepping down one floor. .0102 The wall plane of an office building façade shall not extend longer than one hundred twenty feet (120), without a break in the plane of no less than three feet in depth. .020 Parking Treatments. ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 .0201 Parking structures facing the street, excluding vehicular access areas, are not required to clad the face of the structure with residential, live/work or other usable space. Said structures shall be screened , subject to screening of the structure through architectural detailing, landscaping, façade treatment, or similar visual features to disguise the building as a parking structure. .0202 Subterranean parking structures can extend above grade up to two feet six inches subject to screening requirements as listed above. .030 Not withstanding the foregoing, the standards prescribed in subsection .110 (Building Treatment Adjacent to Streets) of Section 18.20.140 shall not be applicable. (Ord. 6075 § 10; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008) 18.20.190 ARTIC, STADIUM AND ARENA DISTRICT STANDARDS. Development in the ARTIC, Stadium and Arena Districts shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone), except as set forth below: .010 Modification of Development Standards. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the City Council may approve the modification of development standards contained in Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) for development in the ARTIC, Stadium and Arena Districts. A final site plan or master site plan that requires the modification of development standards contained in Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) shall be processed concurrently with the development agreement as required by subsection 18.20.200.020. Before the City Council may approve the modification of development standards pursuant to this Section, it must make a finding of fact in the ordinance approving the development agreement or other written decision that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: .0101 That the modification of development standards will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the citizens of Anaheim; and .0102 That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety; and .0103 That the proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the purpose and intent of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) and any other related design criteria; and .0104 That the design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with existing or proposed development in the surrounding area; and ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 .0105 That adequate provisions have been made for the loading and unloading of persons, supplies and materials in a manner that does not obstruct required parking and accessways or impact adjacent land uses; and .0106 That the proposed development will not limit or adversely affect the growth and development of adjoining lands or the general area in which it is proposed to be located. 18.20.200170 IMPLEMENTATION. An approved final site plan and a development agreement between the property owner and the City of Anaheim are required for all development under the PTMU Overlay Zone in the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway and Orangewood Districts, except as exempt under subsection 18.20.200170.020.02021 (Development Agreement Exemptions). Development within the Stadium and Arena Districts shall be subject to the requirements of the underlying PR (Public Recreation) or T (Transitional) Zones. .010 Final Site Plan Review. A final site plan application for development in the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway and Orangewood Districts shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director as to conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Said application shall include, but not be limited to, site plans, floor plans, elevations, landscape plans, sign plans and any other such information as determined by the Planning Director. The approved final site plan shall be attached as an exhibit to the development agreement as required pursuant to subsection 18.20.200170.020 (Development Agreement) and submitted to Planning Commission and City Council for review at a noticed public hearing. .0101 Master Site Plan. For projects over twelve (12) acres, an approved master site plan may be attached to a submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director as to conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and attached to the development agreement in lieu of an approved final site plan. If a master site plan is attached to the development agreement, final site plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed hearing and conditions of approval may be imposed by the Planning Commission to ensure conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits. Within a master site plan area, individual tract or parcel map densities may exceed the general plan maximum of 100 dwelling units per gross acre provided the overall density for the master site plan area does not exceed the general plan maximum. A master site plan shall include any such information as determined by the Planning Director. .0102 Variances. A final site plan or master site plan which includes a request for a variance shall have an application for said variance processed concurrently with the development agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 .0103 Conditional Use Permit. A final site plan or master site plan which includes a request for a conditional use permit shall have an application for said conditional use permit processed concurrently with the development agreement. .0104 Dwelling Unit Transfers. The transfer of dwelling units shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.20.040.030 (Dwelling Unit Transfers). .020 Development Agreement. A development agreement shall be processed for all development under the PTMU Overlay Zone in the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway and Orangewood Districts, except as otherwise exempt under subsection 18.20.170.020, paragraphs .0201 and .0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions) per Resolution No. 82R-565 (Procedures Resolution) adopted by the City pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, except as otherwise exempt under subsection 18.20.200.020, paragraphs .0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions) and .0203 (Gateway District Sub-Area The form of the development agreement shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004- 179 on file in the Office of the City Clerk except as indicated under subsection 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] (Development Agreements in conjunction with a Master Site Plan). A final site plan or master site plan found to be in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan shall be attached as an exhibit to said development agreement. .0201 The Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement. For all development in the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Orangewood and Office Districts, the form of the development agreement shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004-179, as may be amended, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, except as otherwise indicated under subsection 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] (Development Agreements in conjunction with a Master Site Plan). .02021 Development Agreement Exemptions. Following construction and commencement of operation of a project that has been implemented pursuant to an approved development agreement, the following projects or improvements do not require a development agreement; however, plans for said projects or improvements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval for consistency with all applicable provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan prior to the issuance of building, landscape or sign permits. .01 Interior building alterations, modifications or improvements which do not result in an increase in the gross square footage of the building. .02 Minor building additions or improvements interior to or at the rear of a building or development complex which are not visible from the public right-of-way; do not exceed five percent of the building’s gross square footage or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is lesser; are in substantial conformance with the building envelope; and are in conformance with the design plan and the zoning and development standards set forth in this chapter. ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 .03 Exterior façade improvements which do not add to the gross square footage of a building or development complex, are not visible from the public right-of-way, and are in substantial conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .04 Signage, including wall signs and on-site directional/informational signs and which signs are in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .05 Landscape/hardscape improvements or modifications which are not in connection with building modifications and are in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .06 Conditionally permitted uses that will not increase the square footage or parking demand of the existing development as determined by the Planning Director and City Engineer. .02032 Gateway District Sub-Area B. Multiple-Family development in the Gateway District Sub-Area B, as authorized by approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, shall be exempt from the requirement for the property owner to enter into a development agreement with the City of Anaheim. .02043 Development Agreements in conjunction with a Master Site Plan. The form of a development agreement used in conjunction with a master site plan for all development within the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Orangewood and Office Districts shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004-179, as it may be amended, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, with the exception that the term “final site plan” shall be replaced with “master site plan” and that time extensions may be requested provided that project milestones are met as indicated in the development agreement. .030 Environmental Review. Development agreement review by the Planning Commission shall include an environmental determination for the proposed project as depicted in the final site plan or master site plan. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6031 § 21: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6075 § 11; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 B APPENDIX B The Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form - Mixed Use Districts RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92805 (Space Above Line For Recorder's Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RECITALS Section 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Assessment District 1.2 Authorizing Ordinance 1.3 City 1.4 Development 1.5 Development Agreement 1.6 Development Agreement Date 1.7 Development Agreement Statute 1.8 Development Approvals 1.9 Enabling Ordinance 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations 1.11 Final Site Plan 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA 1.13 Interim Development Fees 1.14 Mortgage 1.15 Mortgagee 1.16 Owner 1.17 Parking Areas 1.18 Permitted Development 1.19 Platinum Triangle 1.20 Procedures Resolution 1.21 Project 1.22 Property 1.23 Support Commercial Uses 1.24 Term 1.25 Zoning Section 2. TERM Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ii Section 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT 6.1 Description of Permitted Buildings 6.2 Parking Areas Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED BUILDINGS Section 8. ENFORCEMENT Section 9. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES 9.1 Public Park 9.2 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, & Drainage) 9.2.1 Water Service 9.2.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains 9.3 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities 9.4 Traffic Circulation Improvements Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS Section 12. FEES, TAXES AND ASSESSMENT 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments 12.2 Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees 12.2.1 Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee 12.2.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee 12.2.3 Library Facilities Fee 12.3 Excluded Development 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees 12.3.3 City Processing Fees 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District ......1413 12.5 Accounting of Funds 12.6. Imposition of Increased Fees, Taxes or Assessments Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT Section 16. EXISTING USES Section 17. FUTURE APPROVALS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts iii 17.1 Basis for Denying or Conditionally Granting Future Approvals 17.2 Standard of Review 17.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan Section 18. AMENDMENT 18.1 Initiation of Amendment 18.2 Procedure 18.3 Consent 18.4 Amendments 18.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement Section 19. NON-CANCELLATION OF RIGHTS Section 20. BENEFITS TO CITY Section 21. BENEFITS TO OWNER Section 22. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE Section 23. RESERVED AUTHORITY 23.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations 23.2 Model Codes 23.3 Public Health and Safety Section 24. CANCELLATION 24.1 Initiation of Cancellation 24.2 Procedure 24.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY Section 25. PERIODIC REVIEW 25.1 Time for Review 25.2 OWNER's Submission 25.3 Findings 25.4 Initiation of Review by City Council Section 26. EVENTS OF DEFAULT 26.1 Defaults by OWNER 26.2 Specific Performance Remedy 26.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy Section 27. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION 27.1 Notice to OWNER 27.2 Public Hearing 27.3 Decision ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts iv 27.4 Standard of Review 27.5 Implementation 27.6 Schedule for Compliance Section 28. ASSIGNMENT 28.1 Right to Assign 28.2 Release upon Transfer Section 29. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS Section 30. GENERAL 30.1 Force Majeure 30.2 Construction of Development Agreement 30.3 Severability 30.4 Cumulative Remedies 30.5 Hold Harmless Agreement 30.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge 30.7 Public Agency Coordination 30.8 Initiative Measures 30.9 Attorneys’ Fees 30.10 No Waiver 30.11 Authority to Execute 30.12 Notice 30.12.1 To Owner 30.12.2 To City 30.13 Captions 30.14 Consent 30.15 Further Actions and Instruments 30.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute 30.17 Governing Law 30.18 Effect on Title 30.19 Mortgagee Protection 30.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee, Right of Mortgagee to Cure 30.21 Bankruptcy 30.22 Disaffirmance 30.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries 30.24 Project as a Private Undertaking 30.25 Restrictions 30.26 Recitals 30.27 Recording 30.28 Title Report 30.29 Entire Agreement 30.30 Successors and Assigns 30.31 OWNER’s Title of Property 30.32 Exhibits ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts v LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Legal Description of the Property Exhibit Final Site Plan Exhibit Conditions of Approval Exhibit Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees Exhibit “D-1” Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee Exhibit “D-2" General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee Exhibit “D-3" Library Facilities Fee Exhibit Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations Exhibit Preliminary Title Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND This Development Agreement is entered into this day of , 20__, by and between the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY") (referred to herein as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority set forth in Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division l of Title 7, Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"). RECITALS This Development Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the Development Agreement Statute, Sections 65864, et seq., of the Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other things: encourage and provide for the development of public facilities in order to support development projects; provide certainty in the approval of development projects in order to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in project costs and encourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which will make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; provide assurance to the applicants of development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to the conditions of approval of such projects and provisions of such development agreements, and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development. B. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Development Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. C. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 setting forth the City’s vision for development of the City of Anaheim (the “General Plan Amendment”), and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330, adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plans (“FEIR No. 330"), in conjunction with its consideration and approval of the General Plan Amendment, amendment of CITY’s zoning code, and a series of related actions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 2 D. CITY desires that the approximately 820-acre area generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company Easement on the north (hereinafter called “The Platinum Triangle Area") be developed as a combination of high quality industrial, office, commercial and residential uses, as envisioned in the General Plan Amendment. E. In order to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan for tThe Platinum Triangle, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, setting forth the new vision for tThe Platinum Triangle. F. To further implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for tThe Platinum Triangle, the City Council has established tThe Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter the “PTMU Overlay Zone”) consisting of approximately three hundred and eighty-threenine acres within tThe Platinum Triangle as depicted in tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to provide opportunities for high quality well-designed development projects that could be stand-alone projects or combine residential with non-residential uses including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the area. G. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, adopting a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the updated and modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A (“FSEIR No. 332”) to provide for the implementation of tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036 and a series of related actions. H. On April 22, the Anaheim City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00454 2008-00471 and approved an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188) and certified EIR No. 20086- 003394, to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the PTMU Overlay Zone The Platinum Triangle to 18,909363 dwelling units, increase the maximum number of commercial square footage to 5,657,8474,909,682, increase the maximum number of office square footage to 16,519,015 14,340,522 and add 1,500,000 square feet of square footage of institutional land uses. I. OWNER represents that it owns in fee approximately acres of real property located at in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange (hereinafter "County"), State of California, (hereinafter collectively called the “Property") in tThe Platinum Triangle and zoned PTMU Overlay and more particularly shown and described on Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. J. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement by developing a ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 3 all as more particularly set forth in the Final Site Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Project"). K. CITY desires to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in the CITY's General Plan and the objectives for the PTMU Overlay Zone as set forth in subsection 18.20.010.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and finds that the Project will accomplish said goals and objectives. L. Pursuant to the Final Site Plan, OWNER will submit tentative maps and/or vesting tentative maps, if required. OWNER further anticipates the submission of detailed construction plans and other documentation required by CITY in order for the OWNER to obtain its building permits. M. As consideration for the benefits gained from the vested rights acquired pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, to conform with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone, and to comply with the applicable mitigation measures imposed by Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 CB and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. for the Project, CITY is requiring that OWNER construct and install certain public improvements, including off-site traffic circulation improvements, and provide other public benefits. N. In order to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes which may arise from time to time between OWNER and CITY concerning the proposed development of the Project and to assure each party of the intention of the other as to the processing of any land use entitlements which now or hereafter may be required for such development, the parties believe it is desirable to set forth their intentions and understandings in this Development Agreement. In order for both CITY and OWNER to achieve their respective objectives, it is imperative that each be as certain as possible that OWNER will develop and that CITY will permit OWNER to develop the Project and public improvements as approved by CITY within the time periods provided in this Development Agreement. O. CITY, as a charter city, has enacted Ordinance No. 4377 on November 23, 1982, which makes CITY subject to the Development Agreement Statute. Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, CITY adopted Resolution No. 82R-565 (the "Procedures Resolution") on November 23, 1982. The Procedures Resolution establishes procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon receipt of an application. P. On as required by Section 1.0 of the Procedures Resolution, OWNER submitted to the Planning Department an application for approval of a development agreement (hereinafter called the "Application"). The Application included a proposed development agreement (the "Proposed Development Agreement"). Q. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the Planning Director gave public notice of ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 4 the City Planning Commission's intention to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of a development agreement. R. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application. S. On that date, the City Planning Commission, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, found and determined and recommended that the City Council find that previously-certified FSEIR No. 3394, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106CB for tThe Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. T. The Planning Commission further found that the Development Agreement meets the following standards set forth in Section 2.3 of the Procedures Resolution, to wit, that the Proposed Project: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan, is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the applicable zoning district, is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area and is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY. Based upon the aforesaid findings, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Application and this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. PC . U. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Clerk caused public notice to be given of the City Council's intention to consider adoption of a development agreement. V. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Council held a public hearing on the Application. W. On that date, the City Council, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, did find and determined that previously-certified FSEIR No. 3394, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106BC for tThe Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 5 X. On , 20 , the City Council found and determined that this Development Agreement: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan; (ii) is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY; (iii) is entered into pursuant to and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) is entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. Y. In preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, CITY considered the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of CITY and prepared in this regard an extensive environmental impact report and other studies. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, the City Council carefully considered and determined the projected needs (taking into consideration the planned development of the Project and all other areas within the CITY) for water service, sewer service, storm drains, electrical facilities, traffic/circulation infrastructure, police and fire services, paramedic and similar improvements, facilities and services within tThe Platinum Triangle, and the appropriateness of the density and intensity of the development comprising the Project and the needs of the CITY and surrounding areas for other infrastructure. Z. On , 20 , the City Council adopted the Authorizing Ordinance authorizing the execution of this Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Statute, as it applies to CITY, and pursuant to the Enabling Ordinance, the Procedures Resolution and the CITY's inherent powers as a charter city, and pursuant to the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement, and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1 Assessment District. "Assessment District" for purposes of this Development Agreement means a special district, assessment district or benefit area existing pursuant to State law or the charter powers of the CITY for purposes of financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a distinct geographic area of the CITY. l.2 Authorizing Ordinance. The "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement. l.3 CITY. The "CITY" means the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of California. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 6 l.4 Development. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for purposes of effecting the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping. 1.5 Development Agreement. “Development Agreement” means this Development Agreement and any subsequent amendments to this Development Agreement which have been made in compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement, the Development Agreement Statute, the Enabling Ordinance, and the Procedures Resolution. l.6 Development Agreement Date. The "Development Agreement Date" means the latest of the date of recordation in the office of the County Recorder of this Development Agreement, or a memorandum thereof, or (ii) the effective date of the Authorizing Ordinance. l.7 Development Agreement Statute. The "Development Agreement Statute" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Development Agreement Date. 1.8 Development Approvals. "Development Approvals" means the Final Site Plan and all site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use of every kind and nature contemplated by the Final Site Plan which are approved or granted by CITY in connection with development of the Property, including, but not limited to: site plans, tentative and final subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits and grading, building and other similar permits. To the extent any of such site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use are amended from time to time, "Development Approvals" shall include, if OWNER and CITY agree in writing, such matters as so amended. If this Development Agreement is required by law to be amended in order for "Development Approvals" to include any such amendments, "Development Approvals" shall not include such amendments unless and until this Development Agreement is so amended. 1.9 Enabling Ordinance. The "Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 4377 enacted by the CITY on November 23, 1982. 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations. “Existing Land Use Regulations” mean the ordinances and regulations adopted by the City of Anaheim in effect on the Effective Date, including the adopting ordinances and regulations that govern the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use, and the design, improvement, construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, including, but not limited to, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 149, Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106CB, and all other ordinances of the City establishing subdivision standards, park regulations, impact or development fees and building and improvement standards, but only to the extent the Zoning Ordinance and such other regulations are not inconsistent with this Development Agreement. Existing Land Use Regulations do not include non-land use regulations, which includes taxes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 7 1.11 Final Site Plan. The "Final Site Plan" means the Project as described in this Development Agreement and conditions with respect thereto, as set forth as Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA. "Gross Floor Area" or "GFA" means the gross floor area of any buildings which are part of the Permitted Development. 1.13 Interim Development Fees. "Interim Development Fees" are the fees imposed within tThe Platinum Triangle pending adoption of permanent fee programs by the City as set forth in Paragraph 12.2 of this Agreement. 1.14 Mortgage. "Mortgage" means a mortgage, deed of trust or sale and leaseback arrangement or other transaction in which the Property, or a portion thereof or an interest therein, is pledged as security. 1.15 Mortgagee. "Mortgagee" means the holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or the owner of the Property, or interest therein, under a Mortgage. 1.16 OWNER. "OWNER" is and any person or entity with which or into which may merge, and any person or entity who may acquire substantially all of the assets of and any person or entity who receives any of the rights or obligations of under this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 (Assignment) of this Development Agreement. 1.17 Parking Areas. The "Parking Areas" means all parking structure(s), and/or all surface parking servicing the Project. 1.18 Permitted Development. "Permitted Development" includes all buildings and the Parking Areas as identified in Section 6 of this Development Agreement and as further set forth in the Final Site Plan. This Development Agreement establishes maximum and minimum characteristics for all Permitted Development as set forth in the Final Site Plan. 1.19 Platinum Triangle. “The Platinum Triangle" means that portion of the City of Anaheim generally bounded on the east by the Santa Ana River, on the south by the Anaheim city limits, on the west by the Santa Ana Freeway, and on the north by the Southern California Edison Easement. 1.20 Procedures Resolution. The "Procedures Resolution" is Resolution No. 82R-565 adopted by CITY pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute. 1.21 Project. The "Project" means the development project contemplated by the Final Site Plan with respect to the Property, including but not limited to on-site and off-site improvements, as such development project is further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 8 1.22 Property. The "Property" means that certain real property shown and described on Exhibit to this Development Agreement. 1.23 Support Commercial Uses. "Support Commercial Uses" are commercial\retail uses which may include retail uses, banking or financial offices, food service, restaurants, service establishments and other similar uses in keeping with the nature of the Project and the required uses needed to support the occupants of office buildings, other office development, sports and entertainment venues and residential development in tThe Platinum Triangle. 1.24 Term. "Term" is defined in Section 2 of this Development Agreement. 1.25 Zoning Code. “Zoning Code” refers to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Section 2. TERM. 2.1 The term (hereinafter called "Term") of this Development Agreement shall be that period of time during which this Development Agreement shall be in effect and bind the parties hereto. The Term shall commence on the Development Agreement Date and shall extend for a period of five years thereafter, terminating at the end of the day on the fifth anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, subject to the periodic review and modification or termination provisions defined in Section 25 and Section 27, respectively, of this Development Agreement, and further subject to a reasonable extension for completion of the Project in accordance with the Timing of Development schedule set forth in Section 15 of this Development Agreement. 2.2 This Development Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of a final order, after all appeals have been exhausted, directed to CITY as a result of any lawsuit filed against CITY to set aside, withdraw or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Development Agreement or if termination occurs pursuant to the provisions of the Procedures Resolution and such termination is so intended thereby. 2.3 If not already terminated by reason of any other provision in this Development Agreement, or for any other reason, this Development Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect upon completion of the Project pursuant to the terms of this Development Agreement and any further amendments thereto and the issuance of all occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY of all dedications and improvements as required by the development of the Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 9 Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS. The provisions of this Development Agreement to the extent permitted by law shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this Development Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT. As a material part of the consideration of this Development Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the parties agree that the Existing Land Use Regulations shall be applicable to development of the Project. In connection with all subsequent discretionary actions by CITY required to implement the Final Site Plan and any discretionary actions which CITY takes or has the right to take under this Development Agreement relating to the Project, including any review, approval, renewal, conditional approval or denial, CITY, shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Final Site Plan, the Existing Land Use Regulations and such other standards, terms and conditions expressly contained in this Development Agreement. CITY shall accept and timely process, in the normal manner for processing such matters as may then be applicable, all applications for further approvals with respect to the Project called for or required under this Development Agreement, including, any necessary site plan, tentative map, vesting tentative map, final map and any grading, construction or other permits filed by OWNER in accordance with the Development Approvals. Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES. 5.1 The Property shall be used for such uses as may be permitted by the Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. The Term, the density and intensity of use, developable GFA, footprint square footage, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and structures, lot sizes, set back requirements, zoning, public improvements, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Approvals, the Existing Land Use Regulations and this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.2 of the Development Agreement Statute. Section 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT. 6.1 Description of Permitted Development. The Permitted Development shall be as set forth on the Final Site Plan. The Project shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. 6.2 Parking Areas. The Parking Areas shall be constructed so that there will be sufficient parking spaces available within the Property to serve the Project, as depicted and substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Owner shall record a covenant against the property in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office that requires Owner and its heirs, assignees and successor-in-interests to reimburse the City for the full cost associated with the use of any Police Department and/or ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 10 Traffic Management Center staff that may be needed for traffic control purposes related to the use of Parking Areas for public parking in connection with events in the Platinum Triangle, including events at Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, or the Grove of Anaheim. Prior to commencement of construction of the first building within the project, Owner shall restrict the use of the Parking Areas to tenants, visitors, patrons, invitees and other users of the permitted buildings, and shall record a covenant against the property in a form approved by the City Attorney stating that the use of the Parking Areas shall be limited in that manner. Said covenant shall also provide that the Parking Areas shall not be used to provide public parking for patrons of Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim or Honda Center without the prior written agreement between the OWNER and CITY relating to such parking. Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED BUILDINGS. The Permitted Buildings shall be between the minimum and maximum sizes, and shall not exceed the maximum heights and maximum footprints set forth on the Final Site Plan. Section 8. ENFORCEMENT. Unless this Development Agreement is terminated or cancelled pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement or any amendment hereto, shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or building ordinance adopted by CITY which alters or amends the rules, regulations or policies of Development of the Project as provided in this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.4 of the Development Agreement Statute; provided, however, that the limitations of this Section shall not apply to changes mandated by State or Federal laws or other permissible changes or new regulations as more particularly set forth in Section 23 of this Development Agreement. Section 9. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES. In addition to performing any other obligations heretofore imposed as conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit as material consideration for the CITY's entering into this Development Agreement, OWNER shall undertake the construction and installation of the following public improvements required to support the Project and to enhance area-wide traffic circulation and emergency police and fire protection service within the time periods as set forth below and in conformance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. CITY shall cooperate with OWNER for the purpose of coordinating all public improvements constructed under the Development Approvals or this Development Agreement to existing or newly constructed public improvements, whether located within or outside of the Property. OWNER shall be responsible for and use good faith efforts to acquire any right(s)-of-way necessary to construct the public facility improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement or any Development Approvals. Should it become necessary due to OWNER's failure or inability to acquire said right(s)-of-way within four months after OWNER begins its efforts to so acquire said right(s)-of-way, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary right(s)-of-way to construct the public improvements as required by, or otherwise ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 11 necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement and, if necessary in accordance with the procedures established by State law, and the limitations hereinafter set forth in this Section, CITY may use its powers of eminent domain to condemn said required right(s)-of way. OWNER agrees to pay for all costs associated with said acquisition and condemnation proceedings. If the CITY cannot make the proper findings or if for some other reason under the condemnation laws CITY is prevented from acquiring the necessary right(s)-of-way to enable OWNER to construct the public improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement, then the parties agree to amend this Development Agreement to modify OWNER's obligations accordingly. Any such required modification shall involve the substitution of other considerations or obligations by OWNER (of similar value) as are negotiated in good faith between the parties hereto. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to constitute a determination or resolution of necessity by CITY to initiate condemnation proceedings. 9.1 Public Park. If the Property is eight or more acres with residential development totaling more than 325 dwelling units, Owner shall be required to dedicate, improve and maintain a minimum size of 44 square feet for each residential unit for public park purposes as set forth in the Final Site Plan. The value of the parkland dedication will be credited against overall park in lieu fees paid for the project. Consistent with existing Code requirements and policies, not credit will be given for improvements. 9.2 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, and Drainage). OWNER shall construct the public improvements necessary for the provision of requisite water, electrical, gas, sewer and drainage requirements for Project as more fully set forth in the Development Approvals. OWNER shall construct and relocate utilities as may be required to provide services to the Permitted Development on the Property or that are displaced by the construction of the Permitted Development. As OWNER submits detailed construction plans in order to obtain building permits for the Permitted Development and/or the size and nature of the Project varies, the utilities that OWNER will construct or relocate may be revised accordingly by the CITY. 9.2.1 Water Service. OWNER will provide engineering studies to size the water mains for ultimate development within the Project. Said engineering studies will be conducted prior to rendering of water service or signature approval of the final water improvement plans, whichever occurs first. The studies shall be subject to the approval of the General Manager, Public Utilities Department or authorized designee. Alternatively, at OWNER’S election, the water system may be constructed incrementally, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide municipal demands and fire flow protection for the proposed development phasing. OWNER will conform with Rule 15D of the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA and the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. OWNER shall be entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the terms of Rule l5D for the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. 9.2.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains. Prior to final building and zoning inspections for the first building within the Permitted Development, OWNER will construct all sanitary ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 12 sewers and storm drains and appurtenant structures (including treatment control BMP’s as required by the WQMP) to serve the ultimate development of the Property as provided by areawide engineering studies to be conducted prior to issuance of any building permits for the first building within the Permitted Development and updated prior to the issuance of any building permits for each subsequent building within the Permitted Development. All studies shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. OWNER will construct improvements identified in said studies. The systems may be constructed incrementally subject to the approval of the City Engineer, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide capacity for the proposed development phasing. 9.3 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities. The timing, phasing and sequence of the construction of public improvements and facilities or the payment of fees therefor shall be constructed or paid in accordance with the timing, phasing and sequence set forth in this Development Agreement and the Final Site Plan 9.4 Traffic Circulation Improvements. In order to assist CITY in providing for area-wide traffic circulation as required by this Project, OWNER shall cause to be made the traffic circulation improvements identified for the Project including all applicable measures from the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program 106CB approved in conjunction with Subsequent EIR No. 3394, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. as shown on the Final Site Plan. Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION. In the event OWNER is required to construct public improvements which are supplemental to the requirements of the Project for the benefit of other properties, CITY will work with OWNER to establish mechanisms for proportional reimbursement from owners of the benefited properties. All costs associated with establishing said mechanisms shall be paid by OWNER. Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, OWNER shall irrevocably offer for dedication the rights-of-way, including the public connector streets, collector streets and Market Street, if applicable, and other areas as more fully set forth in the Final Site Plan for the uses set forth in the Final Site Plan. These dedications shall be in fee or as an easement at the discretion of CITY, and upon completion and acceptance by CITY of the associated improvements in compliance with the specifications as approved by CITY, CITY shall accept OWNER's offer of dedication. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement, however, shall be deemed to preclude CITY from exercising the power of eminent domain with respect to the Property or the Project, or any part thereof. Section 12. FEES, TAXES, AND ASSESSMENTS. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 13 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments. OWNER shall be responsible for the payment of fees in the amount and at the times set forth in the Existing Land Use Regulations, as said amounts and timing may be modified in accordance with this Development Agreement. 12.2 Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees. CITY anticipates that a number of fees will be adopted to pay the costs attributable to new development in tThe Platinum Triangle. The Interim Development Fees constitute amounts estimated by the applicable City Departments to be the approximate fair share of costs attributable to the Project. If an identified fee has been adopted prior to issuance of the first building permit certificate of occupancy for the Project, the OWNER shall pay the fee. If an identified fee has not been adopted at the time of prior to the issuance of said building permit certificate of occupancy, the OWNER shall pay the applicable Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees set forth in attached Exhibit If the OWNER has paid a Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fee, and upon subsequent adoption of a corresponding fee it is determined that the OWNER has paid an amount greater than the amount payable pursuant to the adopted fee, the excess amount paid as an Interim Development Fee shall be refunded to the OWNER. CITY shall not be obligated to adopt any of the identified fees. If any such identified fee is not adopted, the parties agree that the Interim Development Fee is adequate to address the impacts of the Project. 12.2.1 Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee. OWNER will pay an Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee as set forth in Exhibit 12.2.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee. OWNER will pay a processing FEE attributable to the cost of creating and establishing the Master Land Use Plan and the PTMU Overlay Zone for tThe Platinum Triangle, as well as the costs of associated environmental documentation, as said additional costs are set forth in Exhibit 12.2.3 Library Facilities Fee. OWNER will pay a Library Facilities Fee as set forth in Exhibit 12.3 Excluded Development Fees. Fees Excluded from Existing Land Use Regulations. The following fees shall not be included among the fees which would otherwise fall within the definition of Existing Land Use Regulations: 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all applicable fees in accordance with the Water Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service including Rule 15D which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA to construct the necessary water facility improvements within tThe Platinum Triangle. 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all fees in accordance with the Electrical Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service. 12.3.3 City Processing Fees. OWNER shall pay all standard City-wide processing fees for building permits, zoning review, and other similar fees associated with the Development of ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 14 the Project which are in existence at the time of approval of this Development Agreement at the rate in existence at the time said fees are normally required to be paid to CITY. 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District. Prior to the date a building or grading permit is issued relating to implementation of the Final Site Plan, or within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this Development Agreement, whichever occurs first, OWNER shall execute and record an unsubordinated covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office wherein OWNER agrees not to contest the formation of any assessment district(s) which may be formed to finance Platinum Triangle infrastructure and/or maintenance, which district(s) could include the Property. The covenant shall not preclude OWNER from contesting the determination of benefit of such improvements to the Property, (ii) the properties included in said district or area, (iii) the manner in which said fee is determined or (iv) the manner in which said improvement costs are spread. 12.5 Accounting of Funds. CITY will comply with applicable requirements of Government Code Section 65865 relating to accounting of funds. 12.6 Imposition of Increased Fees, Taxes or Assessments. Except as expressly set forth or reserved in this Development Agreement, CITY shall not, without the prior written consent of OWNER, impose any additional fee, tax or assessment on the Project or any portion thereof as a condition to the implementation of the Project or any portion thereof, except such fees, taxes and assessments as are described in or required by this Development Agreement, including the Existing Land Use Regulations or the Development Approvals. The rates of such fees, taxes and assessments shall be the rates in existence at the time said fees, taxes and assessments are normally required to be paid to CITY, except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit CITY from imposing fees, taxes or assessments on the Property which are unrelated to the approval or implementation of the project. Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS. In consideration for CITY entering into this Development Agreement and other consideration set forth in this Agreement, OWNER agrees to record unsubordinated covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the Property in a form and content satisfactory to the Planning Director, City Engineer and the City Attorney incorporating the requirements and obligations set forth in Exhibit to this Agreement, entitled the “Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations.” Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES. OWNER consents to, and waives any right it may have now or in the future to challenge the legal validity of the conditions, requirements, policies or programs required by Existing Land Use Regulations or this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 15 protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT. Timing of Development shall be as set forth in the Final Site Plan. Section 16. EXISTING USES. CITY and OWNER agree that those existing legally established uses on the Property may be retained until the Project is implemented. When those existing uses are demolished, no credit for any such demolished square footage for which Interim Development Fees have not been paid will be given OWNER against Interim Development Fees due on a square footage basis as provided for in this Development Agreement. OWNER will pay the full Interim Development Fees for Permitted Development constructed pursuant to the Final Site Plan. Section 17. FUTURE APPROVALS. 17.1 Basis for Denying or Conditional Granting Future Approvals. Before OWNER can begin grading on the Property or other development of the Property, OWNER must secure several additional permits and/or approvals from CITY. The parties agree that to the extent said Development Approvals are ministerial in nature, CITY shall not, through the enactment or enforcement of any subsequent ordinances, rules, regulations, initiatives, policies, requirements, guidelines, or other constraints, withhold such approvals as a means of blocking construction or of imposing conditions on the Project which were not imposed during an earlier approval period unless CITY has been ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, CITY and OWNER will use their best efforts to ensure each other that all applications for and approvals of grading permits, building permits or other developmental approvals necessary for OWNER to develop the Project in accordance with the Final Site Plan are sought and processed in a timely manner. 17.2 Standard of Review. The rules, regulations and policies that apply to any additional Development Approvals which OWNER must secure prior to the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations, as defined in this Development Agreement. 17.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan. Future amendments to all or a portion of the Final Site Plan which increase the intensity or density of the Development of the Property, or change the permitted uses of the Property, and are not among those described in Section 18.4 of this Development Agreement may subject the portion or portions of the Project being amended or affected by the amendment to any change in the CITY's General Plan, zoning designations and rules applicable to the Property and further environmental review and possible mitigation of adverse impacts under CEQA in effect at the time of such amendment. Any such amendment to the Final Site Plan shall be processed concurrently with the processing of an amendment to this Development Agreement. It is the desire and intent of both parties, except as set forth herein, that any such future amendment of the Final Site Plan will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 16 impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Development Agreement with respect to the unamended portions of the Final Site Plan. Section l8. AMENDMENT. 18.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either party may propose an amendment to this Development Agreement. 18.2 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 18.4 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution. 18.3 Consent. Except as provided elsewhere within this Development Agreement, any amendment to this Development Agreement shall require the consent of both parties. No amendment of this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party hereto. 18.4 Amendments. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Development Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development of the Project and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Development Agreement. If and when the parties find that changes or adjustments are necessary or appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Development Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments as specified in the Development Approvals. l8.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement. The parties agree that except as expressly set forth in any such amendment, an amendment to this Development Agreement will not alter, affect, impair, modify, waive or otherwise impact any other rights, duties or obligations of either party under this Development Agreement. Section l9. NON-CANCELLATION OF RIGHTS. Subject to defeasance pursuant to Sections 25, 26 or 27 of this Development Agreement, the Final Site Plan and other Development Approvals as provided for in this Development Agreement shall be final and the rights once granted thereby shall be vested in the Property upon recordation of this Development Agreement. Section 20. BENEFITS TO CITY. The direct and indirect benefits CITY (including, without limitation, the existing and future anticipated residents of CITY) expects to receive pursuant to this Development Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 17 a. The participation of OWNER in the accelerated, coordinated and more economic construction, funding and dedication to the public, as provided in this Development Agreement, of certain of the vitally needed on-site and area-wide public improvements and facilities, and assurances that the entire Project will be developed as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement in order to encourage development of tThe Platinum Triangle; and b. The considerations set forth in Sections 9 and 10 of this Development Agreement. Section 21. BENEFITS TO OWNER. OWNER has expended and will continue to expend large amounts of time and money on the planning and infrastructure construction for the Project. OWNER asserts that OWNER would not make any additional expenditures, or the advanced expenditures required by this Development Agreement, without this Development Agreement and that any additional expenditures which OWNER makes after the Development Agreement Date will be made in reliance upon this Development Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Development Agreement provides for the completion of public improvements and facilities prior to the time when they would be justified economically in connection with the phasing of the Project, and of a size which would be justified only by the magnitude of the Project provided for by the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The benefit to OWNER under this Development Agreement consists of the assurance that OWNER will preserve the right to develop the Property as planned and as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to CITY pursuant to this Development Agreement are in consideration for and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. Section 22. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE. The mutual undertakings and assurances described above and provided for in this Development Agreement are for the benefit of CITY and OWNER and promote the comprehensive planning, private and public cooperation and participation in the provision of public facilities, and the effective and efficient development of infrastructure and facilities supporting development which was contemplated and promoted by the Development Agreement Statute. CITY agrees that it will not take any actions which are intended to circumvent this Development Agreement; provided, however, that any action of the electorate shall not be deemed an action for purposes of this section. Section 23. RESERVED AUTHORITY. 23.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. In the event that the State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after this Development Agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the Development Agreement, such ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 18 provisions of the Development Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt or undertake any rule, regulation or policy which is inconsistent with this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that such rule, regulation or policy is reasonably necessary to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations. 23.2. Model Codes. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from applying new rules, regulations and policies contained in model codes, including, but not limited to, the Anaheim Building Code as adopted in Title 15, Section 15.02. 23.3 Public Health and Safety. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from adopting new rules, regulations and policies, including amendments or modifications to model codes described in Section 23.2 of this Development Agreement which directly result from findings by CITY that failure to adopt such rules, regulations or policies would result in a condition injurious or detrimental to the public health and safety. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt any such rules, regulations or policies which prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that such rules, regulations or policies are reasonably necessary to correct or avoid such injurious or detrimental condition. Section 24. CANCELLATION. 24.1 Initiation of Cancellation. Either party may propose cancellation of this Development Agreement. 24.2 Procedure. The procedure for proposing a cancellation of and canceling this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution and Section 65868 of the Government Code. 24.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY. Any cancellation of this Development Agreement shall require the mutual consent of OWNER and CITY. Section 25. PERIODIC REVIEW. 25.1 Time for Review. CITY shall, at least every twelve (12) months after the Development Agreement Date, review the extent of good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Development Agreement. OWNER's failure to comply with the timing schedules set forth in the Final Site Plan shall constitute rebuttable evidence of OWNER's lack of good faith compliance with this Development Agreement. Such periodic review shall determine compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1 and other successor laws and regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 19 25.2 OWNER's Submission. Each year, not less than forty-five (45) days nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of its good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall notify the City Council in writing that such evidence is being submitted to CITY pursuant to the requirements of Section 6.2 of the Procedures Resolution. OWNER shall pay to CITY a reasonable processing fee in an amount as CITY may reasonably establish from time to time on each occasion that OWNER submits its evidence for a periodic review. 25.3 Findings. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine, on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non- compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such end. If during the cure period, OWNER fails to cure such noncompliance or is not making reasonable good faith progress towards such end, then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 27 of this Development Agreement. 25.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the periodic review set forth in this Development Agreement, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Development Agreement upon the giving of written notice thereof to OWNER. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Development Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the manner as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Section 26. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. 26.1 Defaults by OWNER. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non-compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 20 end. If during the cure period OWNER fails to cure such non-compliance or is not making reasonable progress towards such end, then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 27 of this Development Agreement. 26.2 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre-existing condition once implementation of this Development Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Development Agreement and will be investing even more significant time in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Development Agreement, and it is not possible to determine sum of the money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, CITY and OWNER agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement. Therefore, specific performance of this Development Agreement is the only remedy which would compensate OWNER if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, and CITY hereby agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to specific performance in the event of a default by CITY hereunder. CITY and OWNER acknowledge that, if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, CITY shall have the right to refuse to issue any permits or other approvals which OWNER would otherwise have been entitled to pursuant to this Development Agreement. If CITY issues a permit or other approval pursuant to this Development Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, CITY shall be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing OWNER to satisfy such condition. The CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner. 26.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy. The parties hereto agree that this Development Agreement creates an obligation and duty upon OWNER to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein. In the event OWNER breaches this Development Agreement by failing to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein, the parties further agree that CITY will suffer actual damages as a result thereof, the amount of which is uncertain and would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix; therefore, OWNER agrees to pay CITY, in the event of any such breach by OWNER, the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as liquidated and actual damages which sum shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY as a result of such breach pursuant to this Section 26. Section 27. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 21 If pursuant to Section 26.1 of this Development Agreement, CITY elects to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a revised time schedule for compliance as herein provided, then CITY shall proceed as set forth in this Section. 27.1 Notice to OWNER. CITY shall give notice to OWNER of City Council's intention to proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance within ten (10) days of making the CITY’s findings. 27.2 Public Hearing. The City Council shall set and give notice of a public hearing on modification, termination or a time schedule for compliance to be held within forty-days after the City Council gives notice to OWNER. 27.3 Decision. The City Council shall announce its findings and decisions on whether this Development Agreement is to be terminated, how this Development Agreement is to be modified or the provisions of the Development Agreement with which OWNER must comply and a time schedule therefor not more than ten (10) days following completion of the public hearing. 27.4 Standard of Review. Any determination by CITY to terminate this Development Agreement because OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Development Agreement must be based upon a finding by the City Council, based on the preponderance of evidence, that OWNER is in default and has not cured that default in the timeframe permitted by Sections 25 and 26 above, as applicable. 27.5 Implementation. Amending or terminating this Development Agreement shall be accomplished by CITY enacting an ordinance. The ordinance shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of the CITY, make the amendment or termination of this Development Agreement necessary. Not later then ten (10) days following the adoption of the ordinance, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. This Development Agreement shall be terminated or this Development Agreement as modified shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance terminating or modifying this Development Agreement. 27.6 Schedule for Compliance. Setting a reasonable time schedule for compliance with this Development Agreement may be accomplished by CITY enacting a resolution. The resolution shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of CITY, make it advisable to set a schedule for compliance and why the time schedule is reasonable. Not later than ten (10) days following adoption of the resolution, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. Compliance with any time schedule so established as an alternative to amendment or termination shall be subject to periodic review as provided in this Development Agreement and lack of good faith compliance by OWNER with the time schedule shall be basis for termination or modification of this Development Agreement. Section 28. ASSIGNMENT. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 22 28.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer this Development Agreement, and any and all of its rights, duties and obligations hereunder, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, provided that any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of the interest of OWNER in the Property, or a portion thereof. In the event of any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, OWNER shall notify CITY of such event and the name of the transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such transferee and the agreement between OWNER and such transferee shall provide that either OWNER or the transferee or both shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of OWNER pursuant to this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. Such transferee and/or OWNER shall notify CITY in writing which entity shall be liable for the performance of such obligations, and upon the express written assumption of any or all of the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement by such assignee, transferee or purchaser shall, without any act of or concurrence by CITY, relieve OWNER of its legal duty to perform said obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property or portion thereof, so transferred, except to the extent OWNER is not in default under the terms of this Development Agreement. 28.2 Release Upon Transfer. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the Property may be subdivided following the Development Agreement Date. One or more of such subdivided parcels may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned or transferred to persons for development by them in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement. Effective upon such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, the obligations of OWNER shall become several and not joint, except as to OWNER’s obligations set forth in Section 9 of this Development Agreement. Upon the sale, transfer, or assignment of OWNER's rights and interests under this Development Agreement as permitted pursuant to the Section 28.1 above, OWNER shall be released from its obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof so transferred, provided that OWNER is not then in default under this Development Agreement, OWNER has provided to CITY the notice of such transfer specified in Section 28.1 above, the transferee executes and delivers to CITY a written agreement in which the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (ii) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals with respect to the property, or portion thereof, so transferred and the transferee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement or the Development Approvals. Non-compliance by any such transferee with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement shall not be deemed a default hereunder or grounds for termination hereof or constitute cause for CITY to initiate enforcement action against other persons then owning or holding interest in the Property or any portion thereof and not themselves in default hereunder. Upon completion of any phase of development of the Project as determined by CITY, CITY may release that completed phase from any further obligations under this Development Agreement. The provisions of this Section shall be self-executing and shall not require the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument. Any and all successors, assigns and transferees of OWNER shall have all of the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 23 same rights, benefits and obligations of OWNER as used in this Development Agreement and the term "OWNER" as used in this Development Agreement shall refer to any such successors, assigns and transferees unless expressly provided herein to the contrary. Section 29. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, OWNER is obtaining vested rights to proceed with the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, and in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Approvals. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, CITY is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and general welfare. CITY therefore agrees that except as provided in Section 23 of this Development Agreement, neither the City Council nor any other agency of CITY shall enact a rule, regulation, ordinance or other measure which relates to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and which is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement. Section 30. GENERAL. 30.1 Force Majeure. The Term of this Development Agreement and the time within which OWNER shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably by strikes, lock-outs, Acts of God, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, initiative or referenda, moratoria, enemy action, civil disturbances, fire, unavoidable casualties, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of OWNER. 30.2 Construction of Development Agreement. The language in all parts of this Development Agreement shall in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of constructions. This Development Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of CITY, and in particular, the CITY’s police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY’s governmental powers over the Property. 30.3 Severability. If any provision of this Development Agreement shall be adjudged to be invalid, void or unenforceable, such provision shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof, unless such judgment affects a material part of this Development Agreement, the parties hereby agree that they would have entered into the remaining portions of this Development Agreement not adjudged to be invalid, void or illegal. In the event that all or any portion of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, this Development ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 24 Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable shall be deemed to be a statement of intention by the parties; and the parties further agree that in such event they shall take all steps necessary to comply with such public hearings and/or notice requirements as may be necessary in order to make valid this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Development Agreement, in the event that any material provision of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, void or voidable, OWNER or CITY may terminate this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. 30.4 Cumulative Remedies. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, relief in the nature of mandamus and actions for damages. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. 30.5 Hold Harmless Agreement. OWNER and CITY hereby mutually agree to, and shall hold each other, each other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissions, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, and from claims for property damage which may arise from the activities of the other's or the other's contractors', subcontractors', agents’, or employees' which relate to the Project whether such activities be by OWNER or CITY, or by any of the OWNER’s or the CITY’s contractors, subcontractors, or by any one or more persons indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for OWNER any of the OWNER's or the CITY's contractors or subcontractors. OWNER and CITY agree to and shall defend the other and the other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissioners, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees from any suits or actions at law or in equity for damage caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the aforementioned activities which relate to the Project. 30.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement and/or the Development Approvals, the parties hereby agree to cooperate fully with each other in defending said action and the validity of each provision of this Development Agreement, however, OWNER shall be liable for all legal expenses and costs incurred in defending any such action. OWNER shall be entitled to choose legal counsel to defend against any such legal action and shall pay any attorneys' fees awarded against CITY or OWNER, or both, resulting from any such legal action. OWNER shall be entitled to any award of attorneys' fees arising out of any such legal action. 30.7 Public Agency Coordination. CITY and OWNER shall cooperate and use their respective best efforts in coordinating the implementation of the Development Approvals with other public agencies, if any, having jurisdiction over the Property or the Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 25 30.8 Initiative Measures. Both CITY and OWNER intend that this Development Agreement is a legally binding contract which will supersede any initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use approved, issued or granted within the CITY, or portions of the CITY, and which Agreement shall apply to the Project to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement. Should an initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance, or other limitation be enacted by the citizens of CITY which would preclude construction of all or any part of the Project, and to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate or prevail over all or any part of this Development Agreement, OWNER shall have no recourse against CITY pursuant to the Development Agreement, but shall retain all other rights, claims and causes of action under this Development Agreement not so invalidated and any and all other rights, claims and causes of action as law or in equity which OWNER may have independent of this Development Agreement with respect to the project. The foregoing shall not be deemed to limit OWNER's right to appeal any such determination that such initiative, measure, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation invalidates or prevails over all or any part of this Development Agreement. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Development Agreement in full force and effect, provided OWNER shall reimburse CITY for its out-of-pocket expenses incurred directly in connection with such cooperation and CITY shall not be obligated to institute a lawsuit or other court proceedings in this connection. 30.9 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute between the parties involving the covenants or conditions contained in this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses, attorneys fees and costs. 30.10 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of non- performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 30.11 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Development Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Development Agreement on behalf of his/her partnership and represents that he/she has the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of OWNER's obligations hereunder. 30.12 Notice. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 26 30.12.1 To OWNER. Any notice required or permitted to be given by CITY to OWNER under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing and delivered personally to an officer of OWNER or mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed; to OWNER as follows: or such changed address as OWNER shall designate in writing to CITY. 30.12.2 To CITY. Any notice required or permitted to be given to CITY under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be made and given in writing, if by mail addressed to: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 With copies to: City Manager City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 City Attorney City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 or such changed address as CITY shall designate in writing to OWNER. Alternatively, notices to CITY may also be personally delivered to the City Clerk, at the Anaheim Civic Center, 200 S. Anaheim. Blvd., Anaheim, California, together with copies marked for the City Manager and the City Attorney or, if so addressed and mailed, with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City Council in care of the City Clerk at the above address with copies likewise so mailed to the City Manager and the City Attorney, respectively and also in care of the City Clerk at the same address. The provisions of this Section shall be deemed permissive only and shall not detract from the validity of any notice given in a manner which would be legally effective in the absence of this Section. 30.13 Captions. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 27 construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. 30.14 Consent. Any consent required by the parties in carrying out the terms of this Development Agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld. 30.15 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement. 30.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute in effect as of the Development Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 23.1 above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Development Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Development Agreement unless necessary for this Development Agreement to be enforceable or unless this Development Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Development Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Development Agreement Date. 30.17 Governing Law. This Development Agreement, including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 30.18 Effect on Title. OWNER and CITY agree that this Development Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Development Agreement has terminated. 30.19 Mortgagee Protection. Entering into or a breach of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of Mortgagees having a mortgage on any portion of the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform OWNER's obligations, or to guarantee such performance prior to any foreclosure or deed in lieu thereof. 30.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee, Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If the City Clerk timely receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Development Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 28 Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, for a period up to ninety (90) days after the receipt of such notice from CITY to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy the default unless a further extension of time to cure is granted in writing by CITY. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall seek to obtain possession with diligence and continually through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure the default or non-compliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any such default or non-compliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such default or non-compliance if such Mortgagee commences cure during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure. 30.21 Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Section 30.20 of this Development Agreement, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or pursues and prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving CITY, the times specified in this Section for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. 30.22 Disaffirmance. 30.22.1 CITY agrees that in the event of termination of this Agreement by reason of any default by CITY, or by reason of the disaffirmance hereof by a receiver, liquidator or trustee for OWNER or its property, CITY, if requested by any Mortgagee, shall enter into a new Development Agreement for the Project with the most senior Mortgagee requesting such new agreement, for the remainder of the Term, effective as of the date of such termination, upon the terms, provisions, covenants and agreements as herein contained to the extent and subject to the law then in effect, and subject to the rights, if any, of any parties then in possession of any part of the Property, provided: 30.22.2 The Mortgagee shall make written request upon CITY for the new Development Agreement for the Project within thirty (30) days after the date of termination; 30.22.3 The Mortgagee shall pay to CITY at the time of the execution and delivery of the new Development Agreement for the Project expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to which CITY shall have been subjected by reason of OWNER’s default; and 30.22.4 The Mortgagee shall perform and observe all covenants herein contained on OWNER's part to be performed, and shall further remedy any other conditions which OWNER under the terminated agreement was obligated to perform under its terms, to the extent the same are curable or may be performed by the Mortgagee. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 29 30.22.5 Nothing herein contained shall require any Mortgagee to enter into a new agreement pursuant to Section 30.22.1 above, nor to cure any default of OWNER referred to above. 30.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Development Agreement and all provisions hereof is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of CITY, OWNER and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have right of action based upon any provision in this Development Agreement. 30.24 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 30.25 Restrictions. Property OWNER shall place in any agreements to sell or convey any interest in the Property or any portion thereof, provisions making the terms of this Development Agreement binding on any successors in interest of OWNER and express provision for OWNER or CITY, acting separately or jointly, to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement and to recover attorneys' fees and costs for such enforcement. 30.26 Recitals. The recitals in this Development Agreement constitute part of this Development Agreement and each party shall be entitled to rely on the truth and accuracy of each recital as an inducement to enter into this Development Agreement. 30.27 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be executed by CITY and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after CITY approves this Development Agreement. 30.28 Title Report. CITY is required to sign this Development Agreement only after OWNER has provided CITY with a satisfactory preliminary title report evidencing and showing OWNER’s legal and equitable ownership interest in the Property, current within six months, unencumbered except for the exceptions (hereinafter the “Permitted Exceptions”) set in the preliminary title report for the Property dated May 24, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibit (the "Preliminary Title Report"). Any instrument of monetary encumbrance such as a deed of trust or a mortgage entered into subsequent to the date of the Preliminary Title Report and prior to the Development Agreement Date, shall contain language expressly subordinating such instruments of monetary encumbrance to the provisions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall present evidence, satisfactory to CITY, of OWNER’s legal title to Property, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions and any such subordinated instruments of monetary encumbrance, at the time of recordation of this Agreement, or a memorandum thereof. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 30 30.29 Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement, and this Development Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 30.30 Successors and Assigns. The burdens of the Development Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Development Agreement inure to all successors in interest and assigns of the parties to the Development Agreement. 30.31 OWNER's Title of Property. Neither party hereto shall be bound by any provision of this Agreement unless and until OWNER shall record this Development Agreement or a memorandum thereof, in the office of the County Recorder of the County sufficient to cause this Agreement and the obligations contained herein to attach to and encumber OWNER’s fee title to Property. 30.32 Exhibits. All exhibits, including attachments thereto, are incorporated in this Development Agreement in their entirety by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER have executed this Development Agreement as of the date and year first above written. “CITY” “OWNER” CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation By: By: Mayor Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT FINAL SITE PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT PLATINUM TRIANGLE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT FEES ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT “D-1" ELECTRIC UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING FEE Residential Uses $9.9211.42 per unit The Platinum Triangle Anaheim Master Land Use Plan and the Underground Conversion Program envision that the public utilities along Katella Avenue, between the State College Boulevard and Anaheim Way will need to be undergrounded. The City-owned facilities will be undergrounded using City funds, pursuant to the Rule No. 20 of the City of Anaheim Rates, Rules & Regulations. Some of the facilities along Katella Avenue are owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). Moneys available to underground City-owned facilities may not be used to underground SCE facilities. The interim fee will collect the funds necessary to underground the SCE lines, and thereby significantly improve the appearance of tThe Platinum Triangle. The cost to underground the SCE lines is estimated at $187,505104,775. These funds will be collected by imposing an interim fee on the Mixed-used residential units planned in tThe Platinum Triangle. The formula for calculating the fee is the following: Cost to Underground SCE lines = Per-Unit Fee Number of mixed-use residential units The Per-Unit fee is calculated at: $187,505104,775 = $9.92 11.42 per Unit 18,909 9,175 Units ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT “D-2" GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING FEE Residential Uses: $2448.00 per unit Non-residential Uses: $0.036 per sq. ft. These fees are intended to recover the costs associated with the Platinum Triangle including the designation of portions of the Platinum Triangle for mixed use and office development by the General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form, Zone Reclassifications, all other associated documents and amendments thereto, and all associated environmental documentation. The fees are based upon the following calculations: Costs Consultant Contract Costs: $670,623 (includes costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Planning Department Costs: $456,765 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Public Works Costs: $41,325 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) $1,168,713 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) New Development Allowed in the Platinum Triangle Non-Residential Uses 14,340,522 square feet office development 4,909,682 square feet commercial development + 1,500,000 square feet institutional 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development Residential Uses 18,909 residential units x 800 square feet (estimated average unit size) 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development Total Square Feet 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development + 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development 35,877,404 total square feet of residential and non-residential uses Fees (to be updated with DSEIR Planning and Public Works Costs) $1,168,713 costs = $0.03 per square foot 35,877,404 total square feet Non Residential Uses: $0.03 per square foot Residential Uses: $24.00 per unit ($0.03 x 800 square feet) These fees are intended to recover the costs associated with The Platinum Triangle including costs incurred in the preparation of the following: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts The Platinum Triangle Documents including The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and associated environmental documentation (approved by the City Council in August, 2004); and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 332, which has been prepared to serve as the environmental documentation for activities implementing The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (certified by the City Council on October 25, 2005). Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 334 and an Amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to increase the intensity of commercial, residential, office and institutional land uses in The Platinum Triangle (approved by the City Council on The fees are based upon the following calculations: The Platinum Triangle Documents Fee Contract Costs: $146,000 New Development Allowed in The Platinum Triangle 7,044,300 sq. ft. of non-residential uses 9,175 residential units (assume average unit size of 800 sq. ft. = 7,340,000 sq. ft.) 7,044,300 + 7,340,000 14,384,300 total square feet $146,000/14,393,300 = $.01 per square foot 7,340,000 x $.01 = $73,400 $73,400/9175 = $8 per dwelling unit Residential Uses: $8.00 per unit Commercial/Office Uses: $0.01 per square foot SEIR No. 332 Fee* Contract Costs: $164,730.00 Planning Department Costs FY2004 $110,547.83 Planning Department Costs FY2005 $ 24,492.72 $299,770.55 4,246,522 sq. ft. of commercial/office 5,495,200 sq. ft. of residential use (assume average unit size of 800 sq. ft. 6,869 residential units x 800 sq. ft = 5,495,200) 4,246,522 +5,495,200 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 9,741,722 total square feet (non-residential and residential) $299,770.55/9,741,722 = $.03 per square foot 5,495,200 x $.03 = $164,856 $164,856/6,869 dwelling units = $24.00 per dwelling unit Residential Uses: $24.00 per unit Commercial/Office Uses: $ 0.03 per square foot * Note: The Planning Department Costs represents staff time and materials associated with the preparation of SEIR No. 332 and the square footage listed above reflects the number of allowable PTMU Overlay Zone square feet not entitled at the time SEIR No. 332 was certified. SEIR No. 334 Fee* Contract Costs: $241,293.00 Planning Department Costs $321,724.00 Public Works Department Costs $ 41,325.00 $604,342.00 18,531,215 sq. ft. of non-residential 9,214,400 sq. ft. of residential use (assume average unit size of 800 sq. ft. 11,518 residential units x 800 sq. ft = 9,214,400 sq. ft.) 27,745,615 total square feet (non-residential and residential) $604,342/27,745,615 sq. ft. = $.02 per square foot Residential Uses: $16.00 per unit Non-residential Uses: $ 0.02 per square foot * Note: The Planning and Public Works Department Costs represents staff time and materials associated with the preparation of SEIR No. 334 and the associated amendments to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The square footage listed above reflects the number of allowable PTMU Overlay Zone square feet not entitled at the time SEIR No. 334 was certified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT “D-3" LIBRARY FACILITIES FEE Residential Uses $486.77 per unit The increase of density in tThe Platinum Triangle to an expected population over 27,000 residents requires the inclusion of a library facility in the Platinum Triangle. The library facilities fee includes the cost of the purchase of a 10,000 square foot commercial condominium shell space with 50 assigned parking spaces as well as FF&E and an opening day collection. The projected project cost for a 10,000 square foot library facility in the Platinum Triangle is $8,004,000. The individual unit library impact fee for the Platinum Triangle is now $486.77 per unit. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form – Office District RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92805 (Space Above Line For Recorder's Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RECITALS Section 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Assessment District 1.2 Authorizing Ordinance 1.3 City 1.4 Development 1.5 Development Agreement 1.6 Development Agreement Date 1.7 Development Agreement Statute 1.8 Development Approvals 1.9 Enabling Ordinance 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations 1.11 Final Site Plan 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA 1.13 Interim Development Fees 1.14 Mortgage 1.15 Mortgagee 1.16 Owner 1.17 Parking Areas 1.18 Permitted Development 1.19 Platinum 1.20 Procedures Resolution 1.21 Project 1.22 Property 1.23 Support Commercial Uses 1.24 Term 1.25 Zoning Section 2. TERM Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ii Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES Section 6. PERMITTED DELOPMENT 6.1 Description of Permitted Development 6.2 Parking Areas Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT Section 8. ENFORCEMENT Section 9. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES 9.1 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, and Drainage) 9.1.1 Water Service 9.1.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains 9.2 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities 9.3 Traffic Circulation Improvements Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS Section 12. FEES, TAXES AND ASSESSMENT 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments 12.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee 12.3 Excluded Development 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees 12.3.3 City Processing Fees 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District 12.5 Accounting of Funds 12.6. Imposition of Increased Fees, Taxes or Assessments Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT Section 16. EXISTING USES Section 17. FUTURE APPROVALS 17.1 Basis for Denying or Conditionally Granting Future Approvals 17.2 Standard of Review 17.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District iii Section 18. 18.1 Initiation of Amendment 18.2 Procedure 18.3 Consent 18.4 Amendments 18.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement Section 19. NON-CANCELLATION OF RIGHTS Section 20. BENEFITS TO CITY Section 21. BENEFITS TO OWNER Section 22. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE Section 23. RESERVED 23.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations 23.2 Model Codes 23.3 Public Health and Safety Section 24. CANCELLATION 24.1 Initiation of Cancellation 24.2 Procedure 24.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY Section 25. PERIODIC 25.1 Time for Review 25.2 OWNER's Submission 25.3 25.4 Initiation of Review by City Council Section 26. EVENTS OF DEFAULT 26.1 Defaults by OWNER 26.2 Specific Performance Remedy 26.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy Section 27. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION 27.1 Notice to OWNER 27.2 Public Hearing 27.3 Decision 27.4 Standard of Review 27.5 Implementation 27.6 Schedule for Compliance ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District iv Section 28. ASSIGNMENT 28.1 Right to Assign 28.2 Release upon Transfer Section 29. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS Section 30. GENERAL 30.1 Force Majeure 30.2 Construction of Development Agreement 30.3 Severability 30.4 Cumulative Remedies 30.5 Hold Harmless Agreement 30.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge 30.7 Public Agency Coordination 30.8 Initiative Measures 30.9 Attorneys’ Fees 30.10 No Waiver 30.11 Authority to Execute 30.12 Notice 30.12.1 To OWNER 30.12.2 To CITY 30.13 Captions 30.14 Consent 30.15 Further Actions and Instruments 30.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute 30.17 Governing Law 30.18 Effect on Title 30.19 Mortgagee Protection 30.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure 30.21 Bankruptcy 30.22 Disaffirmance 30.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries 30.24 Project as a Private Undertaking 30.25 Restrictions 30.26 Recitals 30.27 Recordings 30.28 Title Report 30.29 Entire Agreement 30.30 Successors and Assigns 30.31 OWNER’S Title to Property 30.32 Exhibits ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District v LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Legal Description of the Property Exhibit Final Site Plan Exhibit Conditions of Approval Exhibit General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee Exhibit Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations Exhibit Preliminary Title Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND This Development Agreement is entered into this day of , 20__, by and between the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY") and (referred to herein as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority set forth in Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division l of Title 7, Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"). RECITALS This Development Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the Development Agreement Statute, Sections 65864, et seq., of the Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other things: encourage and provide for the development of public facilities in order to support development projects; provide certainty in the approval of development projects in order to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in project costs and encourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which will make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; provide assurance to the applicants of development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to the conditions of approval of such projects and provisions of such development agreements, and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development. B. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Development Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. C. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 setting forth the CITY’s vision for development of the City of Anaheim, and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330, adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plans (“FEIR No. 330"), in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419, amendment of the Zoning Code, and a series of related actions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 2 D. CITY desires that the approximately 820-acre area generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company Easement on the north (hereinafter called the “The “Platinum Triangle") be developed as a combination of high quality industrial, office, commercial and residential uses, as envisioned in the General Plan Amendment. E. In order to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan for tThe Platinum Triangle, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, setting forth the new vision for tThe Platinum Triangle. F. To further implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for tThe Platinum Triangle, the City Council has established tThe Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter the “PTMU Overlay Zone”) consisting of approximately three hundred and eighty-threenine acres within tThe Platinum Triangle as depicted in tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to provide opportunities for high quality well-designed development projects that could be stand-alone projects or combine residential with non-residential uses including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the area. G. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, adopting a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the updated and modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A (“FSEIR No. 332”) to provide for the implementation of tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036 and a series of related actions. H. On April 22, the Anaheim City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00454 2008-00471 and approved an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188) and certified EIR No. 2006-00334 2008-00339, to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in The Platinum Triangle the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,363 18,909 dwelling units, increase the maximum number of commercial square footage to 5,657,847 4,909,682, increase the maximum number of office square footage to 16,519,015 14,340,522 and add 1,500,000 square feet of square footage of institutional land uses. I. OWNER represents that it owns in fee approximately acres of real property located at in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange (hereinafter "County"), State of California, (hereinafter collectively called the “Property") in tThe Platinum Triangle and zoned PTMU Overlay and more particularly shown and described on Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. J. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement by developing a all ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 3 as more particularly set forth in the Final Site Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Project"). K. CITY desires to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in the CITY's General Plan and the objectives for the PTMU Overlay Zone as set forth in subsection 18.20.010.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and finds that the Project will accomplish said goals and objectives. L. Pursuant to the Final Site Plan, OWNER will submit tentative maps and/or vesting tentative maps, if required. OWNER further anticipates the submission of detailed construction plans and other documentation required by CITY in order for the OWNER to obtain its building permits. M. As consideration for the benefits gained from the vested rights acquired pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, to conform with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone, and to comply with the applicable mitigation measures imposed by Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 CB and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. for the Project, CITY is requiring that OWNER construct and install certain public improvements, including off-site traffic circulation improvements, and provide other public benefits. N. In order to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes which may arise from time to time between OWNER and CITY concerning the proposed development of the Project and to assure each party of the intention of the other as to the processing of any land use entitlements which now or hereafter may be required for such development, the parties believe it is desirable to set forth their intentions and understandings in this Development Agreement. In order for both CITY and OWNER to achieve their respective objectives, it is imperative that each be as certain as possible that OWNER will develop and that CITY will permit OWNER to develop the Project and public improvements as approved by CITY within the time periods provided in this Development Agreement. O. CITY, as a charter city, has enacted Ordinance No. 4377 on November 23, 1982, which makes CITY subject to the Development Agreement Statute. Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, CITY adopted Resolution No. 82R-565 (the "Procedures Resolution") on November 23, 1982. The Procedures Resolution establishes procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon receipt of an application. P. On as required by Section 1.0 of the Procedures Resolution, OWNER submitted to the Planning Department an application for approval of a development agreement (hereinafter called the "Application"). The Application included a proposed development agreement (the "Proposed Development Agreement"). Q. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the Planning Director gave public notice of the City Planning Commission's intention to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of a development agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 4 R. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application. S. On that date, the City Planning Commission, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, found and determined and recommended that the City Council find that previously-certified FSEIR No. 3394, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106BC for tThe Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. T. The Planning Commission further found that the Development Agreement meets the following standards set forth in Section 2.3 of the Procedures Resolution, to wit, that the Proposed Project: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan, (ii) is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the applicable zoning district, (iii) is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area, and (iv) is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY. Based upon the aforesaid findings, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Application and this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. PC U. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Clerk caused public notice to be given of the City Council's intention to consider adoption of a development agreement. V. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Council held a public hearing on the Application. W. On that date, the City Council, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, did find and determined that previously-certified FSEIR No. 334 339, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106BC for tThe Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. X. On the City Council did find and determined that this Development Agreement: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan; (ii) is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY; (iii) is ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 5 entered into pursuant to and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) is entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. Y. In preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, CITY considered the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of CITY and prepared in this regard an extensive environmental impact report and other studies. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, the City Council carefully considered and determined the projected needs (taking into consideration the planned development of the Project and all other areas within the CITY) for water service, sewer service, storm drains, electrical facilities, traffic/circulation infrastructure, police and fire services, paramedic and similar improvements, facilities and services within tThe Platinum Triangle, and the appropriateness of the density and intensity of the development comprising the Project and the needs of the CITY and surrounding areas for other infrastructure. Z. On the City Council adopted the Authorizing Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution of this Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Statute, as it applies to CITY, and pursuant to the Enabling Ordinance, the Procedures Resolution and the CITY's inherent powers as a charter city, and pursuant to the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement, and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1 Assessment District. "Assessment District" for purposes of this Development Agreement means a special district, assessment district or benefit area existing pursuant to State law or the charter powers of the CITY for purposes of financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a distinct geographic area of the CITY. l.2 Authorizing Ordinance. The "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement. l.3 CITY. The "CITY" means the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of California. l.4 Development. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for purposes of effecting the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 6 whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping. 1.5 Development Agreement. “Development Agreement” means this Development Agreement and any subsequent amendments to this Development Agreement which have been made in compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement, the Development Agreement Statute, the Enabling Ordinance, and the Procedures Resolution. 1.6 Development Agreement Date. The "Development Agreement Date" means the later of the date of recordation in the office of the County Recorder of this Development Agreement, or a memorandum thereof, or (ii) the effective date of the Authorizing Ordinance. l.7 Development Agreement Statute. The "Development Agreement Statute" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Development Agreement Date. 1.8 Development Approvals. "Development Approvals" means the Final Site Plan and all site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use, of every kind and nature, contemplated by the Final Site Plan which are approved or granted by CITY in connection with development of the Property, including, but not limited to: site plans (including Final Site Plans), tentative and final subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits and grading, building and other similar permits. To the extent any of such site plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use are amended from time to time, "Development Approvals" shall include, if OWNER and CITY agree in writing, such matters as so amended. If this Development Agreement is required by law to be amended in order for "Development Approvals" to include any such amendments, "Development Approvals" shall not include such amendments unless and until this Development Agreement is so amended. 1.9 Enabling Ordinance. The "Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 4377 enacted by the CITY on November 23, 1982. 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations. “Existing Land Use Regulations” mean the ordinances and regulations adopted by the City of Anaheim in effect on the Effective Date, including the adopting ordinances and regulations that govern the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use, and the design, improvement, construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, including, but not limited to, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, tThe Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106CB and Mitigation Monitoring Plan Program No. and all other ordinances of the City establishing subdivision standards, park regulations, impact or development fees and building and improvement standards, but only to the extent the Zoning Code and such other regulations are not inconsistent with this Development Agreement. Existing Land Use Regulations do not include a non-land use regulation, including taxes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 7 1.11 Final Site Plan. The "Final Site Plan" means the Project as described in this Development Agreement and conditions with respect thereto, as set forth as Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA. "Gross Floor Area" or "GFA" means the gross floor area of any buildings which are part of the Permitted Development. 1.13 Interim Development Fees. "Interim Development Fees" are the fees imposed within tThe Platinum Triangle pending adoption of permanent fee programs by the City as set forth in Paragraph 12.2 of this Agreement. 1.14 Mortgage. "Mortgage" means a mortgage, deed of trust or sale and leaseback arrangement or other transaction in which the Property, or a portion thereof or an interest therein, is pledged as security. 1.15 Mortgagee. "Mortgagee" means the holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or the owner of the Property, or interest therein, under a Mortgage. 1.16 OWNER. "OWNER" is and any person or entity with which or into which may merge, and any person or entity who may acquire substantially all of the assets of and any person or entity who receives any of the rights or obligations of under this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 (Assignment) of this Development Agreement. 1.17 Parking Areas. The "Parking Areas" means all parking structure(s), and/or all surface parking servicing the Project. 1.18 Permitted Development. "Permitted Development" includes all buildings and other development, such as, the Parking Areas as identified in Section 6 of this Development Agreement, and as further set forth in the Final Site Plan. This Development Agreement establishes maximum and minimum characteristics for all Permitted Development as set forth in the Final Site Plan. 1.19 Platinum Triangle. "The Platinum Triangle" means that portion of the City of Anaheim generally bounded on the east by the Santa Ana River, on the south by the Anaheim city limits, on the west by the Santa Ana Freeway, and on the north by the Southern California Edison Easement. 1.20 Procedures Resolution. The "Procedures Resolution" is Resolution No. 82R-565 adopted by CITY pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute. 1.21 Project. The "Project" means the development project contemplated by the approved Final Site Plan with respect to the Property, including but not limited to on-site and off-site improvements, as such development project is further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 8 1.22 Property. The "Property" means that certain real property shown and described on Exhibit to this Development Agreement. 1.23 Support Commercial Uses. "Support Commercial Uses" are commercial\retail uses which may include retail uses, banking or financial offices, food service, restaurants, service establishments and other similar uses in keeping with the nature of the Project and the required uses needed to support the occupants of office buildings, other office development, sports and entertainment venues and residential development in tThe Platinum Triangle. 1.24 Term. "Term" is defined in Section 2 of this Development Agreement. 1.25 Zoning Code. "Zoning Code" refers to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Section 2. TERM. 2.1 The term of this Development Agreement (hereinafter called "Term") shall be that period of time during which this Development Agreement shall be in effect and bind the parties hereto. The Term shall commence on the Development Agreement Date and shall extend for a period of five years thereafter, terminating at the end of the day on the fifth anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, subject to the periodic review and modification or termination provisions defined in Section 25 and Section 27, respectively, of this Development Agreement, and further subject to a reasonable extension for completion of the Project in accordance with the Timing of Development schedule set forth in Section 15 of this Development Agreement. 2.2 This Development Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of a final order, after all appeals have been exhausted, from a court with applicable jurisdiction directing CITY to set aside, withdraw or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Development Agreement or if termination occurs pursuant to the provisions of the Procedures Resolution and such termination is so intended thereby. 2.3 If not already terminated by reason of any other provision in this Development Agreement, or for any other reason, this Development Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect upon completion of the Project in its entirety pursuant to the terms of this Development Agreement and the issuance of all occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY of all dedications and improvements as required by the development of the Project. Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS. The provisions of this Development Agreement to the extent permitted by law shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this Development Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 9 Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT. As a material part of the consideration of this Development Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the parties agree that the Existing Land Use Regulations shall be applicable to development of the Project. In connection with all subsequent discretionary actions by CITY required to implement the Final Site Plan and any discretionary actions which CITY takes or has the right to take under this Development Agreement relating to the Project, including any review, approval, renewal, conditional approval or denial, CITY, shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Final Site Plan, the Existing Land Use Regulations and such other standards, terms and conditions expressly contained in this Development Agreement. CITY shall accept and timely process, in the normal manner for processing such matters as may then be applicable, all applications for further approvals with respect to the Project called for or required under this Development Agreement, including, any necessary site plan, tentative and final subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps and any grading, construction, building and other similar permits filed by OWNER in accordance with the Development Approvals. Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES. 5.1 The Property shall be used for such uses as may be permitted by the Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. The Term, the density and intensity of use, developable GFA, footprint square footage, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and structures, lot sizes, set back requirements, zoning, public improvements, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Approvals, the Existing Land Use Regulations and this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.2 of the Development Agreement Statute. Section 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT. 6.1 Description of Permitted Development. The Permitted Development shall be as set forth on the Final Site Plan. The Project shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. 6.2 Parking Areas. The Parking Areas shall be constructed so that there will be sufficient parking spaces available within the Property to serve the Project, as depicted and substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Owner shall record a covenant against the property in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office that requires Owner and its heirs, assignees and successor-in-interests to reimburse the City for the full cost associated with the use of any Police Department and/or Traffic Management Center staff that may be needed for traffic control purposes related to the use of Parking Areas for public parking in connection with events in the Platinum Triangle, including events at Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, or the Grove of Anaheim. Prior to commencement of construction of the first building within the project, Owner shall restrict the use of the Parking Areas to tenants, visitors, patrons, invitees and other users of the permitted buildings, and shall record a covenant against the property in a form approved by the City Attorney stating that the use of the Parking ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 10 Areas shall be limited in that manner. Said covenant shall also provide that the Parking Areas shall not be used to provide public parking for patrons of Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim or Honda Center without the prior written agreement between the OWNER and CITY relating to such parking. Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT. The Permitted Development shall be between the minimum and maximum sizes, and shall not exceed the maximum heights and maximum footprints set forth on the Final Site Plan. Section 8. ENFORCEMENT. Unless this Development Agreement is terminated or cancelled pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement or any amendment hereto, shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or building ordinance adopted by CITY which alters or amends the rules, regulations or policies of Development of the Project as provided in this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.4 of the Development Agreement Statute; provided, however, that the limitations of this Section shall not apply to changes mandated by State or Federal laws or other permissible changes or new regulations as more particularly set forth in Section 23 of this Development Agreement. Section 9 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES. In addition to performing any other obligations heretofore imposed as conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit as material consideration for the CITY's entering into this Development Agreement, OWNER shall undertake the construction and installation of the following public improvements required to support the Project and to enhance area-wide traffic circulation and emergency police and fire protection service within the time periods as set forth below and in conformance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. CITY shall cooperate with OWNER for the purpose of coordinating all public improvements constructed under the Development Approvals or this Development Agreement to existing or newly constructed public improvements, whether located within or outside of the Property. OWNER shall be responsible for and use good faith efforts to acquire any right(s)-of-way necessary to construct the public facility improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement or any Development Approvals. Should it become necessary due to OWNER's failure or inability to acquire said right(s)-of-way within four months after OWNER begins its efforts to so acquire said right(s)-of-way, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary right(s)-of-way to construct the public improvements as required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement and, if necessary in accordance with the procedures established by State law, and the limitations hereinafter set forth in this Section, CITY may use its powers of eminent domain to condemn said required right(s)-of way. OWNER agrees to pay for all costs associated with said acquisition and condemnation proceedings. If the CITY cannot make the proper findings or if for some other reason under the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 11 condemnation laws CITY is prevented from acquiring the necessary right(s)-of-way to enable OWNER to construct the public improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement, then the parties agree to amend this Development Agreement to modify OWNER's obligations accordingly. Any such required modification shall involve the substitution of other considerations or obligations by OWNER (of similar value) as are negotiated in good faith between the parties hereto. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to constitute a determination or resolution of necessity by CITY to initiate condemnation proceedings. 9.1 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, and Drainage). OWNER shall construct the public improvements necessary for the provision of requisite water, electrical, gas, sewer and drainage requirements for Project as more fully set forth in the Development Approvals. OWNER shall construct and relocate utilities as may be required to provide services to the Permitted Development on the Property or that are displaced by the construction of the Permitted Development. As OWNER submits detailed construction plans in order to obtain building permits for a Permitted Development and/or the size and nature of the Project varies, the utilities that OWNER will construct or relocate may be revised accordingly by the CITY. 9.1.1 Water Service. OWNER will provide engineering studies to size the water mains for ultimate development within the Project. Said engineering studies will be conducted prior to rendering of water service or signature approval of the final water improvement plans, whichever occurs first. The studies shall be subject to the approval of the General Manager, Public Utilities Department or authorized designee. Alternatively, at OWNER’S election, the water system may be constructed incrementally, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide municipal demands and fire flow protection for the proposed development phasing. OWNER will conform with Rule 15D of the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA and the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. OWNER shall be entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the terms of Rule l5D for the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. 9.1.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains. Prior to final building and zoning inspections for the first building within the Permitted Development, OWNER will construct all sanitary sewers, storm drains, and appurtenant structures (including treatment control BMP’s as required by the WQMP) to serve the ultimate development of the Property as provided by areawide engineering studies to be conducted prior to issuance of any building permits for the first building within the Permitted Development and updated prior to the issuance of any building permits for each subsequent building within the Permitted Development. All studies shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. OWNER will construct improvements identified in said studies. The systems may be constructed incrementally subject to the approval of the City Engineer, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide capacity for the proposed development phasing. 9.2 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities. The phasing and sequence of the construction of public improvements and facilities or the payment of fees ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 12 therefor shall be constructed or paid in accordance with the timing, phasing and sequence set forth in this Development Agreement and the Final Site Plan. 9.3 Traffic Circulation Improvements. In order to assist CITY in providing for area-wide traffic circulation as required by this Project, OWNER shall cause to be made the traffic circulation improvements identified for the Project including all applicable measures from the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106BC approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 334339, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. and as shown on the Final Site Plan. Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION. In the event OWNER is required to construct public improvements which are supplemental to the requirements of the Project for the benefit of other properties, CITY will work with OWNER to establish mechanisms for proportional reimbursement from owners of the benefited properties. All costs associated with establishing said mechanisms shall be paid by OWNER. Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, OWNER shall irrevocably offer for dedication the rights-of-way, including the public connector streets, collector streets and Market Street, if applicable, and other areas as more fully set forth in the Final Site Plan. These dedications shall be in fee or as an easement at the discretion of CITY, and upon completion and acceptance by CITY of the associated improvements in compliance with the specifications as approved by CITY, CITY shall accept OWNER's offer of dedication. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement, however, shall be deemed to preclude CITY from exercising the power of eminent domain with respect to the Property or the Project, or any part thereof. Section 12. FEES, TAXES, AND ASSESSMENTS. 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments. OWNER shall be responsible for the payment of fees in the amount and at the times set forth in the Existing Land Use Regulations, as said amounts and timing may be modified in accordance with this Development Agreement. 12.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee. OWNER will pay a processing fee prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project attributable to the cost of creating and establishing the Master Land Use Plan and the PTMU Overlay Zone for tThe Platinum Triangle, as well as the costs of associated environmental documentation, as said additional costs are set forth in Exhibit 12.3 Excluded Development Fees. The following fees shall not be included among the fees which would otherwise fall within the definition of Existing Land Use Regulations: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 13 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all applicable fees in accordance with the Water Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service including Rule 15D which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA to construct the necessary water facility improvements within tThe Platinum Triangle. 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all fees in accordance with the Electrical Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service. 12.3.3 City Processing Fees. OWNER shall pay all standard City-wide processing fees for building permits, zoning review, and other similar fees associated with the Development of the Project which are in existence at the time of approval of this Development Agreement at the rate in existence at the time said fees are normally required to be paid to CITY. 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District. Prior to the date a building or grading permit is issued relating to implementation of the Final Site Plan, or within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this Development Agreement, whichever occurs first, OWNER shall execute and record an unsubordinated covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office wherein OWNER agrees not to contest the formation of any assessment district(s) which may be formed to finance Platinum Triangle infrastructure and/or maintenance, which district(s) could include the Property. The covenant shall not preclude OWNER from contesting the determination of benefit of such improvements to the Property, (ii) the properties included in said district or area, (iii) the manner in which said fee is determined or (iv) the manner in which said improvement costs are spread. 12.5 Accounting of Funds. CITY will comply with applicable requirements of Government Code Section 65865 relating to accounting of funds. 12.6 Imposition of Increased Fees Taxes or Assessments. Except as expressly set forth or reserved in this Development Agreement, CITY shall not, without the prior written consent of OWNER, impose any additional fee, tax or assessment on the Project or any portion thereof as a condition to the implementation of the Project or any portion thereof, except such fees, taxes and assessments as are described in or required by this Development Agreement, including the Existing Land Use Regulations or the Development Approvals. The rates of such fees, taxes and assessments shall be the rates in existence at the time said fees, taxes and assessments are normally required to be paid to CITY, except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit CITY from imposing fees, taxes or assessments on the Property which are unrelated to the approval or implementation of the Project. Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS. In consideration for CITY entering into this Development Agreement and other consideration set forth in this Agreement, OWNER agrees to record unsubordinated covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the Property in a form and content satisfactory to the Planning Director, City Engineer and the City Attorney incorporating the requirements and ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 14 obligations set forth in Exhibit to this Agreement, entitled the “Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations.” Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES. OWNER consents to, and waives any right it may have now or in the future to challenge the legal validity of the conditions, requirements, policies or programs required by Existing Land Use Regulations or this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT. Timing of Development shall be as set forth in the Final Site Plan. Section 16. EXISTING USES. CITY and OWNER agree that those existing legally established uses on the Property may be retained until the Project is implemented. Section 1716. FUTURE APPROVALS. 1716.1 Basis for Denying or Conditional Granting Future Approvals. Before OWNER can begin grading on the Property or other development of the Property, OWNER must secure several additional permits and/or approvals from CITY. The parties agree that to the extent said Development Approvals are ministerial in nature, CITY shall not, through the enactment or enforcement of any subsequent ordinances, rules, regulations, initiatives, policies, requirements, guidelines, or other constraints, withhold such approvals as a means of blocking construction or of imposing conditions on the Project which were not imposed during an earlier approval period unless CITY has been ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, CITY and OWNER will use their best efforts to ensure each other that all applications for and approvals of grading permits, building permits or other developmental approvals necessary for OWNER to develop the Project in accordance with the Final Site Plan are sought and processed in a timely manner. 1716.2 Standard of Review. The rules, regulations and policies that apply to any additional Development Approvals which OWNER must secure prior to the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations, as defined in this Development Agreement. 1716.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan. Future amendments to all or a portion of the Final Site Plan which increase the intensity or density of the Development of the Property, or change the permitted uses of the Property, and are not among those described in Section 17.4 of this Development Agreement may subject the portion or portions of the Project being amended ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 15 or affected by the amendment to any change in the CITY's General Plan, zoning designations and rules applicable to the Property and further environmental review and possible mitigation of adverse impacts under CEQA in effect at the time of such amendment. Any such amendment to the Final Site Plan shall be processed concurrently with the processing of an amendment to this Development Agreement. It is the desire and intent of both parties, except as set forth herein, that any such future amendment of the Final Site Plan will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Development Agreement with respect to those portions of the Final Site Plan that have not been amended. Section 18l7. AMENDMENT. 1817.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either party may propose an amendment to this Development Agreement. 1817.2 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 17.4 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution. 1817.3 Consent. Except as provided elsewhere within this Development Agreement, any amendment to this Development Agreement shall require the consent of both parties. No amendment of this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party hereto. 1817.4 Amendments. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Development Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development of the Project and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Development Agreement. If and when the parties find that changes or adjustments are necessary or appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Development Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments as specified in the Development Approvals. 1817.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement. The parties agree that except as expressly set forth in any such amendment, an amendment to this Development Agreement will not alter, affect, impair, modify, waive or otherwise impact any other rights, duties or obligations of either party under this Development Agreement. Section 19 l8. NON-CANCELLATION RIGHTS. Subject to defeasance pursuant to Sections 24, 25 or 26 of this Development Agreement, the Final Site Plan and other Development Approvals as provided for in this Development Agreement shall be final and the rights once granted thereby shall be vested in the Property upon recordation of this Development Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 16 Section 20 19. BENEFITS TO CITY. The direct and indirect benefits CITY (including, without limitation, the existing and future anticipated residents of CITY) expects to receive pursuant to this Development Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following: a, The participation of OWNER in the accelerated, coordinated and more economic construction, funding and dedication to the public, as provided in this Development Agreement, of certain of the vitally needed on-site and area-wide public improvements and facilities, and assurances that the entire Project will be developed as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement in order to encourage development of tThe Platinum Triangle; and b. The considerations set forth in Sections 9 and 11 of this Development Agreement. Section 21 20. BENEFITS TO OWNER. OWNER has expended and will continue to expend large amounts of time and money on the planning and infrastructure construction for the Project. OWNER asserts that OWNER would not make any additional expenditures, or the advanced expenditures required by this Development Agreement, without this Development Agreement and that any additional expenditures which OWNER makes after the Development Agreement Date will be made in reliance upon this Development Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Development Agreement provides for the completion of public improvements and facilities prior to the time when they would be justified economically in connection with the phasing of the Project, and of a size which would be justified only by the magnitude of the Project provided for by the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The benefit to OWNER under this Development Agreement consists of the assurance that OWNER will preserve the right to develop the Property as planned and as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to CITY pursuant to this Development Agreement are in consideration for and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. Section 2221. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE. The mutual undertakings and assurances described above and provided for in this Development Agreement are for the benefit of CITY and OWNER and promote the comprehensive planning, private and public cooperation and participation in the provision of public facilities, and the effective and efficient development of infrastructure and facilities supporting development which was contemplated and promoted by the Development Agreement Statute. CITY agrees that it will not take any actions which are intended to circumvent this Development Agreement; provided, however, that any action of the electorate shall not be deemed an action for purposes of this Section. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 17 Section 2322. RESERVED AUTHORITY. 2322.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. In the event that the State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the this Development Agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the Development Agreement, such provisions of the Development Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt or undertake any rule, regulation or policy which is inconsistent with this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that such rule, regulation or policy is reasonably necessary to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations. 2322.2 Model Codes. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from applying new rules, regulations and policies contained in model codes, including, but not limited to, the Anaheim Building Code as adopted in Title 15, Section 15.02. 2322.3 Public Health and Safety. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from adopting new rules, regulations and policies, including amendments or modifications to model codes described in Section 22.2 of this Development Agreement which directly result from findings by CITY that failure to adopt such rules, regulations or policies would result in a condition injurious or detrimental to the public health and safety. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt any such rules, regulations or policies which prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that those rules, regulations or policies are reasonably necessary to correct or avoid such injurious or detrimental condition. Section 2423. CANCELLATION. 2423.1 Initiation of Cancellation. Either party may propose cancellation of this Development Agreement. 2423.2 Procedure. The procedure for canceling this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution and Section 65868 of the Government Code. 2423.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY. Any cancellation of this Development Agreement shall require the mutual consent of OWNER and CITY. Section 2524. PERIODIC REVIEW. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 18 2524.1 Time for Review. CITY shall, at least every twelve (12) months after the Development Agreement Date, review the extent of good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Development Agreement. OWNER's failure to comply with the phasing schedules set forth in the Final Site Plan combined with OWNER’s failure to explain the reason for said non-compliance shall constitute rebuttable evidence of OWNER's lack of good faith compliance with this Development Agreement. Such periodic review shall determine compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1 and other successor laws and regulations. 2524.2 OWNER's Submission. Each year, not less than forty-five (45) days nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of its good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall notify the City Council in writing that such evidence is being submitted to CITY pursuant to the requirements of Section 6.2 of the Procedures Resolution. OWNER shall pay to CITY a reasonable processing fee in an amount as CITY may reasonably establish from time to time on each occasion that OWNER submits its evidence for a periodic review. 2524.3 Findings. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine, on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non- compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such end. If during the cure period, OWNER fails to cure such noncompliance or is not making reasonable good faith progress towards such end, and then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 26 of this Development Agreement. 2524.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the periodic review set forth in this Development Agreement, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Development Agreement upon the giving of written notice thereof to OWNER. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Development Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the manner as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Section 2625. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. 2625.1 Defaults by OWNER. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine on the basis of substantial evidence, ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 19 whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non-compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such end. If during the cure period OWNER fails to cure such non-compliance or is not making reasonable progress towards such end, then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 26 of this Development Agreement. 2625.2 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre-existing condition once implementation of this Development Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Development Agreement and will be investing even more significant time in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Development Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, CITY and OWNER agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement. Therefore, specific performance of this Development Agreement is the only remedy which would compensate OWNER if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, and CITY hereby agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to specific performance in the event of a default by CITY hereunder. CITY and OWNER acknowledge that, if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, CITY shall have the right to refuse to issue any permits or other approvals which OWNER would otherwise have been entitled to pursuant to this Development Agreement. If CITY issues a permit or other approval pursuant to this Development Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, CITY shall be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing OWNER to satisfy such condition. The CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner. 2625.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy. The parties hereto agree that this Development Agreement creates an obligation and duty upon OWNER to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein. In the event OWNER breaches this Development Agreement by failing to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein, the parties further agree that CITY will suffer actual damages as a result thereof, the amount of which is uncertain and would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix; therefore, OWNER agrees to pay CITY, in the event of ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 20 any such breach by OWNER, the sum One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) as liquidated and actual damages, which sum shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY as result of such breach pursuant to this Section 25. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 21 Section 2726. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION. If pursuant to Section 24 and 25 of this Development Agreement, CITY elects to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a revised time schedule for compliance as herein provided, then CITY shall proceed as set forth in this Section. 2726.1 Notice to OWNER. CITY shall give notice to OWNER of City Council's intention to proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance within ten (10) days of making the CITY’s findings. 2726.2 Public Hearing. The City Council shall set and give notice of a public hearing on modification, termination or a time schedule for compliance to be held within forty (40) days after the City Council gives notice to OWNER. 2726.3 Decision. The City Council shall announce its findings and decisions on whether this Development Agreement is to be terminated, how this Development Agreement is to be modified or the provisions of the Development Agreement with which OWNER must comply and a time schedule therefor not than ten (10) days following completion of the public hearing. 2726.4 Standard of Review. Any determination by CITY to terminate this Development Agreement because OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Development Agreement must be based upon a finding by the City Council, based on the preponderance of evidence, that OWNER is in default and has not cured that default in the timeframe permitted by Sections 24 and 25 above, as applicable. 2726.5 Implementation. Amending or terminating this Development Agreement shall be accomplished by CITY enacting an ordinance. The ordinance shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of the CITY, make the amendment or termination of this Development Agreement necessary. Not later then ten (10) days following the adoption of the ordinance, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. This Development Agreement shall be terminated or this Development Agreement as modified shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance terminating or modifying this Development Agreement. 2726.5 Schedule for Compliance. Setting a reasonable time schedule for compliance with this Development Agreement may be accomplished by CITY enacting a resolution. The resolution shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of CITY, make it advisable to set a schedule for compliance and why the time schedule is reasonable. Not later than ten (10) days following adoption of the resolution, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. Compliance with any time schedule so established as an alternative to modification or termination shall be subject to periodic review as provided in this Development Agreement and lack of good faith compliance by OWNER with the time schedule shall be basis for termination or modification of this Development Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 22 Section 2827. ASSIGNMENT. 2827.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer this Development Agreement, and any and all of its rights, duties and obligations hereunder, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, provided that any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of the interest of OWNER in the Property, or a portion thereof. In the event of any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, OWNER shall notify CITY of such event and the name of the transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such transferee and the agreement between OWNER and such transferee shall provide that either OWNER or the transferee or both shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of OWNER pursuant to this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. Such transferee and/or OWNER shall notify CITY in writing which entity shall be liable for the performance of such obligations, and upon the express written assumption of any or all of the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement by such assignee, transferee or purchaser shall, without any act of or concurrence by CITY, relieve OWNER of its legal duty to perform said obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property or portion thereof, so transferred, except to the extent OWNER is not in default under the terms of this Development Agreement. 2827.2 Release Upon Transfer. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the Property may be subdivided following the Development Agreement Date. One or more of such subdivided parcels may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned or transferred to persons for development by them in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement. Effective upon such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, the obligations of OWNER shall become several and not joint, except as to OWNER’s obligations set forth in Section 9 of this Development Agreement. Upon the sale, transfer, or assignment of OWNER's rights and interests under this Development Agreement as permitted pursuant to the Section 27.1 above, OWNER shall be released from its obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof so transferred, provided that OWNER is not then in default under this Development Agreement, OWNER has provided to CITY the notice of such transfer specified in Section 27.1 above, the transferee executes and delivers to CITY a written agreement in which the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (ii) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals with respect to the property, or portion thereof, so transferred and the transferee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement or the Development Approvals. Non-compliance by any such transferee with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement shall not be deemed a default hereunder or grounds for termination hereof or constitute cause for CITY to initiate enforcement action against other persons then owning or holding interest in the Property or any portion thereof and not themselves in default hereunder. Upon completion of any phase of development of the Project as determined by CITY, CITY may release that completed phase from any further obligations under this Development Agreement. The provisions of this Section ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 23 shall be self-executing and shall not require the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument. Any and all successors, assigns and transferees of OWNER shall have all of the same rights, benefits and obligations of OWNER as used in this Development Agreement and the term "OWNER" as used in this Development Agreement shall refer to any such successors, assigns and transferees unless expressly provided herein to the contrary. Section 29 28. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, OWNER is obtaining vested rights to proceed with the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, and in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Approvals. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, CITY is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and general welfare. CITY therefore agrees that except as provided in Section 22 of this Development Agreement, neither the City Council nor any other agency of CITY shall enact a rule, regulation, ordinance or other measure which relates to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and which is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement. Section 3029. GENERAL. 3029.1 Force Majeure. The Term of this Development Agreement and the time within which OWNER shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably by strikes, lock-outs, Acts of God, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, initiative or referenda, moratoria, enemy action, civil disturbances, fire, unavoidable casualties, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of OWNER. 3029.2 Construction of Development Agreement. The language in all parts of this Development Agreement shall in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of constructions. This Development Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of CITY, and in particular, the CITY’s police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY’s governmental powers over the Property. 3029.3 Severability. If any provision of this Development Agreement shall be adjudged to be invalid, void or unenforceable, such provision shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof, unless such judgment affects a material part of this Development Agreement, the parties hereby agree that they would have entered into the remaining portions of ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 24 this Development Agreement not adjudged to be invalid, void or illegal. In the event that all or any portion of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable shall be deemed to be a statement of intention by the parties; and the parties further agree that in such event they shall take all steps necessary to comply with such public hearings and/or notice requirements as may be necessary in order to make valid this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Development Agreement, in the event that any material provision of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, void or voidable, OWNER or CITY may terminate this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. 3029.4 Cumulative Remedies. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, relief in the nature of mandamus and actions for damages. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. 3029.5 Hold Harmless Agreement. OWNER and CITY hereby mutually agree to, and shall hold each other, each other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissions, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, and from claims for property damage which may arise from the activities of the other's or the other's contractors', subcontractors', agents’, or employees' which relate to the Project whether such activities be by OWNER or CITY, or by any of the OWNER’s or the CITY’s contractors, subcontractors, or by any one or more persons indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for OWNER any of the OWNER's or the CITY's contractors or subcontractors. OWNER and CITY agree to and shall defend the other and the other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissioners, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees from any suits or actions at law or in equity for damage caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the aforementioned activities which relate to the Project. 3029.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement and/or the Development Approvals, the parties hereby agree to cooperate fully with each other in defending said action and the validity of each provision of this Development Agreement, however, OWNER shall be liable for all legal expenses and costs incurred in defending any such action. OWNER shall be entitled to choose legal counsel to defend against any such legal action and shall pay any attorneys' fees awarded against CITY or OWNER, or both, resulting from any such legal action. OWNER shall be entitled to any award of attorneys' fees arising out of any such legal action. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 25 3029.7 Public Agency Coordination. CITY and OWNER shall cooperate and use their respective best efforts in coordinating the implementation of the Development Approvals with other public agencies, if any, having jurisdiction over the Property or the Project. 3029.8 Initiative Measures. Both CITY and OWNER intend that this Development Agreement is a legally binding contract which will supersede any initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use approved, issued or granted within the CITY, or portions of the CITY, and which Agreement shall apply to the Project to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement. Should an initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance, or other limitation be enacted by the citizens of CITY which would preclude construction of all or any part of the Project, and to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate or prevail over all or any part of this Development Agreement, OWNER shall have no recourse against CITY pursuant to the Development Agreement, but shall retain all other rights, claims and causes of action under this Development Agreement not so invalidated and any and all other rights, claims and causes of action as law or in equity which OWNER may have independent of this Development Agreement with respect to the project. The foregoing shall not be deemed to limit OWNER's right to appeal any such determination that such initiative, measure, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation invalidates or prevails over all or any part of this Development Agreement. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Development Agreement in full force and effect, provided OWNER shall reimburse CITY for its out-of-pocket expenses incurred directly in connection with such cooperation and CITY shall not be obligated to institute a lawsuit or other court proceedings in this connection. 3029.9 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute between the parties involving the covenants or conditions contained in this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs. 3029.10 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of non- performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 3029.11 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Development Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Development Agreement on behalf of his/her partnership and represents that he/she has the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of OWNER's obligations hereunder. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 26 3029.12 Notice. 3029.12.1 To OWNER. Any notice required or permitted to be given by CITY to OWNER under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing and delivered personally to an officer of OWNER or mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed; to OWNER as follows: Attention: or such changed address as OWNER shall designate in writing to CITY. 3029.12.2 To CITY. Any notice required or permitted to be given to CITY under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be made and given in writing, if by mail addressed to: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 With copies to: City Manager City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 City Attorney City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 or such changed address as CITY shall designate in writing to OWNER. Alternatively, notices to CITY may also be personally delivered to the City Clerk, at the Anaheim Civic Center, 200 S. Anaheim. Blvd., Anaheim, California, together with copies marked for the City Manager and the City Attorney or, if so addressed and mailed, with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City Council in care of the City Clerk at the above address with copies likewise so mailed to the City Manager and the City Attorney, respectively and also in care of the City Clerk at the same address. The provisions of this Section shall be deemed permissive only and shall not detract from the validity of any notice given in a manner which would be legally effective in the absence of this Section. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 27 3029.13 Captions. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. 3029.14 Consent. Any consent required by the parties in carrying out the terms of this Development agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld. 3029.15 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement. 3029.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute in effect as of the Development Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 22.1 above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Development Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Development Agreement unless necessary for this Development Agreement to be enforceable or unless this Development Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Development Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Development Agreement Date. 3029.17 Governing Law. This Development Agreement, including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 3029.18 Effect on Title. OWNER and CITY agree that this Development Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Development Agreement has terminated. 3029.19 Mortgagee Protection. Entering into or a breach of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of Mortgagees having a mortgage on any portion of the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform OWNER's obligations, or to guarantee such performance prior to any foreclosure or deed in lieu thereof. 3029.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee, Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If the City Clerk timely receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 28 OWNER under the terms of this Development Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, for a period up to ninety (90) days after the receipt of such notice from CITY to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy the default unless a further extension of time to cure is granted in writing by CITY. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall seek to obtain possession with diligence and continually through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure the default or non- compliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any such default or non- compliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such default or non-compliance if such Mortgagee commences cure during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure. 3029.21 Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Section 29.20 of this Development Agreement, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or pursues and prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving CITY, the times specified in this Section for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. 3029.22 Disaffirmance. 29.22.1 CITY agrees that in the event of termination of this Agreement by reason of any default by CITY, or by reason of the disaffirmance hereof by a receiver, liquidator or trustee for OWNER or its property, CITY, if requested by any Mortgagee, shall enter into a new Development Agreement for the Project with the most senior Mortgagee requesting such new agreement, for the remainder of the Term, effective as of the date of such termination, upon the terms, provisions, covenants and agreements as herein contained to the extent and subject to the law then in effect, and subject to the rights, if any, of any parties then in possession of any part of the Property, provided: 3029.22.2 The Mortgagee shall make written request upon CITY for the new Development Agreement for the Project within thirty (30) days after the date of termination; 3029.22.3 The Mortgagee shall pay to CITY at the time of the execution and delivery of the new Development Agreement for the Project expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to which CITY shall have been subjected by reason of OWNER’s default; and 3029.22.4 The Mortgagee shall perform and observe all covenants herein contained on OWNER's part to be performed, and shall further remedy any other conditions which OWNER under the terminated agreement was obligated to perform under its terms, to the extent the same are curable or may be performed by the Mortgagee. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 29 3029.22.5 Nothing herein contained shall require any Mortgagee to enter into a new agreement pursuant to Section 29.22.1 above, nor to cure any default of OWNER referred to above. 3029.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Development Agreement and all provisions hereof is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of CITY, OWNER and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have right of action based upon any provision in this Development Agreement. 3029.24 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, join venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 3029.25 Restrictions. Property OWNER shall place in any agreements to sell or convey any interest in the Property or any portion thereof, provisions making the terms of this Development Agreement binding on any successors in interest of OWNER and express provision for OWNER or CITY, acting separately or jointly, to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement and to recover attorneys' fees and costs for such enforcement. 3029.26 Recitals. The recitals in this Development Agreement constitute part of this Development Agreement and each party shall be entitled to rely on the truth and accuracy of each recital as an inducement to enter into this Development Agreement. 3029.27 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be executed by CITY and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after CITY approves this Development Agreement. 3029.28 Title Report. CITY is required to sign this Development Agreement only after OWNER has provided CITY with a satisfactory preliminary title report evidencing and showing OWNER’s legal and equitable ownership interest in the Property, current within six months, unencumbered except for the exceptions (hereinafter the “Permitted Exceptions”) set in the preliminary title reports for the Property attached hereto as Exhibit (the "Preliminary Title Reports"). Any instrument of monetary encumbrance such as a deed of trust or a mortgage entered into subsequent to the date of the Preliminary Title Report and prior to the Development Agreement Date, shall contain language expressly subordinating such instruments of monetary encumbrance to the provisions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall present evidence, satisfactory to CITY, of OWNER’s legal title to Property, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions and any such subordinated instruments of monetary encumbrance, at the time of recordation of this Agreement, or a memorandum thereof. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 30 3029.29 Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement, and this Development Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 3029.30 Successors and Assigns. The burdens of the Development Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Development Agreement inure to all successors in interest and assigns of the parties to the Development Agreement. 30.31 OWNER's Title to Property. Neither party hereto shall be bound by any provision of this Agreement unless and until OWNER shall record this Development Agreement or a memorandum thereof, in the office of the County Recorder of the County sufficient to cause this Agreement and the obligations contained herein to attach to and encumber OWNER’s fee title to Property. 30.32 Exhibits. All exhibits, including attachments thereto, are incorporated in this Development Agreement in their entirety by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER have executed this Development Agreement as of the date and year first above written. “CITY” “OWNER” CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation By: By: Mayor Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT FINAL SITE PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING FEE Non-residential Uses: $0.03 per sq. ft. These fees are intended to recover the costs associated with the Platinum Triangle including the designation of portions of the Platinum Triangle for mixed use and office development by the General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form, Zone Reclassifications, all other associated documents and amendments thereto, and all associated environmental documentation. The fees are based upon the following calculations: Costs Consultant Contract Costs: $670,623 (includes costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Planning Department Costs: $456,765 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Public Works Costs: $41,325 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) $1,168,713 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) New Development Allowed in the Platinum Triangle Non-Residential Uses 14,340,522 square feet office development 4,909,682 square feet commercial development + 1,500,000 square feet institutional 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development Residential Uses 18,909 residential units x 800 square feet (estimated average unit size) 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development Total Square Feet 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development + 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development 35,877,404 total square feet of residential and non-residential uses Fees (to be updated with DSEIR Planning and Public Works Costs) $1,168,713 costs = $0.03 per square foot 35,877,404 total square feet Non-residential Uses: $0.06 per sq. ft. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District These fees are intended to recover the costs associated with The Platinum Triangle including costs incurred in the preparation of the following: • The Platinum Triangle Documents including The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and associated environmental documentation (approved by the City Council in August, 2004); and • Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 332, which has been prepared to serve as the environmental documentation for activities implementing The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (certified by the City Council on October 25, 2005). • Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 334 and an Amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to increase the intensity of commercial, residential, office and institutional land uses in The Platinum Triangle (approved by the City Council on The fees are based upon the following calculations: The Platinum Triangle Documents Fee Contract Costs: $146,000 New Development Allowed in The Platinum Triangle 7,044,300 sq. ft. of non-residential uses 9,175 residential units (assume average unit size of 800 sq. ft. = 7,340,000 sq. ft.) 7,044,300 + 7,340,000 14,384,300 total square feet $146,000/14,393,300 = $.01 per square foot 7,340,000 x $.01 = $73,400 $73,400/9175 = $8 per dwelling unit Residential Uses: $8.00 per unit Commercial/Office Uses: $0.01 per square foot SEIR No. 332 Fee* Contract Costs: $164,730.00 Planning Department Costs FY2004 $110,547.83 Planning Department Costs FY2005 $ 24,492.72 $299,770.55 4,246,522 sq. ft. of commercial/office 5,495,200 sq. ft. of residential use (assume average unit size of 800 sq. ft. 6,869 residential units x 800 sq. ft = 5,495,200) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 4,246,522 +5,495,200 9,741,722 total square feet (non-residential and residential) $299,770.55/9,741,722 = $.03 per square foot 5,495,200 x $.03 = $164,856 $164,856/6,869 dwelling units = $24.00 per dwelling unit Residential Uses: $24.00 per unit Commercial/Office Uses: $ 0.03 per square foot * Note: The Planning Department Costs represents staff time and materials associated with the preparation of SEIR No. 332 and the square footage listed above reflects the number of allowable PTMU Overlay Zone square feet not entitled at the time SEIR No. 332 was certified. SEIR No. 334 Fee* Contract Costs: $241,293.00 Planning Department Costs $321,724.00 Public Works Department Costs $ 41,325.00 $604,342.00 18,531,215 sq. ft. of non-residential 9,214,400 sq. ft. of residential use (assume average unit size of 800 sq. ft. 11,518 residential units x 800 sq. ft = 9,214,400 sq. ft.) 27,745,615 total square feet (non-residential and residential) $604,342/27,745,615 sq. ft. = $.02 per square foot Residential Uses: $16.00 per unit Non-residential Uses: $ 0.02 per square foot * Note: The Planning and Public Works Department Costs represents staff time and materials associated with the preparation of SEIR No. 334 and the associated amendments to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The square footage listed above reflects the number of allowable PTMU Overlay Zone square feet not entitled at the time SEIR No. 334 was certified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 C APPENDIX C Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for The Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 was created for the Environmental Impact Report associated with The Anaheim Stadium Master Land Use Plan (EIR No. 321) and was updated and modified in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update Program (EIR No. 330), adopted on May 25, 2004. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 has been further updated and modified in conjunction with EIR No. 332 and renamed Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for The Platinum Triangle. A revised mitigation monitoring plan will be prepared in conjunction with DSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 D APPENDIX D Standard Detail for Newspaper Racks in the Platinum Triangle There are no proposed changes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 E APPENDIX E The Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 7 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Katella Avenue 5 Fwy Manchester Avenue to East of State College Blvd. (Stadium Entrance) (Figure 2219) Date Palm - Phoenix Dactylifera "Medjool" (UL) Bouganvillea (San Diego Red) attached to trunk of Palm and Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm in combination with aAlternate mass plantings of Agapantha shrub and Star Jasmine ‘asiaticum’ ground cover (not mixed) 30’ 18” 18” 9” 30’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon 5 gallon * Date Palm - Phoenix Dactylifera "Medjool" (UL) Agapantha shrub 24” ht. max Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm 30’ 18” 30’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Katella Avenue East of State College Blvd. (Stadium Entrance) to Orange Freeway (Figure 230) And Orange Freeway to east City Limits (Figure 241) Date Palm - Phoenix Dactylifera "Medjool" (UL) Bouganvillea (San Diego Red) attached to trunk of Palm and Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm in combination with a Alternate mass plantings of Agapantha shrub and Star Jasmine ‘asiaticum’ ground cover (not mixed) 30’ 18” 18” 9” 30’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon 5 gallon * Mexican Fan Palm (UL) Agapantha shrub 24” ht. max 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 7 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size State College Blvd. Ssouth Ccity Llimits to Gene Autry Way (Figure 252) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree and Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm; Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 24” box 5 gallon * State College Blvd. Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue (Figure 263) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree Bouganvillea (San Diego Red) attached to trunk of Palm and Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm; Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 24” box 5 gallon 5 gallon * State College Blvd. Katella Avenue to 500' North of Howell Avenue (Figure 274) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 15 gallon * ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 7 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size State College Blvd. 500' North of Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (Figure 2528) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 24” box * Gene Autry Way to Santa Cruz Street Betmor Lane to State College Blvd. (Figure 296) Single Row of Evergreen Pear Star Jasmine ground cover 20’ 18” 15 gallon 5 gallon Crape Bird of Paradise, except at driveway entrances use Orange Daylilies Lily 20’ 18” 15 gallon 5 gallon Orangewood Avenue Santa Ana5 Freeway to State College Blvd. (Figure 3027) Magnolia Tipu Trees Halls Honeysuckle ground cover 20’ 9” 15 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Magnolia Tree ‘Samuel Sommer’ Daylilies Lilys (Orange/Yellow) around base of tree Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 36” box 5 gallon * ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 7 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Orangewood Avenue to 800' e/o State College Blvd. to Dupont Drive (Figure 3128) Magnolia Tipu Trees Daylilies Lilys (Orange) around base of tree Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Magnolia Tipu Trees Bouganvillea (Orange) attached to the trunk of the Palm; Birds of Paradise around base of trees Halls Honeysuckle(orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 15 gallon 5 gallon 5 gallon * Orangewood Avenue to 800' e/o State College Blvd.Dupont Drive to East City LimitsCaltrans R-O-W (Figure 3228A) Magnolia Tipu Trees Daylilies Lilys (Orange) around base of tree Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white)ground cover 20’ 9” 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Magnolia Tipu Trees Birds of Paradise around base of trees Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 15 gallon 5 gallon * Douglass Road North of Katella Avenue (Figure 3329) To be Determined Mexican Fan Palm Bouganvillea Yellow Trumpet attached to trunk of Palm Daylilies Lilys (yellow and orange) at base of Palm 24” max ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 7 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Anaheim Way (Figure 340) Not Applicable Mexican Fan Palm Bougainvillea Flowering vines attached to trunk of Palm ; Birds of Paradise shrub - 24” max. ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Lewis Street Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue (Figure 351) Single Row of Gold Medallion (TL) Halls Honeysuckle ground cover 20’ 9” 24” box * Mexican Fan Palm Yellow Trumpet vines attached to trunk of Palm; India Hawthorne shrub - 24” max ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Lewis Street Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (Figure 362) Single Row of Gold Medallion Halls Honeysuckle ground cover 20’ 9” 24” box * Mexican Fan Palm Yellow Trumpet vines attached to trunk of Palm; India Hawthorne shrub - 24” max ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Amtrak/Metrolink Line (Figure 373) Not Applicable Not Applicable Secondary Streets (Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street, Cerritos Avenue) (Figure 384) Not Applicable Brisbane Box India Hawthorne shrub 24" max. ht. or ground cover 20’ 18” 24” box 5 gallon ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 7 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Market Street (Figure 395) Not Applicable Ginkgo Biloba Entry off of Katella Avenue: Date Palm 20’ 24”box Connector Streets (Figure 4036) Not Applicable Southern Magnolia, Bradford Pear, Fern Pine or Live Oak, Tree in tree wells or in parkways with turf or ground cover dependent on whether adjacent on-street parking is provided Daylilies Lily, Camellia, India Hawthorn shrub 24” max. ht. Honeysuckle or Star Jasmine ‘asiaticum’ ground cover - 18” 9” 36” box * West Dupont Drive to Rampart Street (Figure 37) Brisbane Box India Hawthorne shrub 24" max. ht. or ground cover 20’ 18” 24” box 5 gallon Collector Streets (Figure 41) Not Applicable Brisbane Box India Hawthorne shrub 24" max. ht. or ground cover 20’ 18” 24” box 5 gallon ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 7 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Bus Stops Landscape Requirements Public Works Standard Detail No. 119 Not Applicable Gold Medallion Tree planted on both sides of the bus stop 24” box 24” box UL = Uplighting of tree required * Plants contained in flats ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 F APPENDIX F A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program There are no proposed changes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 G APPENDIX G PTMU Overlay Zone District Sub-Area Development Intensity Maps ---PAGE BREAK--- DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER ORANG E FRE EWA Y (SR -57) HARRIS CT. KATELLA AVE 425 DU 100,000 S.F. Office 100,000 S.F. Commercial Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E 2439-31 CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 16, 2008 Arena District 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary Arena - 41 acres ---PAGE BREAK--- DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER ORANG E FRE EWAY (SR-5 7) SINCLAIR ST. 520 D.U. 1,500,000 S.F. Institutional 2,202,803 S.F. Office 358,000 S.F. Commercial 2439-13 ARTIC District C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS November 7, 2008 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District ARTIC - 17 acres Anaheim City Boundary The Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. CHRIS LN. BETMOR LN. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. DUPONT DR. TOWNE CE 250 DU 690 DU 341 DU 24,000 S.F. Office 12,000 S.F. Commercial 438 DU 538,250 S.F. Office 52,000 S.F. Commercial 352 DU 878 DU Sub-Area A Sub-Area C Sub-Area B C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE 2439-11 CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 21, 2008 Gateway District 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Gateway - 53 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. KATELLA AVE. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. TALBOT WAY 1,208 DU 219,000 S.F. Office 118,000 S.F. Commercial 491 DU 103,800 S.F. Commercial 663 DU 119,200 S.F. Office 82,900 S.F. Commercial 5 Sub-Area A Sub-Area C Sub-Area B Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E 2439-10 Gene Autry District 0 250 500 125 Feeto CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Gene Autry - 33 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY LEWIS ST. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) MANCHESTER AVE. KATELLA AVE. W CLAUDINA WAY HOWELL AVE. CHRIS LN. BETMOR LN. SANTA CRUZ ST. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. TALBOT WA 254,759 S.F. Office 320 D.U. 209,419 S.F. Office 114,571 S.F. Commercial 350 D.U. 60,000 S.F. Commercial 364 D.U. 91,000 S.F. Office 45,500 S.F. Commercial 399,881 S.F. Office 260,120 S.F. Office 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area A Map C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 21, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area A - 32 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. LEWIS ST. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) KATELLA AVE. HOWELL AVE. CHRIS LN. SANTA CRUZ ST. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. 859 DU 2,190 DU 126,000 S.F. Commercial 336 DU 1,298 S.F. Commercial 382 DU 102,400 S.F. Office 51,200 S.F. Commercial 390 DU 10,659 S.F. Commercial 17,800 S.F. Office 8,900 S.F. Commercial 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area B Map C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 20, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area B - 69 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- STATE COLLEGE BLVD. HOWELL AVE. SUNKIST ST. ORANG E FRE EWAY (SR-57 ) BABBITT AVE. PAGE CT. SINCLAIR ST. STADIUM VIEW AVE. 105,000 S.F. Office 202,467 S.F. Commercial 265 DU 643,482 S.F. Office 25,526 S.F. Commercial 14,185 S.F. Commercial 17,708 S.F. Commercial 251 DU 12,600 S.F. Commercial 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area C Map Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , CA THE PL ATI NU M TR IAN GLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 20, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area C - 33 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER ORANG E FRE EWAY (SR-5 7) SINCLAIR ST. 47,197 S.F. Office 142,000 S.F. Commercial 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area D Map Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , CA THE PL ATI NU M TR IAN GLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 20, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area D - 8 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. HOWELL AVE. SUNKIST ST. DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER WRIGHT CIR. ORANG E FRE E W AY (SR -57) BABBITT AVE. PAGE CT. TALBOT WAY SINCLAIR ST. STADIUM VIEW AVE. HARRIS CT. 879,613 S.F. Office 383,250 S.F. Office 58,700 S.F. Office 267,458 S.F. Office 2439-19 Office District East of State College Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 0 500 1,000 250 Feeto Key to Features Office District Office - Low - 30.3 acres Office - High - 22.1 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORA CERRITOS AVE. BLVD. HOWELL HASTER ST. LEWIS ST. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) KATELLA AVE. WRIGHT CIR. CLAUDINA WAY HOWELL AVE. BABBITT AVE. PA SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. TALBOT WAY 669,082 S.F. Office 716,127 S.F. Office 845,935 S.F. Office 64,904 S.F. Office 356,321 S.F. Office 236,966 S.F. Office 2439-19 Office District West of State College Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , CA THE PL ATI NU M TR IAN GLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 0 500 1,000 250 Feeto Key to Features Office District Office - Low - 43.6 acres Office - High - 33.3 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. DUPONT DR. TOWNE CENTRE PL. RAMPART ST. 1,450 DU 812,855 S.F. Office 120,000 S.F. Commercial 321 DU 590,000 S.F. Office 10,000 S.F. Commercial 2439-12 Orangewood District C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Orangewood - 35 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. SANT WRIGHT CIR. ORANGE F REE WAY (S R-57) DUPONT DR. TOWNE CENTRE PL. RAMPART ST. TALBOT WAY 5,175 DU 3,125,000 S.F. Office 3,120,368 S.F. Commercial KAT ELL A AV ENU E Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E 2439-30 CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 Stadium District 0 500 1,000 250 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Stadium - 153 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix I.2 Clean Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- DSEIR No. 339 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Amendments 10 1.2 General Plan Framework 11 1.2.1 Land Use Designations 12 1.3 Environmental Requirements 13 1.4 Existing Opportunities 13 2.0 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE VISION 14 2.1 Planning Principles 14 2.1.1 Balance and Integrate Uses 14 2.1.2 Stimulate Market-Driven Development 14 2.1.3 Create a Unique, Integrated, Walkable Urban Environment 14 2.1.4 Develop an Overall Urban Design Framework 14 2.1.5 Reinforce Transit Oriented Development Opportunities 15 2.1.6 Maintain and Enhance Connectivity 15 2.1.7 Create Great Neighborhoods 15 2.1.8 Provide for Installation and Maintenance of Public Improvements 15 2.2 Urban Design Elements and Attributes 16 2.2.1 Build on a Connected Street Network with Appropriate Block Size 16 2.2.2 Provide Variation in Housing Type 16 2.2.3 Provide Parks and Recreational-Leisure Areas 18 2.2.4 Create a Street/Ground Floor Zone that is Attractive, Safe and Engaging 18 2.2.5 Provide a Centerpiece Walking and Shopping District – The Market Street 19 3.0 MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERVIEW 22 3.1 Development Intensities 22 3.2 Stadium District 24 3.3 Arena District 25 3.4 Katella District 26 3.5 Gene Autry District 27 3.6 Gateway District 28 3.7 Orangewood District 29 3.8 ARTIC District 30 3.9 Office District 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 4 4.0 PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE AND IDENTITY PROGRAM 32 4.1 Streetscape Elements 32 4.1.1 Gateways 32 4.1.2 Public Art 32 4.1.3 Light Standards 33 4.1.4 Street Furniture 35 4.1.5 Signs 35 4.2 Landscape Concept Plan and Cross Sections 36 4.2.1 Katella Avenue 39 4.2.2 State College Boulevard 43 4.2.3 Gene Autry Way 48 4.2.4 Orangewood Avenue 50 4.2.5 Douglass Road (North of Katella Avenue) 54 4.2.6 Anaheim Way 56 4.2.7 Lewis Street 58 4.2.8 Railroad Right-of-Way 61 4.2.9 Secondary Streets 63 4.2.10 Market Street 65 4.2.11 Connector and Collector Streets 67 4.2.12 Intersections with Supplemental Lanes 70 APPENDICES The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone Appendix A The Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Appendix B Mixed Use Districts Appendix B1 Office District Appendix B2 Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C Appendix C Standard Detail for Newspaper Racks Appendix D The Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Appendix E A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program Appendix F PTMU Overlay Zone District Sub-Area Development Intensities Appendix G ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: General Plan Development Intensities 10 Table 2: Building Types 16 Table 3: PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map 7 Figure 2: Aerial Photo 8 Figure 3: General Plan Designations 12 Figure 4: The Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan 21 Figure 5: Mixed-Use and Office Districts 23 Figure 6: Stadium District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 24 Figure 7: Arena District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 25 Figure 8: Katella District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 26 Figure 9: Gene Autry District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 27 Figure 10: Gateway District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 28 Figure 11: Orangewood District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 29 Figure 12: ARTIC District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 30 Figure 13: Office District Underlying Zoning and Location Map 31 Figure 14: City of Anaheim Street Light Special Design No. 744 Anaheim Recreational Area 33 Figure 15: Connector and Collector Street Light Standard 33 Figure 16: Market Street Light Standard 34 Figure 17: Market Street Pedestrian Light Standard 34 Figure 18: Citywide Standard Bus Bench 35 Figure 19: Street Identification Sign 35 Figure 20: Landscape Concept Plan 37 Figure 21: Cross Section Map 38 Figure 22: Katella Avenue: Santa Ana Freeway to East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) 40 Figure 23: Katella Avenue: Highway of National Significance, East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) to Orange Freeway 41 Figure 24: Katella Avenue: Orange Freeway to East City Limits 42 Figure 25: State College Boulevard: South City Limits to Gene Autry Way 44 Figure 26: State College Boulevard: Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 45 Figure 27: State College Boulevard: Katella Avenue to 500’ North of Howell Avenue 46 Figure 28: State College Boulevard: 500’ North of Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 6 Figure 29: Gene Autry Way: Santa Cruz Street to State College Boulevard 49 Figure 30: Orangewood Avenue: Santa Ana Freeway to State College Boulevard 51 Figure 31: Orangewood Avenue: State College Boulevard to Dupont Drive 52 Figure 32: Orangewood Avenue: Dupont Drive to East City Limits 53 Figure 33: Douglass Road: North of Katella Avenue 55 Figure 34: Anaheim Way 57 Figure 35: Lewis Street: Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 59 Figure 36: Lewis Street: Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 60 Figure 37: Railroad Right-of-Way 62 Figure 38: Secondary Streets (Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street, and Rampart Street) 64 Figure 39: Conceptual Market Street 66 Figure 40: Conceptual Connector Street 68 Figure 41: Collector 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan envisions an exciting future for the area surrounding Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim and the Honda Center. Amidst millions of square feet of new development opportunities for office, restaurant and residential projects, is an established destination featuring high- rise lofts, two championship sports teams, an exciting array of dining and entertainment, plus immediate access to the rest of Southern California from three freeways and a major transit center. This plan is intended to enhance this dynamic mix of uses and provide cohesion through innovative design standards and a carefully planned network of pedestrian walkways, streetscape improvements and recreation spaces – designed to create an urban environment of a scale never before seen in Orange County. The 820-acre Platinum Triangle will blend leading- edge businesses and employment, world champion entertainment and exciting residential neighborhoods, creating a unique opportunity in the heart of Orange County. Figure 1: Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 8 Figure 2: Aerial Photo ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 9 On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan Update which included new land use designations intended to implement the vision for the Platinum Triangle. The General Plan Update changed the General Plan designations within the area from Commercial Recreation and Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office High, Office Low, Industrial, Open Space and Institutional (see Figure 3) to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed- use, residential, office and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the maximum development intensity for the Platinum Triangle to be 9,500 dwelling units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 and institutional development at a maximum floor area ratio of 3.0. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan also serves as the blueprint for public improvements within the Platinum Triangle, including conceptual park locations, a proposed street network and streetscape design. Private development is regulated through the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter referred to as “PTMU Overlay Zone”) and the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement (see Appendices A and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan replaces and supersedes the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. This previous planning study, approved in March 1999, provided a plan for office, sports, entertainment and retail uses around a sports entertainment destination known as Sportstown. The PTMU Overlay Zone applies to properties within the Platinum Triangle designated by the General Plan for Mixed-Use and Office uses. In addition to utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone, these properties may also continue to develop using their underlying zones, which include I (Industrial), O-L (Low Intensity Office), O-H (High Intensity Office), PR (Public Recreational), T (Transition), SP (Semi-Public) and C- G (General Commercial). The underlying zones for properties within the area designated for Mixed-Use and Office uses by the General Plan are shown on Figures 6-13. Properties within the Platinum Triangle that are not designated for Mixed-Use and Office uses by the General Plan are designated for Open Space, Industrial and Institutional uses. The respective implementing zones are OS (Open Space), I (Industrial) and SP (Semi-Public). ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 10 1.1 Previous Amendments On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, which added an additional 325 dwelling units and 210,100 square feet of commercial development to the maximum development intensity permitted for mixed use development within the Platinum Triangle. On June 5, 2007, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No, 2006-00449, which added an additional 67 dwelling units to the maximum development intensity permitted for mixed use development within the Platinum Triangle. On August 21, 2007, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment Nos. 2006-00446 and 2006-00455. General Plan Amendment No. 2006- 00446 added an additional 699 dwelling units to the maximum development intensity permitted for mixed use development within the Platinum Triangle. General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00455, added an additional 50,550 square feet of office uses and 10,000 square feet of commercial uses to the maximum development intensity permitted for properties within the Platinum Triangle designated by the General Plan for office development. On the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471, which increased the development intensity for properties designated by the General Plan for mixed use and office development to a maximum of 18,909 dwelling units; 4,909,682 commercial square feet; 14,340,522 office square feet; and 1,500,000 institutional square feet. Table 1: General Plan Development Intensities Land Use Designation Maximum Amount of Development Permitted Mixed-Use  Residential 18,909 Dwelling Units  Commercial 4,909,682 Square Feet  Office 9,862,166 Square Feet  Institutional 1,500,000 Square Feet Office-High and Office-Low 4,478,356 Square Feet* Institutional 3.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Industrial 0.5 FAR Open Space 0.1 FAR * The maximum FAR for properties designated Office-Low is 0.5; the maximum FAR for properties designated Office-High is 2.0. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 11 1.2 General Plan Framework The General Plan provides the overall vision for the Platinum Triangle. Goal 15.1 of the General Plan’s Land Use Element envisions the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades. This goal is implemented through the following policies:  Continue more detailed planning efforts to guide the future development of the Platinum Triangle.  Encourage a regional inter-modal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim.  Encourage mixed-use projects integrating retail, office and higher density residential land uses.  Maximize and capitalize upon the view corridor from the Santa Ana (I-5) and Orange (SR-57) Freeways.  Maximize views and recreation and development opportunities afforded by the area's proximity to the Santa Ana River. The Community Design Element provides further policies related to development within the Platinum Triangle:  Develop comprehensive, Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and Design Guidelines to implement the vision for the Platinum Triangle.  Provide a mix of quality, high-density urban housing that is integrated into the area through carefully maintained pedestrian streets, transit connections, and arterial access.  Develop a Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program to enhance the visibility and sense of arrival into the Platinum Triangle through peripheral view corridors, gateways, and specialized landscaping.  Develop a strong pedestrian orientation throughout the area, including wide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, gathering places, ground-floor retail, and street-level landscaping.  Encourage extensive office development along the highly visible periphery of the area to provide a quality employment center.  Develop criteria for comprehensive property management agreements for multiple-family residential projects to ensure proper maintenance as the area develops.  Identify and pursue opportunities for open space areas that serve the recreational needs of Platinum Triangle residents and employees. 1.2.1 Land Use Designations The General Plan provides several land use designations for the Platinum Triangle (see Figure Below is a description of these uses. Mixed-Use Located in the heart of the Platinum Triangle, the area designated for Mixed-Use allows office, retail and residential uses to occur in close proximity or within the same building. An eclectic mix of land uses, building types and walkable streets will provide an exciting new live/work environment. The maximum density for the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use designation is 18,909 dwelling units, 9,862,166 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. The designation will be implemented through the Mixed Use Districts in the PTMU Overlay Zone area which provides for quality neighborhoods and building design through carefully created zoning regulations. The PTMU Overlay Zone also allows existing underlying zoning to remain in place. Property owners may continue operating under the existing zoning designation or, if they choose, they may take advantage of the opportunities to develop under the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 12 Office High and Office Low Located along the freeways and periphery of the Platinum Triangle, the high and low density office areas will be implemented through the Office District designation of the PTMU Overlay Zone and will provide new workplace opportunities with easy access to a variety of housing, retail, entertainment and sports facilities within the Mixed-Use areas. The maximum amount of allowable office square footage in these office high and low designations is 4,478,356 square feet. Industrial At the northern periphery of the Platinum Triangle there are industrial uses, which will continue to provide important employment opportunities within the area. Industrial uses may have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranging from 0.35 to 0.50. The implementing zone for these uses is the I (Industrial) Zone. Open Space The Open Space designation includes those areas intended to remain as open space including utility easements that are anticipated to be developed as recreational trails in the future. The implementing zone is the OS (Open Space) Zone. Institutional The Institutional designation covers a wide variety of public and quasi-public land uses and is applied to existing public facilities. Institutional uses may have a FAR of 3.0. The implementing zone is the SP (Semi- Public) Zone. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 13 1.3 Environmental Requirements An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2004 General Plan Update (EIR No. 330), which included an analysis of the maximum development intensity for the Platinum Triangle, was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. EIR No. 330 identified impacts associated with the General Plan Update Program, including the planned land uses for the Platinum Triangle and recommended mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. Since EIR No. 330 was a general plan level environmental impact analysis, a Subsequent EIR (SEIR) was prepared for the Platinum Triangle (SEIR No. 332) to further analyze environmental impacts related to the implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and other associated actions. SEIR No. 332 was certified in October 2005 and modified and updated the mitigation measures from EIR No. 330 SEIR No. 339 was certified in and was prepared to analyze the environmental impacts associated with amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and other associated actions to expand the PTMU Overlay Zone boundaries, increase residential, office, commercial and institutional intensities and create the ARTIC and Office Districts. This SEIR modified and updated the mitigation measures from SEIR No. 332. These mitigation measures (Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C for the Platinum Triangle) are included as Appendix C to the Master Land Use Plan. 1.4 Existing Opportunities A number of factors have created the impetus for the Platinum Triangle to transition from a low density industrial area to an urban, mixed use center including a lack of available land in the region for this type of large-scale, high-density development in a prime infill location at the confluence of three freeways. Two other factors provide an unusual dimension to the ultimate character of the district. First is the opportunity for entertainment related development associated with Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center and The Grove of Anaheim. Second is existing and future transit opportunities associated with the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). ARTIC is proposed to provide enhanced access to existing bus, Amtrak and Metrolink services as well as a link to both the proposed California High Speed Rail system and the California/Nevada maglev rail line. ARTIC is proposed to be developed on the northern portion of the Stadium District, which currently is developed with the existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and parking lot, and property adjacent to Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue, within the ARTIC District. While this station is still in the planning stages, it could provide the engine for a major high density Transit Oriented Development that could be a model for Smart Growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 14 2.0 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE VISION The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan envisions an exciting future for the area surrounding Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center and The Grove of Anaheim. 2.1 Planning Principles In order to further implement the General Plan polices and establish a framework for the implementation of the Platinum Triangle Vision, certain planning principles have been established. 2.1.1 Balance and Integrate Uses In order to maximize long-term property value, the Platinum Triangle will not only provide new, balanced development opportunities for office, residential and sports/entertainment and allow existing industrial uses to continue, but link the various uses together with walkable streets, open space and consistent landscape. Regardless of market for any one use at a given time, the opportunity and value for all uses will be enhanced by a supportive, integrated and multi-use district approach. 2.1.2 Stimulate Market-Driven Development The Master Land Use Plan is intended to encourage and facilitate and encourage new development within the Platinum Triangle. The PTMU Overlay Zone is designed to guide, not inhibit, current market forces. Development that will lead to strong economic return is encouraged. The growth of housing in the Platinum Triangle will also stimulate high quality office development since few locations within the region allow for office development adjacent to housing and local services. 2.1.3 Create a Unique, Integrated, Walkable Urban Environment To achieve the potential of the Platinum Triangle in terms of quality of life and land value, a vibrant, walkable urban environment is required. Comfortable walking environments linking jobs, attractive housing, open space and local services, while reducing the need to drive, are attributes that require guidance and facilitation. It will be essential that each new project make a contribution toward this new urban quality and character. 2.1.4 Develop an Overall Urban Design Framework Ground floor retail, urban parks and street landscape treatments will be more cohesive if combined into a larger planning vision. These elements, along with new street locations, density concentrations and pedestrian linkages are part of the Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan (see Figure It is also important to link employment and housing so that each supports and facilitates the other. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 15 2.1.5 Reinforce Transit Oriented Development Opportunities The Master Land Use Plan and PTMU Overlay Zone provide opportunities for Transit Oriented Development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities. Entertainment, retail, high density housing and office are envisioned as potential uses for this emerging new regional activity and mixed use center, situated near the existing Amtrak/Metrolink and the proposed ARTIC stations, The Grove of Anaheim, Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Honda Center. A loop road connecting Gene Autry Way with Douglass Road could also be provided to facilitate linkages in this area. 2.1.6 Maintain and Enhance Connectivity The linkage between The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle will be enhanced, connecting key activity centers including Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim, the Honda Center, the Anaheim Convention Center and The Disneyland Resort. On a more local level, emerging neighborhoods will be connected by a newly expanded functional and convenient street network and pedestrian walkways. The system will allow high capacity event-based networks to work in conjunction with an everyday, pedestrian-friendly local circulation system. 2.1.7 Create Great Neighborhoods A major goal of the Master Land Use Plan is to create long lasting neighborhoods that maintain their value and socio-economic vitality. Therefore, the plan provides a fundamentally strong and appropriately scaled framework of blocks, streets, and open space. In addition, service providers will be encouraged to locate their facilities within the Platinum Triangle, based on resident need and site availability. These services may include library facilities, schools, day care centers and locations for community and/or religious assembly. Only by providing these essentials can a really rich, sustainable urbanity be achieved. 2.1.8 Provide for Installation and Maintenance of Public Improvements Financial Mechanisms (such as the approved Community Facilities District and a potential Assessment District) will be established to provide for an equitable contribution towards installation and long term maintenance of infrastructure, street trees, sidewalks, and parks. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 16 2.2 Urban Design Elements and Attributes The Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan (Figure 4) identifies key physical elements and attributes which are summarized in this section and, where noted, have been incorporated into zoning code standards. These elements and attributes are intended to ensure the development of high quality, sustainable neighborhoods and mixes of uses which will achieve and maintain the highest economic value over the long-term. Sustainability, when applied to neighborhood and district development, means that as economic and market values shift over the coming decades, the inherent visual quality, level of maintenance, and economic value of the building stock and public spaces are maintained or increased along with the region. 2.2.1 Build on a Connected Street Network with Appropriate Block Size The street pattern within the Platinum Triangle will create a connected local street network. The addition of several carefully located street segments will assist in achieving better traffic distribution, alternative trip routing and smaller sized blocks. This system can provide access to the interior of the existing large industrial parcels so that a mix of moderately scaled residential and office blocks can be developed. This network also provides improved emergency access, refuse pick-up, access to parking areas and a more pedestrian friendly access system to local services, workplaces and transit. This street pattern will encourage a greater diversity in housing type by reducing the size of projects and making it easier to mix housing types within a single large ownership. The smaller blocks create a more walkable pedestrian network by providing a variety of alternate routes to multiple destinations. The location of these connector streets is shown on Figure 4. Dedication and improvement of these streets is required pursuant to the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement (see Appendices B1 and B2) which is entered into between the property owner and the City of Anaheim for properties that choose to develop utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone. When a street width is located on more than one property, the first development is required to provide all improvements adjacent to their project sidewalks, parkways, landscaping, bike lanes, and parking as indicated in the Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program in Section 4.0 of this document) and two vehicle travel lanes. The property owner/developer may request creation of a reimbursement agreement or other mechanism to provide for the reimbursement for one of the two vehicle travel lanes at such time as the adjacent property develops. 2.2.2 Provide Variation in Housing Type Variety in housing and building types not only provides stability in times of market transition but allows a healthy mix of ownership/rental opportunities and household types. It is especially important for the Platinum Triangle to have a balance of for-sale and rental housing, if the districts are to maintain strong economic values. Ideally, four attached building types should be encouraged as shown in Table 2 and further explained in the descriptions that follow. Table 2: Building Types Building Type Unit Type Typical Ownership Density Range Units/Acre Tuck-under Townhomes For sale 16-24 Flats Rental 18-30 Wrapped deck Flats Rental 45-80 Podium Townhomes For sale 16-32 Flats/Townhomes For sale 36-65 Flats Rental 48-100 High-rise tower Flats For sale 65-100 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 17 Tuck-under buildings Tuck-under buildings have parking garages located under the living units that are accessible by surface driveways. Wrapped deck buildings Wrapped deck buildings are buildings that surround, or wrap around, a free-standing (not subterranean) parking structure. Podium buildings Podium buildings have dwelling units located above a subterranean parking structure. High-rise tower buildings A high-rise tower is a building with a height over fifty- five (55) feet. Although market conditions will largely influence which building types are ultimately built, if a residential development of more than 400 units is proposed on a parcel of five acres or greater, then more than one building type is required to achieve a healthy diversity and mix one building could be a tuck-under building type and another a wrapped deck type building). The building types proposed to meet this requirement must vary by at least one story in height. This criteria encourages projects of a size and scale that are not overwhelming and provides a rich mix of block, building and unit configurations. Height and coverage criteria will also guide projects toward variations in density and open space. A mix of parking alternatives is also encouraged by providing incentives (tandem and valet parking) for subterranean parking so that higher density podium and high-rise tower projects can be achieved. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 18 2.2.3 Provide Parks and Recreational- Leisure Areas Higher density neighborhoods need parks and open space to offset building height and coverage and provide space for leisure activities. Well-crafted and programmed public space also encourages people gathering, neighborhood events and community interaction. Residential development on parcels larger than eight acres will be required to provide a mini park based on the number of dwelling units developed on the parcel. These parks will be programmed with flexible-use turf areas, picnicking, child play areas and seating. In addition, every residential development will be required to provide a minimum of two hundred square feet of recreational-leisure area for each dwelling unit within private and/or common areas. The General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan (Figure 4) also identify a larger active neighborhood sports park in the vicinity of the northwestern portion of the Platinum Triangle to meet organized field sport needs. 2.2.4 Create a Street/Ground Floor Zone that is Attractive, Safe and Engaging Great urban neighborhoods have attractive, safe and interesting streets that are enjoyable to experience as both a pedestrian and driver. Such streets require quality ground floor architectural treatments, consistent setbacks, landscape and sufficient interaction with the adjacent uses, so that a sense of community and security is achieved. On the arterial streets this will be achieved through landscape, street trees, entries, patios and attractive architecture. On the connector streets, individual dwelling entries and stoops will enhance the pedestrian experience. Setbacks have been established that provide a balance between full utilization of the site for development and creating sufficient room for landscape. The setbacks are the narrowest on the connector streets with lower traffic volumes, encouraging a more intimate, and human-scale street space. The major intersections within the Platinum Triangle will be framed by landmark architecture that lets visitors know they have arrived at a major destination. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 19 Ground floor commercial uses will also activate the pedestrian zone. While ground floor retail is encouraged throughout the mixed use areas, their location will only be required adjacent to Market Street and along Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street (see 2.2.5) to insure that retail and other support commercial uses occur in locations supportive of the overall framework plan. 2.2.5 Provide a Centerpiece Walking and Shopping District – The Market Street A key feature of the plan is to create a new, animated walking street, Market Street, which allows convenient access to local services and links together neighborhoods and districts as shown in Figure 4. Market Street will create the backbone for a dynamic urban district by promoting mixed use and the opportunity for residents and workers to be less dependent on the automobile. Many notable and high energy urban neighborhoods have as their centerpiece a great local walking and shopping street. These walkable streets are small-scale and provide convenient shopping, cafes and professional offices. Union Street in San Francisco, Larchmont Boulevard in Los Angeles, Gaylord Street in Denver and 4th Street in Berkley are good examples of small scale active local streets. Although their scale and character may vary, these streets provide a backbone public space and place for residents to gather, people-watch, and meet daily needs with less dependence on the car. Market Street will be a two lane street with parking on both sides that will provide for continuous commercial uses on the ground floor. Wide sidewalks, street trees, benches, thematic street lights and opportunities for sidewalk cafes and urban parks will make this street section an “outdoor living room” and a gathering place for local residents, as well as draw shoppers and diners from nearby employment areas. Although interior to the existing “superblocks,” Market Street will intersect Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way, creating retail exposure and encouraging access from surrounding neighborhoods. Larchmont Boulevard Gaylord Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 20 Ground Floor Commercial Uses are required on Market Street and along Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street. Ground Floor Commercial Uses along Gene Autry Way will provide an important link between Market Street and the Stadium District. The PTMU Overlay Zone provides a list of retail and non- retail uses which accommodate this Ground Floor Commercial use requirement. Non-retail uses include local services, multi-tenant offices, community facilities, fitness, leasing offices or child care. It is anticipated that non-retail uses may have a stronger presence during the earlier stages of development until such time as sufficient residential units are built to support retail uses. It is also envisioned that larger retail services uses such as a grocery stores, drug stores, larger restaurants and entertainment uses will locate along Katella Avenue or Gene Autry Way where they provide gateways to Market Street or along Gene Autry Way as it connects Market Street to Angel Stadium of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 22 3.0 MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERVIEW Several distinct mixed-use districts have been identified within the portions of the Platinum Triangle designated for mixed-use development by the General Plan (see Figure These districts are the Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Stadium and Orangewood Districts. An Office District has also been identified for properties designated by the General Plan for office uses. These districts are identified in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and in the PTMU Overlay Zone. 3.1 Development Intensities The total maximum development within the PTMU Overlay Zone is 18,909 residential dwelling units, 14,340,522 square feet of office development, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial development and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional development. Table 3 indicates the maximum permitted development intensity established for each district. This maximum intensity is based on planning and infrastructure considerations analyzed by SEIR No. 339, such as traffic capacity, access and availability of infrastructure and proximity to existing and proposed transit. In cases where existing buildings are removed to accommodate new development, the existing square footage may be demolished and replaced with new construction as long as the total square footage does not exceed the maximum assigned to each district. Table 3: PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities* District Acres Housing Units Office Square Feet Commercial Square Feet Institutional Square Feet Arena 41 425 100,000 100,000 0 ARTIC 17 520 2,202,803 358,000 1,500,000 Gateway 50 2,949 562,250 64,000 0 Gene Autry 33 2,362 338,200 304,700 0 Katella 141 5,707 2,131,058 832,614 0 Orangewood 35 1,771 1,402,855 130,000 0 Stadium 153 5,175 3,125,000 3,120,368 0 Total Mixed Use 470 18,909 9,862,166 4,909,682 1,500,000 Office 121 0 4,478,356 0 0 Total PTMU Overlay Zone 591 18,909 14,340,522 4,909,682 1,500,000 *Development intensities are further described in Appendix G. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 24 3.2 Stadium District The underlying zone for the Stadium District is the PR (Public Recreational) Zone, which regulates City- owned properties and facilities. The PTMU Overlay Zone sets forth a maximum density for this district of 5,175 dwelling units, 3,125,000 square feet of office uses, 3,120,368 square feet of commercial uses and stadiums consisting of no more than 119,543 total seats (including the existing 49,043 Angel Stadium of Anaheim and a potential future 70,500-seat stadium). Within this District and the adjacent ARTIC District, there is the potential for the emergence of another major activity hub for Anaheim. The existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and the proposed Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center (ARTIC) station provide the impetus for major Transit Oriented Development. If properly integrated with Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim, and the Honda Center, development in this area could lead to an exciting mix of high energy uses while providing additional housing in the area. Parallel experiences in other parts of the country, such as Denver, Washington D.C., Dallas and Atlanta suggest that the true long- term potential for a site with transit stations of this size could generate a high density, transit-oriented, mixed- use hub unparalleled in this part of the country. As market trends combine with transit oriented development goals, the concept of a high-rise, mixed- use, urban village, complemented by sports and entertainment venues would allow thousands of residents and workers to meet their daily needs with minimal auto use, vehicle miles traveled and the resulting congestion and air quality issues. Development principles include:  Create a sustainable balance between everyday land uses/services and more intermittent special event activity.  Separate major event circulation and parking from existing and future rail and bus facilities, office, retail and residential uses.  Provide an internal, pedestrian-scale “promenade” street that allows walkable access to the transit stations and links the transit oriented development to the adjacent districts.  Balance regional transit access and mixed use place-making to allow the maximum number of workers and residents to be within a five minute walking distance from the stations.  Provide attractive urban streets lined with active ground floor uses and a scale of street width and building placement that creates security, a comfortable human scale and energizes ground floor retail and entertainment uses.  Encourage a full complement of uses including corporate offices, for-sale and rental residential development, local professional offices, local support retail, and community services to create activity 365 days a year. Figure 6: Stadium District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 25 3.3 Arena District The underlying zones for the Arena District are PR (Public Recreation), which regulates City-owned properties and facilities including Honda Center and T (Transition). The PTMU Overlay Zone sets forth a maximum density for this district of 425 dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of office and 100,000 square feet of commercial uses, in addition to the existing Honda Center. The Arena District has high visibility from the 57 Freeway. This District will also benefit from the future development of ARTIC and will be particularly attractive to restaurants, retail and office uses. A landscape promenade is provided along Douglass Road to link to the ARTIC and Stadium Districts. A regional bicycle path is adjacent to this District and is proposed to connect to ARTIC. Development principles include:  Create a balance between everyday land uses/ services and more intermittent special event activity.  Provide a connection with the existing and future transit stations through Douglass Road.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of Katella Avenue/Douglass Road. Figure 7: Arena District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 26 3.4 Katella District The underlying zones for the Katella District are I (Industrial), O-L (Office-Low) and CG (General Commercial). The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/fabrication. The O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically three stories or less in height. The CG Zone allows a variety of commercial uses. This district includes properties adjacent to Katella Avenue, a regional Smart Street which links the Platinum Triangle to The Anaheim Resort. In addition, Katella Avenue provides access to Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim, the Honda Center and the existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and the future ARTIC location. These attributes support a “Grand Avenue” concept, expressed by a bold palm grove landscape statement, which will provide a majestic entrance to the City to the east and link the Platinum Triangle to The Anaheim Resort to the west. Additionally, Market Street will provide a vibrant, pedestrian oriented connection between the Katella District and the Gene Autry District. The Katella District permits a maximum of 5,707 dwelling units, 2,131,058 square feet of office development and 832,614 square feet of commercial development and is divided into Sub Areas A, B, C and D. These Sub-Areas and their corresponding maximum development intensities are further described in Appendix G. Development principles include:  Implement the double palm tree grove along Katella Avenue and provide setbacks sufficient for implementation.  Allow a variety of landscape and hardscape treatments where ground floor commercial and residential uses transition to the street parkway, including shop fronts, outdoor dining and planters.  Introduce connector streets that provide access into the deep parcels located along Katella Avenue. These walkable, residential-lined streets are important in achieving sustainable neighborhoods. Such streets may be implemented incrementally as adjacent parcels develop.  Provide additional public open space in the form of mini parks within larger parcels.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersections of Katella Avenue/State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue/Sportstown.  Provide ground floor commercial uses and attractive pedestrian walkways along Market Street. Figure 8: Katella District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 27 3.5 Gene Autry District The underlying zone for the Gene Autry District is the I (Industrial) Zone. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/fabrication. With Market Street as a primary feature, the Gene Autry District provides the opportunity for a sophisticated mixed use neighborhood. At completion, these factors could create one of the most animated and desirable urban neighborhoods in the County. Market Street traverses the heart of this district intersecting with Gene Autry Way. While small local retail shops, restaurants and professional services are required on Market Street, they are also envisioned to extend along Gene Autry Way to State College Boulevard. The availability of local services in this district is important to allow the choice for a more pedestrian, less auto-oriented lifestyle. Connector streets and mini parks are also proposed. These additions provide a system of walking streets and open spaces that will allow the goal of providing walkable neighborhoods to be realized. The Gene Autry District permits a maximum of 2,362 residential units, 338,200 square feet of office uses and 304,700 square feet of commercial uses. The Gene Autry District is divided into two sub-areas; these sub- areas and their corresponding maximum development intensities are further described in Appendix G. Development principles include:  Provide ground floor commercial uses and attractive pedestrian walkways along Market Street.  Implement a street tree program that alternates palm trees and lower level canopy trees.  Provide additional public open space in the form of mini parks within larger parcels.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way. Figure 9: Gene Autry District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 28 3.6 Gateway District The underlying zones for the Gateway District are the I (Industrial) and O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/fabrication. The O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically three stories or less in height. Aptly named, this district provides the entry experience into both the City and the Platinum Triangle from the south and west. The Gateway District is divided up into three sub areas and permits a maximum development intensity of 2,949 residential units, 562,250 square feet of office development and 64,000 square feet of commercial development. The sub-areas and their corresponding maximum development intensities are further described in Appendix G. Development Principles include:  Implement the palm tree and canopy tree plantings along Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard.  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue.  Provide bike lanes along Orangewood Avenue to provide an important link to the Santa Ana River regional trail system. Figure 10: Gateway District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 29 3.7 Orangewood District The underlying zones for the Orangewood District are the I (Industrial), C-G (General Commercial), PR (Public Recreational) and O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/fabrication. The C-G Zone allows a variety of commercial uses. The PR Zone regulates City-owned properties and facilities. The O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically three stories or less in height. The Orangewood District permits a maximum of 1,771 residential units, 1,402,855 square feet of office development and 130,000 square feet of commercial development. This district and the permitted amount of development are further described in Appendix G. Development principles include:  Implement the palm tree and canopy tree plantings along Orangewood Avenue.  Introduce a collector street that connects Dupont Drive to Towne Centre Place to provide access to Rampart Street.  Provide bike lanes along Orangewood Avenue and collector streets to provide an important link to the Santa Ana River regional trail system.  Provide additional public space in the form of mini parks within larger parcels. Figure 11: Orangewood District Underlying Zoning and Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 30 3.8 ARTIC District The underlying zone for the ARTIC District is the SP (Semi-Public) Zone. The SP Zone allows for a wide range of public and quasi-public uses, including transportation facilities. Other typical uses include government offices, public or private colleges and universities, public utilities, hospitals, large assisted living facilities, community centers, museums and public libraries. The PTMU Overlay Zone sets forth a maximum intensity of 520 residential units, 2,202,803 square feet of office development, 358,000 square feet of commercial development, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses for this district. The ARTIC District is named for the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The ARTIC District is intended to combine a transportation gateway and a mixed-use activity center on a 17-acre site owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 31 3.9 Office District The underlying zones for the Office District are the O- H (Office High), O-L (Office Low), I (Industrial and C-G (General Commercial) Zones. The O-H Zone provides for higher intensity office uses in buildings that are four stories or more in height and the O-L Zone provides for a variety of low-intensity office uses that are typically in buildings three stories or less in height. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing/fabrication. The C-G Zone allows a variety of commercial, retail service and office uses. This District will permit office uses per the O-H and O-L zoning standards. A maximum of 4,478,356 square feet of office will be allowed in this District with the permitted amount of development within the Office District sub-areas further described in Appendix G. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 32 4.0 PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE AND IDENTITY PROGRAM Streetscape elements, including gateways, public art, light fixtures, street furniture and signs, will be coordinated with a Landscape Concept Plan unique to the Platinum Triangle, to establish and reflect the Platinum Triangle's distinctive image and character. The Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program will:  Establish a visual identity with a hierarchy of identity elements which reinforces the land use, circulation, open space, and landscape systems of the Master Land Use Plan.  Celebrate the unique combination of a cosmopolitan urban area with sports and entertainment imagery.  Reinforce linkages to The Anaheim Resort. 4.1 Streetscape Elements Streetscape elements will unify and identify the Platinum Triangle and provide directions for visitors to the area. Streetscape elements include gateways, public art, light fixtures, street furniture and signs. The identity program includes the following:  Street furniture within the public right-of-way, such as bus shelters and benches, that is consistent throughout the Platinum Triangle.  An area-wide banner system on the arterial roads, which will create a street-oriented identity for the entire Platinum Triangle, especially in connection with events.  Site furnishings that meet the needs of the residents, visitors and workforce of the Platinum Triangle on an area and need specific basis. Individual projects within the Platinum Triangle may have their own individual project identity within their project boundaries, but the character of the streetscape elements within the public right-of-way will be consistent throughout the Platinum Triangle. 4.1.1 Gateways Gateways will set the scale and image of the Platinum Triangle for visitors as they enter and pass though the area. It is anticipated that these gateways will be located on or in close proximity to the Stadium District. The design of the gateways will be determined at a later date as the Stadium District is developed. In order to effectively create the proper sense of arrival, these gateways should achieve the following:  Provide a scale that contrasts with the surrounding features.  Reflect the design character of the area and incorporate sports and entertainment related imagery.  Provide a lasting visual impression.  Express a variety of imagery through layering of Gateways.  Create public icons at the edges of the Stadium and Arena Districts. 4.1.2 Public Art Public art provides added interest, variety, and beauty to the City's public places. Well-designed public art creates a connection between the public and the culture of the community by incorporating symbols that serve to entertain and enrich urban areas. Public art will be encouraged in the mini parks and new gathering places that will be developed within the Platinum Triangle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 33 4.1.3 Light Standards The light standard used in The Anaheim Resort will be used on all arterial streets throughout the Platinum Triangle (Figure 14) to provide a visual link between the Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim Resort. New light standards will be implemented on Connector and Collector Streets (Figure 15) and Market Street (Figures 16 and 17) to enhance the pedestrian-friendly environment of these two street conditions. Arterial Streets Figure 14: City of Anaheim Street Light Special Design No.744 Anaheim Recreational Area Connector and Collector Streets Figure 15: Connector and Collector Street Light Standard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 34 Market Street Standards Figure 16: Market Street Light Standard Figure 17: Market Street Pedestrian Light Standard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 35 4.1.4 Street Furniture Street furniture within the Platinum Triangle will include the standard street furniture used throughout the City. Street furniture includes bus shelters (Figure 18), benches and trash receptacles. Newspaper racks, as shown in Appendix D, will be allowed adjacent to bus shelters. Figure 18: Citywide Standard Bus Bench 4.1.5 Signs Within the Platinum Triangle, civic signage will play three major roles: identification of the Platinum Triangle, directional assistance to arriving visitors and reinforcement of the visual themes of cosmopolitan urban activities, sports and entertainment. Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs provide timely information to visitors to the Platinum Triangle. These existing changeable message signs will remain in the current locations unless otherwise determined in conjunction with future development of the Stadium, ARTIC or Arena Districts. Street Information Signs On arterial streets, informational signs, such as “Stop” and “No Parking”, will be the same design as similar signs in The Anaheim Resort. Standard signs will be used on all other streets. Street Identification Signs Street identification signs will be on 96-inch wide by 18-inch tall panels (DG3 Material). The signs will include the Platinum Triangle logo and the street name in 8-inch high white letters (Clearview Highway 38 Font) on a green (P3) background (Figure 19). Directional Signs Signs which provide directional instructions to arriving or departing visitors will become increasingly important within the Platinum Triangle as new development occurs. The number, type and location of signs should be determined prior to development of the Stadium District, potentially in connection with the future design of the gateways. This will ensure that the overall character of the signs is consistent, and interrelated circulation issues for Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim and ARTIC, can be addressed. Banners All street light standards on arterial roads within the Platinum Triangle will have a removable armature for banners that will be changed out regularly. Banners will be installed in accordance with a banner program approved by the City and will be colored, festive and may be fabricated as sewn, silk screened on nylon or photo image reproduction on an exterior grade substrate. Figure 19: Street Identification Sign ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 36 4.2 Landscape Concept Plan and Cross Sections The intent of the Landscape Concept Plan is to create a memorable, unified and civic-scaled public landscape for the Platinum Triangle. To achieve this, the Landscape Concept Plan proposes extensive landscape improvements within the area’s public rights-of-way and landscape setback areas. This section describes the landscape goals for the Platinum Triangle and provides typical plans and cross sections which establish the basic requirements for landscape development. Implementation of the Landscape Concept Plan within the public right-of-way will occur with development of new projects within the area unless otherwise determined by the City. Figure 20 shows how the Landscape Concept Plan applies to the Platinum Triangle and provides the overall unifying landscape framework. The full-street cross sections and plans that follow show the landscape treatment of the typical conditions on each of the Platinum Triangle’s major streets. The right-of-way dimensions may vary subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The treatment shown for each street is based on the Landscape Concept Plan. Whenever possible, utilities will be placed underground. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 39 4.2.1 Katella Avenue The central feature of Katella Avenue, between the Santa Ana Freeway and the entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim and the Amtrak/Metrolink station, is the grove-style planting of Date Palms. This planting continues the treatment of Katella Avenue in The Anaheim Resort west of the Santa Ana Freeway. Mass plantings of Agapanthus, a purple flowering shrub, provide a low shrub under-story for the Date Palms located in the parkway. A second row of matching Date Palms will be planted in the setback area in six-foot square cut-outs. The maintenance of the setback area is the responsibility of the property owner. The median will also consist of Date Palms, with flowering vines such as Bougainvillea ‘San Diego Red’ attached to the trunk of the tree in combination with alternate mass plantings of Agapanthus shrubs and Star Jasmine ground cover. Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, the setback area will be paved to provide pedestrian access. The landscaping for Katella Avenue changes near the railroad grade separation and further east to the City limits. Along this section of Katella Avenue, the Date Palms are eliminated within the Pedestrian/Landscape Realm and large-scaled Mexican Fan Palms are planted within the parkways. Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera) Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia reginae) Agapanthus (Agapanthus Africanus) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 40 Figure 22: Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue to East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 41 Figure 23: Katella Avenue Highway of National Significance East of State College Boulevard (Stadium Entrance) to Orange Freeway *Parkway Detail ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 42 Figure 24: Katella Avenue Orange Freeway to East City Limits Honda Center ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 43 4.2.2 State College Boulevard The primary landscape treatment for State College Boulevard consists of alternating Mexican Fan Palms and pedestrian-scaled flowering canopy trees such as Golden Trumpet trees and a single species of low flowering ground cover such as Vinca Major – Periwinkle ground cover within parkways and a single row of Camphor trees in the median. To further facilitate pedestrian access, the setback area may be paved adjacent to ground floor commercial uses. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Vinca Major – Periwinkle (Apocynaceae) Golden Trumpet Tree (Tabebuia Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum comphora) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 44 Figure 25: State College Boulevard South City Limits to Gene Autry Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 45 Figure 26: State College Boulevard Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 46 Figure 27: State College Boulevard Katella Avenue to 500’ North of Howell Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 47 Figure 28: State College Boulevard 500’ North of Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 48 4.2.3 Gene Autry Way On Gene Autry Way, the parkways from east of Santa Cruz Street to State College Boulevard will be planted with Crape Trees and Mexican Fan Palms will be required in the setback area. The median east of Market Street will include large canopy trees and Star Jasmine. This landscaping is intended to provide both a grand scale and pedestrian-friendly environment on this major entry into the Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Flowering vines will be attached to the palm trees and Bird of Paradise or a similar orange flowering hedge will be planted in the parkway. To provide for pedestrian circulation a 7½ -foot wide sidewalk within the public right-of-way is required with 2½ foot by 2½ foot scoring. Adjacent to this sidewalk, the setback area, may be paved and/or landscaped and outdoor restaurant seating area may encroach into this area. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia Robusta) Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia reginae) Crape Tree (Lagerstroemia indica) Star Jasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 49 Figure 29: Gene Autry Way Santa Cruz to State College Boulevard A single row of green canopy trees will be planted in the median from Market Street to State College Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 50 4.2.4 Orangewood Avenue The treatment of Orangewood Avenue consists of alternating Mexican Fan Palms and Magnolia trees within the parkways, which will also be planted with Halls Honeysuckle ground cover. The palms will have an orange flowering shrub planted at the base of the tree trunk. Small trees and flowering shrubs accent the landscape setback adjacent to the residential uses. Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, the setback area will be paved to provide pedestrian access. To provide for additional pedestrian circulation while maintaining the right-of-way widths prescribed by the General Plan, east of State College Boulevard, a 5-foot wide sidewalk within the public right-of-way is required with 2 ½ foot by 2 ½ foot scoring. Adjacent to this sidewalk, within the setback area, an additional 2 ½ foot wide walkway shall be provided with matching scoring. An easement for this walkway shall be provided to the City. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Magnolia Tree (Magnolia grandiflora) Halls Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) Orange Day Lilly Hemerocallis fulva ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 51 Figure 30: Orangewood Avenue Santa Ana Freeway to State College Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 52 Figure 31: Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard to Dupont Drive ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 53 Figure 32: Orangewood Avenue Dupont Drive to East City Limits ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 54 4.2.5 Douglass Road North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road will contain four travel lanes and bike lanes. The street landscape will consist of a double row of Mexican Fan Palms in the parkway and setback areas. Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) will be attached to the base of the palm trunks and yellow and orange Daylilies or a similar low red flowering shrub will be planted at the base of the palm trees. Adjacent to the Honda Center, the median will be a painted median to allow for better traffic flow in and out of the Honda Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Figure 33). North of the Honda Center, the median will be a raised median planted with a single row of green canopy trees and a single species of massed flowering groundcover. South of Katella Avenue, the streetscape design will be determined as part of the development process for ARTIC. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Orange Daylily (Hemerocallis flava) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 55 Figure 33: Douglass Road North of Katella Avenue Honda Center Parking Lot Painted median adjacent to Honda Center; landscaped median north of Honda Center Painted median adjacent to Honda Center Landscaped median north of Honda Center 106’ 80’ ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 56 4.2.6 Anaheim Way Anaheim Way is a one-way northbound frontage road on the east side of the Santa Ana Freeway. The landscape for Anaheim Way will be integrated into a large-scale landscaped open space treatment intended to attract the attention of passing motorists on the Santa Ana Freeway. The treatment will consist of Mexican Fan Palms with Bougainvillea attached to their trunks in parkways along with Bird of Paradise shrubs. Mexican Fan Palms will also be planted in the setback area along with small accent trees and flowering shrubs. Boston Ivy will be attached to the wall per Santa Ana Freeway standards. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Boston Ivy (Parthenocissus tricuspidata) Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia reginae) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 57 Figure 34: Anaheim Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 58 4.2.7 Lewis Street The Lewis Street landscape will consist of Mexican Fan Palms with Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) attached to the trunks of the trees and India Hawthorn shrub in the parkways. A single row of Gold Medallion trees and a single species of massed flowering ground cover will be provided in the median. The setback area will consist of canopy trees and a pink flowering low shrub or groundcover. Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Gold Medallion Tree (Cassia India Hawthorne (Rhaphiolepis indica) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 59 Figure 35: Lewis Street Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue green ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 60 Figure 36: Lewis Street Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 61 4.2.8 Railroad Right-of-Way The landscape adjacent to the railroad right-of-way consists of a Mexican Fan Palm alternating with citrus trees. Citrus Trees (Citrus) Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 62 Figure 37: Railroad Right-of-Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 63 4.2.9 Secondary Streets: Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street and Rampart Street The Secondary Street landscape consists of a Brisbane Box or similar canopy trees with a low flowering pink shrub or groundcover in the parkway. The landscape setback consists of a canopy tree to match the species of parkway tree in spacing and height with purple and pink flowering low shrub or ground cover. Brisbane Box (Tristania conferta) India Hawthorne (Rhaphiolepis indica) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 64 Figure 38: Secondary Streets (Howell Avenue, Sunkist Street and Rampart Street) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 65 4.2.10 Market Street The Market Street landscape consists of a large canopy tree, Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba), in tree grates with interlocking precast concrete pavers in the parkway. The from Katella Avenue to Market Street will be identified with rows of Date Palm Trees. The setback area may be paved to provide access for pedestrians. Angled parking will be provided on the west side and parallel parking will be provided on the east side of Market Street. Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) Date Palm-Medjool variety (Phoenix dactylifera) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 66 Figure 39: Conceptual Market Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 67 4.2.11 Connector and Collector Streets The Connector Streets’ landscape palette consists of a variety of large canopy trees, including the Southern Magnolia, Southern Live Oak, Fern Pine and Bradford Pear, which may be planted in tree wells with interlocking precast concrete pavers in the parkway or in parkways with turf or groundcover as approved by the City. A minimum 3-foot wide area will be planted with low flowering shrubs in the setback area adjacent to the sidewalk. Parkways on Collector Streets will be landscaped with Brisbane Box trees and India Hawthorne shrubs or another similar ground cover. Bike lanes will be located on designated Collector Streets in the Orangewood District to connect the bike lanes on Orangewood Avenue to the Santa Ana River Bike Trail. Fern Pine (Podocarpus Gracilior) Southern Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) Southern Magnolia Tree (Magnolia grandiflora) Bradford Pear (Pyrus calleryana) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 68 Figure 40: Conceptual Connector Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 69 Figure 41: Collector (Dupont Drive and Towne Centre Place) Collector Possible 3’ Use Encroachment (refer to PTMU Overlay Zone) 3’ 3’ Possible 3’ Use Encroachment (refer to PTMU Overlay Zone) Private patios may encroach 7’ into setback area Collector ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan DSEIR No. 339 70 4.2.12 Intersections with Supplemental Lanes Within the Platinum Triangle these intersections require supplemental lanes to provide adequate level of service and operational improvements:  Cerritos Avenue/Sunkist Street  Katella Avenue/Anaheim Way  Katella Avenue/State College Boulevard  Katella Avenue/Howell Avenue  Katella Avenue/Sportstown Way  Katella Avenue/Lewis Street  Katella Avenue/Douglass Road  Gene Autry Way/Lewis Street  Gene Autry Way/State College Boulevard  Orangewood Avenue/Anaheim Way  Orangewood Avenue/State College Boulevard  Orangewood Avenue/Dupont Drive  Orangewood Avenue/Rampart Street  State College Boulevard/Gateway  State College Boulevard/Artisan Court The typical improvements for these intersections include additional left-turn lanes and a dedicated free right-turn lane. Where a dedicated free right-turn lane is required, right-of-way widths will be widened and setback areas will be pushed back. Supplemental lanes will also be required where Connector Streets and Market Street intersect with arterials at signalized intersections. The number and type of supplemental lanes will be determined through project-specific traffic impact studies. Where a dedicated free right-turn lane is required, right-of-way widths will be widened and setback areas will be pushed back. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 A APPENDIX A The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Chapter 18.20 PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Sections: 18.20.010 Purpose and intent. 18.20.020 Applicability. 18.20.030 Uses. 18.20.040 Development districts. 18.20.050 Structural heights. 18.20.060 Coverage. 18.20.070 Project size. 18.20.080 Floor area. 18.20.090 Structural setbacks. 18.20.100 Structural location and building orientation. 18.20.110 Public parks, recreational-leisure areas and landscaping 18.20.120 Parking, loading and vehicular access. 18.20.130 Refuse storage and recycling facilities, and private storage areas 18.20.140 Design standards. 18.20.150 Signs. 18.20.160 Compatibility standards. 18.20.170 Gateway District Sub-Area B standards. 18.20.180 Orangewood District standards. 18.20.190 ARTIC, Stadium and Arena District standards. 18.20.200 Implementation. 18.20.010 PURPOSE AND INTENT. .010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter referred to as the "PTMU Overlay Zone") to provide opportunities for well-designed development projects that combine residential with non- residential uses, including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the portions of the Platinum Triangle designated with the Mixed-Use, Office High and Office Low land use designations in the City of Anaheim General Plan, and consistent with the policy direction in the General Plan. .020 Objectives. The PTMU Overlay Zone has the following major objectives: .0201 Create a unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and reduces dependence on the automobile for everyday needs, through a streetscape that is connected, attractive, safe and engaging. .0202 Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 .0203 Encourage compatibility between residential, office, commercial and sports entertainment uses. .0204 Reinforce Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities around the existing Amtrak/Metrolink and the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARCTIC) stations. .0205 Maintain and enhance connectivity and linkages with convenience services, dining, retail and recreation facilities within walking distance, by providing ground floor commercial uses in key locations. .0206 Provide a mix of housing types. .0207 Create great long-lasting neighborhoods that maintain value through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes. .0208 Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreational-leisure areas and public parks. .0209 Create a balance of landscape and architecture by providing sufficient planting space. .0210 Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable neighborhood design. .0211 Stimulate market-driven development investment. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6075 § 1: September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.020 APPLICABILITY. .010 The Platinum Triangle comprises approximately eight hundred twenty (820) acres generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company Easement on the north. The PTMU Overlay Zone covers an area consisting of approximately four hundred and seventy five (475) acres designated for mixed use and office uses within the Platinum Triangle, as depicted in Figure 3 (General Plan Designations) of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan approved by the City Council on August 17, 2004 and amended on April 26, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-54), September 13, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-188) September 25, 2005 (Resolution Nos. 2005-208 and 2005-212), June 5, 2007 (Resolution No. 2007-81), August 21, 2007 (Resolution Nos. 2007-169 and 172) April 8, 2008 (Resolution No. 2008-40), October 14, 2008 (Resolution No. 2008-179) and (Resolution No. and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Said Figure 3 is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 .020 Applicable Regulations. The provisions of this chapter shall supersede the corresponding regulations of the underlying zones, except as provided below. .030 Option to Use Underlying Zone. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to parcels that have been, or are proposed to be, developed entirely under the underlying zone; provided that all requirements of the underlying zone are met by the project, except as specifically approved otherwise by variance or other official action by the City. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004; Ord. 5948 § 2: November 9, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6014 § 1; January 31, 2006: Ord. 6075 § 2; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.030 USES. .010 Office District. The uses set forth in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) for the O-H (High Intensity Office) Zone shall apply to properties within the Office District designated by the General Plan for Office-High land use. The uses set forth in Chapter 18.08 for the O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones shall apply to properties within the Office District designated by the General Plan for Office-Low land use. .020 Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Orangewood and Stadium Districts. Tables 20A, 20-B and 20-C only apply to properties within the Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Orangewood and Stadium Districts. .030 Primary Uses. Table 20-A (Primary Uses: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) sets forth allowable primary uses for the PTMU Overlay Zone, listed by classes of uses as defined in Section 18.36.030 (Residential Primary Use Classes) and Section 18.36.040 (Non-Residential Primary Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .040 Accessory Uses. Table 20-B (Accessory Uses and Structures: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) sets forth allowable accessory uses and structures for the PTMU Overlay Zone, listed by classes of uses as defined in Section 18.36.050 (Accessory Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .050 Temporary Uses. Table 20-C (Temporary Uses and Structures: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) sets forth allowable temporary uses and structures for the PTMU Overlay Zone, listed by classes of uses as defined in Section 18.36.060 (Temporary Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .060 The allowable uses in Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C are established by letter designations as follows: .0601 designates classes of uses permitted by right; .0602 designates classes of uses permitted with a conditional use permit; .0603 designates classes of uses that are prohibited; and ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 .0604 "GF" designates classes of uses that are considered ground floor commercial for the PTMU Overlay Zone. .070 Ground-Floor Commercial Uses. In order to encourage an active street life while accommodating market demand, ground floor commercial uses facing the street are required along Market Street and on Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street, as identified on Figure 4 (The Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan) in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Permitted ground floor commercial uses are identified in Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C, and may include the non-residential portion of live/work units, or may be designed so that the space may be used for either residential or non-residential uses where the residential portion does not face the street. Ground floor commercial uses are also permitted along all other streets within the PTMU Overlay Zone. .0701 Ground floor commercial uses, as designated in Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C, shall have a minimum depth of no less than thirty (30) feet and shall be provided along the property frontage adjacent to Market Street and Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street, as identified on Figure 4 of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .080 Live/Work Units. Within the Arena, ARTIC, Gateway, Gene Autry, Katella, Orangewood and Stadium Districts a commercial land use may be combined with a residential land use within one unit to create a space that contains both a residence and commercial area, such as an office. .090 Interpreting Classes of Uses. The provisions for interpreting the classes of uses in Tables 20-A, 20-B or 20-C are set forth in Section 18.36.020 (Classification of Uses) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .100 Special Provisions. Special provisions related to a use are referenced in the "Special Provisions" column of Tables 20-A, 20-B and 20-C. Such provisions may include references to other applicable code sections or limitations to the specified land use. Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Residential Classes of Uses Dwellings–Multiple-Family P ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Dwellings–Multiple-Family in the Gateway District, Sub-Area B C Subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, as may be amended from time to time, and subject to the conditions and showings of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits), and further subject to paragraph 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] and .0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions). Dwellings–Single-Family Attached P Dwellings–Single-Family Detached N Senior Citizen Housing C Subject to Chapter 18.50 (Senior Citizens Apartment Projects) Non-Residential Classes of Uses Alcoholic Beverage Sales–Off- Sale C GF Conditional use permit not required if use is in conjunction with Markets–Large Alcoholic Beverage Sales–On- Sale C GF Automotive–Public Parking C Automotive-Car Sales and Rental N Except as permitted as an accessory use. Automotive–Service Stations C Bars & C GF Billboards N Business & Financial Services P GF Commercial Retail Centers C Community & Religious Assembly C GF ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Computer Internet & Amusement Facilities C GF Convenience Stores C GF Conversions of hotels or motels to semi-permanent living quarters N Dance & Fitness Studios–Large P GF Dance & Fitness Studios–Small P GF Day Care Centers C GF Drive -through Facilities N Educational Institutions- Business C GF Educational Institutions- General C GF Educational Institutions- Tutoring P GF Hotels & Motels P/C/N Hotels are permitted, extended-stay hotels are permitted by conditional use permit, motels are not permitted (See Chapter 18.92 for definitions) Markets–Large P GF Outdoor farmer's markets are allowed with a conditional use permit Markets–Small P GF Medical and Dental Offices P GF Offices-General P GF Personal Services–General P GF On-site dry cleaning not allowed; conditional use permit required for laundromats; laundromats are subject to § 18.38.150 Personal Services–Restricted C GF ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Public Services P GF Recreation–Billiards P GF Recreation–Commercial Indoor P GF Recreation–Commercial Outdoor C Recreation–Low-Impact P Recreation–Swimming & Tennis P Repair Services–Limited P GF Research and Development C Restaurants-Drive-Through N Restaurants–General P GF Restaurants–Semi-Enclosed P GF Subject to 18.38.220 (Restaurants – Outdoor Seating and Dining) Restaurants–Walk-Up P GF Retail Sales–General P GF Retail Sales–Regional P GF Retail Sales-Used Merchandise N Sex-oriented businesses, as defined in Chapter 18.54 (Sex- Oriented Businesses) N Studios–Broadcasting P GF Broadcasting antennas require a Conditional Use Permit. Studios–Recording P GF Swap meets, indoor and outdoor N Transit Facilities P GF ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Utilities–Major C Use or activities not listed, nor specifically prohibited C As determined by the Planning Director to be compatible with the intended purpose of the PTMU Overlay Zone. Table 20-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Amusement Devices P Subject to Chapter 4.14 (Amusement Devices) Animal Keeping P Subject to 18.38.030 (Animal Keeping) Antennas–Broadcasting C Antennas–Private Transmitting P Subject to 18.38.040 (Antennas – Private Transmitting) Antennas–Receiving P Subject to 18.38.050 (Antennas – Receiving) Antennas– Telecommunications- Stealth Building-Mounted T Subject to § 18.38.060 and 18.62.020 Antennas– Telecommunications- Stealth Ground-Mounted T Subject to § 18.38.060 and 18.62.020 Antennas–Telecommunications Ground-Mounted (Non-Stealth) N Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P GF Subject to § 18.36.050.035 ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Table 20-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Automotive-Car Rental P Subject to a maximum of five parking spaces for on-site parking of vehicles available for rental in reserved parking spaces. The provision of more than 5 parking spaces for rental vehicles shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Said spaces shall be in addition to those required by Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). Caretaker Units C Subject to 18.38.090 (Caretaker Units) Day Care–Large Family P Subject to 18.38.140 (Large Family Day Care Homes) Day Care–Small Family P Fences & Walls P This use may occur on a lot with or without a primary use. (Ord. 5948 § 3; November 29, 2004.) Home Occupations P Subject to 18.38.130 (Home Occupations) Landscaping & Gardens P Subject to Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) Mechanical & Utility Equipment –Ground Mounted P Subject to 18.38.160 (Mechanical and Utility Equipment–Ground Mounted) Mechanical & Utility Equipment –Roof Mounted P Subject to 18.38.170 (Mechanical and Utility Equipment–Roof Mounted) and 18.20.140 (Design Standards) of this chapter Murals P/C Permitted when not visible from right-of-way or adjacent properties. Conditional use where visible from any public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Parking Lots & Garages P Portable Food Carts C Recreation Buildings & Structures P GF ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Table 20-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited T=Telecommunications Antenna Review Permit Required GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Recreation-Low-Impact P Recycling Services-Consumer P Subject to Chapter 18.48 (Recycling Facilities); reverse vending machines located entirely within a structure do not require any zoning approval Retail Kiosks P Signs P Subject to Chapter 18.44 (Signs) and 18.20.150 (Signs) of this chapter Solar Energy Panels P Must be mounted on the roof and, if visible from the street level, must be parallel to the roof plane Thematic Elements P Utilities-Minor P Vending Machines P Shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way and shall not encroach onto sidewalks Table 20-C TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District uses. P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited GF=Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Contractor’s Office & Storage P Subject to 18.38.105 (Contractor's Office & Storage) Open-Air Festivals P Requires all applicable City permits ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Real Estate Tract Offices P The office shall be removed at the end of two years from the date of the recording of the subdivision map, or the sale of the last dwelling unit, whichever is earlier Special Events P Subject to 18.38.240 (Special Events) (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 5948 § 3; November 9, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6004 § 2; November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.040 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. .010 Purpose. To permit the maximum amount of development in the Platinum Triangle consistent with the General Plan and the infrastructure capacity analyzed by EIR No. 330, SEIR No. 332, EIR No. 335 and SEIR No. 339, the PTMU Overlay Zone establishes land use intensities for each of the following development districts: Arena District, ARTIC District, Gateway District, Gene Autry District, Katella District, Orangewood District, Office District and Stadium District. The boundaries of the development districts are depicted in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, which boundaries are incorporated herein by this reference. .020 Table 20-D (Development Intensities: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) indicates the maximum land use intensities analyzed by EIR No. 330, SEIR No. 332, EIR No. 335, and SEIR No. 339. .0201 The permitted development intensities are further described by sub area in Appendix G of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .0202 The Planning Department will maintain an accounting of the total amount of dwelling units and square footage approved within each district. Development shall not exceed the overall total land use intensity for the PTMU Overlay Zone or the intensity identified for each district. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 5996 § 1; September 27, 2005: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6031 § 18; August 22, 2006: Ord. 6062 § 1; June 17, 2007: Ord. 6073 § 1; September 11, 2007 Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008) ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Table 20-D DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE District Acres Maximum Housing Units Maximum Office Square Feet Maximum Commercial Square Feet Maximum Institutional Square Feet Arena 41 425 100,000 100,000 0 ARTIC 17 520 2,202,803 358,000 1,500,000 Gateway 50 2,949 562,250 64,000 0 Gene Autry 33 2,362 338,200 304,700 0 Katella 141 5,707 2,131,058 832,614 0 Orangewood 35 1,771 1,402,855 130,000 0 Stadium 153 5,175 3,125,000 3,120,368 0 Total Mixed Use 470 18,909 9,862,166 4,909,682 1,500,000 Office 121 0 4,478,356 0 0 Total PTMU Overlay 591 18,909 14,340,522 4,909,682 1,500,000 18.20.050 STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS. The height requirements for the PTMU Overlay Zone are shown in Table 20-E (Maximum Structural Height: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and apply in addition to the Structural Height Limitations in Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards). Greater heights are permitted in connection with a conditional use permit, as set forth in Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permit). Table 20-E MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Maximum Height in Feet ARTIC, Arena and Stadium Districts Unlimited All other properties 100 (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 §1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 18.20.060 COVERAGE. .010 Site Coverage. The maximum site coverage for the PTMU Overlay Zone is seventy- five percent .0101 “Coverage” is the sum of the area of all building footprint areas and the area of exposed parking, divided by the gross area of the parcel, excluding Market Street or connector streets and/or any required public right-of-way. For purpose of coverage calculations, parking is not considered exposed when landscape, patios and pool decks are located on the top level of a parking structure. .0102 Accessory Buildings and Structures. All accessory buildings and structures, shall be included in the maximum site coverage calculation. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.070 PROJECT SIZE. The residential project size requirements are as follows: .010 The minimum residential project size shall be fifty (50) dwelling units. .015 The minimum and maximum densities permitted shall be as indicated by building type in Table 20-F (Building Types: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone), based on the gross number of dwelling units and the gross lot size excluding public and private streets, alley rights-of-way, and public and private easements for ingress and egress. .020 Residential projects of more than four hundred (400) dwelling units on parcels of five acres or greater shall consist of more than one building type, as defined in Table 20-F (Building Types: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone). The building types proposed to meet this requirement must vary by at least one story in height. .030 Building Site Requirements in Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards) shall also apply. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Table 20-F BUILDING TYPES: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Building Type Unit Type Density Range Units/Acre Definition Tuck-Under Townhomes Flats 16-30 Residential buildings in which individual parking garages are located under the living unit but still accessed by surface driveways Wrapped Deck Flats 45-80 Residential buildings that surround, or wrap around, a freestanding (not subterranean) parking structure Podium Townhomes Flats 16-100 Residential buildings located above a subterranean parking structure High-Rise Tower Flats 65-100 Residential buildings over 55 feet in height (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.080 FLOOR AREA. The minimum floor area for dwelling units is shown in Table 20-G (Minimum Floor Area: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone). .010 Calculations. For purposes of this section, a "Bedroom" is a private habitable room planned or used for sleeping, separated from other rooms by a door or a similar partition. Further, all rooms (other than a living room, family room, dining room, bathroom, hall, lobby, closet or pantry) having seventy (70) square feet or more of floor area, or less than fifty percent (50%) of the total length of any wall open to an adjacent room or hallway, shall be considered a "Bedroom." Table 20-G MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Unit Type Minimum Floor Area Studio Units: 550 square feet One-Bedroom Units: 650 square feet Two-Bedroom Units: 825 square feet Three-Bedroom Units: 1,000 square feet ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Table 20-G MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Unit Type Minimum Floor Area More Than a Three-Bedroom Unit: 1,000 square feet plus 200 square feet for each bedroom over three (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.090 STRUCTURAL SETBACKS. Every building or structure erected under the provisions of this zone shall be provided with setbacks as follows: .010 Setbacks Abutting Public Rights-of-Way, Private Streets and Alleys. .0101 Minimum Open Setback. All properties shall have a minimum open setback for the full width of the property, as indicated in Table 20-H (Structural Setbacks Abutting Public Rights-of-Way, Private Streets and Alleys) and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .01 Setbacks abutting public rights-of-way shall be parallel to the centerline of the adjoining public rights-of-way, and shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way, as indicated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. .02 Setbacks abutting private streets or alleys shall be parallel to the centerline of the adjoining private street or alley, and measured from the private access easement. .0102 Required Improvement of Setbacks. Setbacks abutting public rights-of-way, private streets and alleys shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or other plants, and/or decorated hard surface expansion of the sidewalk, as set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening), Table 20-H and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Setback areas shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly manner. .0103 Permitted Encroachments. Setbacks abutting public rights-of-way, private streets and alleys may include the following encroachments: .01 Patios, residential buildings and ground floor commercial uses that encroach into the required street setback no more than the maximum amount allowed per Table 20-H and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .02 Walkway connections to building entrances, provided that special paving treatment or modular paving materials are used. .03 Vehicular and bike accessways. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 .04 Transit stops. .05 Outdoor seating and dining areas in conjunction with full-service restaurants, coffee shops, and bakeries, provided that such areas shall be designed to not adversely affect the safe and efficient circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. .06 Public art displays, fountains, ponds, planters, outdoor seating areas, benches, decorative trash receptacles, planters, public plazas, or other similar amenities and attractive street furnishings that create public gathering places. .07 Newsracks that are designed to be aesthetically harmonious with the character of the area, and not cause obstruction or adversely affect the safe and efficient circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. .08 Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses and fireplaces that encroach into the required street setback no more than thirty-six (36) inches. .09 Awnings, canopies and arcades. .10 Open, unenclosed balconies that encroach into the required street setback no more than three feet. .11 Covered or uncovered entrances that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building, and that include a wall not more than thirty-six (36) inches in height that encroaches into the required street setback no more than five feet. .12 Fences, walls and hedges that comply with Section 18.46.110 (Screening, Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) and subsection 18.20.30.020 (Accessory Uses). .0104 Improvement of Walkways Required. Adjacent to Orangewood Avenue, the portion of the setback adjacent to the right-of-way shall be improved with a walkway, as indicated in Table 20-H and as shown in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. An easement for said walkway shall be provided to the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Katella Avenue 18 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 4 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved • A date palm matching the date palm in the public right-of-way in spacing and height shall be installed 5 feet from the right-of- way, as indicated on the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan State College Boulevard South of Gene Autry Way: 13 feet North of Gene Autry Way to railroad grade separation: 16 feet North of railroad grade separation: 20 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 4-8 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Gene Autry Way 9.5 feet Patios: 5 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 5 feet (outdoor seating areas may encroach 9.5 feet) • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 100% of the setback area may be paved provided required Mexican Fan Palm trees in setback areas are provided 20 feet on-center • A 2.5 foot walkway shall be provided adjacent to right-of- way, scored to match adjacent sidewalk, and an easement provided to the City Orangewood Avenue West of West Dupont Drive: 12 feet East of West Dupont Drive: 15 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 8 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk/walkway shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved • East of State College Boulevard, 2.5 foot walkway shall be provided adjacent to right-of- way, scored to match adjacent sidewalk, and an easement provided to the City, ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Douglass Road 14 feet Patios: 8 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 3 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved Anaheim Way West side: 5 feet East side: 20 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Lewis Street South of Katella Avenue: 20 feet North of Katella Avenue: 12 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Railroad Right-of-Way 10 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Howell Avenue Sunkist Street Rampart Street 20 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped Market Street 10 feet Ground floor commercial: 4 feet • A maximum 30% of setback area may be landscaped Connector Streets Collector Streets Private Streets 10 feet Patios: 7 feet Residential buildings: 3 feet* Ground floor commercial: 3 feet • The area between residential patios and the sidewalk shall be fully landscaped • Adjacent to ground floor commercial uses, up to 80% of the setback area may be paved ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Table 20-H STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ABUTTING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE *Residential buildings may encroach into the street setback area for no more than 30% of the length of the street elevation. Street Minimum Setback Permitted Encroachments Required Landscape Alleys 10 feet Patios: 2 feet Residential buildings: 2 feet* Ground floor commercial: 2 feet • A minimum 4-foot-wide pedestrian walkway shall be provided parallel to the alley. All other portions of the setback area shall be fully landscaped. Freeways 25 feet None • Setback area shall be fully landscaped .020 Setbacks – Other. An open setback shall be provided between buildings and interior lot lines, and between buildings located on the same project site. Minimum setback requirements shall be measured perpendicular to building walls. .0201 Required Improvement of Setbacks. Required setbacks abutting interior property lines and setbacks between buildings shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or other plants, as indicated above and as set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening). Setback areas shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly manner. .0202 Setbacks Abutting Interior Property Lines. A minimum five foot wide fully landscaped setback area shall be provided for structures abutting an interior property line along the entire length of the building. Where a fence or wall is provided along or adjacent to the interior property line, the five foot wide fully landscaped setback shall be measured from the side of the fence or wall facing the property. .0203 Setbacks Between Buildings. A minimum twenty (20) foot wide setback between parallel walls of two separate buildings shall be provided. At least forty percent (40%) of the setback area between buildings shall be landscaped. .01 Permitted Encroachments. The following encroachments are permitted, provided a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the setback area is landscaped: Open, unenclosed balconies and/or private patios for ground floor residential units may encroach no more than five feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Covered or uncovered entrances that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building and that include a wall not more than thirty-six (36) inches in height may encroach no more than five feet. Outdoor recreational facilities. Fountains, ponds, sculptures and planters. Fences, walls and hedges that comply with Section 18.46.110 (Screening, Fences, Walls and Hedges). Paved walkways, benches and plazas. Vehicular accessways. .030 Parking, loading or unloading of privately owned and operated automobiles and other vehicles shall be prohibited in all required setbacks. .040 Required vehicle site distances shall be maintained. No landscaping or other elements such as signs or fences exceeding twenty-four (24) inches in height shall be permitted within the line-of-sight triangle described in Section 18.44.080 (Freestanding and Monument Signs– General) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs) and as shown on the applicable Engineering Standard Detail pertaining to commercial drive approaches unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. .050 Modifications. The setbacks prescribed in this section may be modified in connection with a conditional use permit as set forth in Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permit), provided that minimum landscape requirements are met. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 5948 § 4; November 9, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6031 § 20: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6075 § 5; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.100 STRUCTURAL LOCATION AND BUILDING ORIENTATION. All buildings shall have the following orientation to the street: .010 All buildings shall be aligned either parallel or at right angles to the street rights-of- way. .020 All buildings adjacent to a public street shall maintain a continuous "street wall," formed by the edge of the building, for a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the lot/parcel frontage adjacent to the street. .030 With the exception of parking lots and structures for hotels and office buildings, and as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, parking lots and ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 structures shall not be located directly adjacent to a public street, but shall be placed internal to the block, in a location screened from view of the public right-of-way or subterranean to the building. .040 Parking Structures. Except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, parking structures shall be screened from view of the public right-of-way. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6075 § 6; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.110 PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING .010 Public Parks. Public parks shall be provided as follows: .0101 Parcels eight (8.0) acres or larger with residential development totaling more than 325 units, shall provide and construct an on-site public park, at a minimum size of forty-four (44) square feet per residential dwelling unit. .01 Said park shall be bounded on at least one side by a public street with on-street parking. .02 This requirement is in addition to the payment of park-in-lieu fees; however, the value of the parkland dedication will be credited against overall park-in-lieu fees paid for the project. This credit will be given for park land dedication only. No credit will be given for improvements to the park or for recreational-leisure areas, as required subject to subsection 18.20.110.020 (Recreational-Leisure Areas). .0102 Parcels less than eight (8.0) acres in size shall pay a park-in-lieu fee. .020 Recreational-Leisure Areas. Two hundred (200) square feet of recreational-leisure area shall be provided for each dwelling unit, and may be provided by private areas, common areas, or a combination of both. .0201 Common Recreational-Leisure Areas. All common recreational-leisure areas shall be conveniently located and readily accessible from all dwelling units located on the building site, and shall be integrated with, and contiguous to, other common areas on the building site. The common recreational-leisure area may be composed of active or passive facilities, and may incorporate any required setback areas other than setback areas adjacent to public rights-of-way, private streets and alleys and interior property lines, but shall not include or incorporate any driveways or parking areas, trash pickup or storage areas or utility areas. The common recreational-leisure area shall have a minimum dimension of ten (10) feet. .01 Improvement of Common Recreational-Leisure Areas. All common recreational- leisure areas shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs or other plants, as set forth in Chapter ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening), with the exception of reasonably required pedestrian walkways and paved recreational facilities, such as swimming pools and decks and court game facilities. Fountains, ponds, waterscape, sculpture, planters, benches and decorative screen-type walls installed incidentally to the primary plants in the landscaping shall be permitted and encouraged. All required common recreational-leisure areas and other required open space areas shall be developed and professionally maintained in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plans. Courtyards internal to a project, or enclosed on at least three sides, shall have a minimum width of forty (40) feet, and shall be landscaped with a ratio of hardscape to planting not exceeding a ratio one square foot of landscape to one square foot of hardscape. Pools and spas shall be excluded from this ratio. The base of a building shall be separated from adjacent common recreational- leisure area by a planter allowing a minimum thirty (30) inches planting width. .0202 Private Recreational-Leisure Areas. In order for private patios and balconies to count toward the recreational-leisure area requirement, they must comply with the following: .01 Any private patios for ground floor units shall not be less than one hundred (100) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of eight feet. .02 Private balconies for dwelling units located entirely above the ground floor shall not be less than seventy (70) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of seven feet. Private balconies for dwelling units located in high-rise towers, eight stories or higher, shall not be less than thirty-five (35) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of five feet. .030 Landscaping. Landscaping, including fences, walls and hedges, shall be permitted and/or required subject to the conditions and limitations set forth herein and in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) except that the minimum plant size for a Date Palm, which shall be 30-foot, brown-trunk height, and a Mexican Fan Palm, which shall be 20-foot, brown-trunk height. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord 6004 § 3; November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.120 PARKING, LOADING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS .010 Number of Parking Spaces. .0101 Number of Spaces for Residential Uses. The following minimum parking requirements shall be used in determining parking need: ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Table 20-I MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Per Unit 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces 2 bedroom 2.0 spaces 3 bedroom 2.5 spaces 4 bedroom 3.5 spaces .0102 Number of Spaces for Non-Residential Uses. The number of parking spaces for non-residential uses shall be determined by the type of use (use class) specified in Table 42-A (Non-Residential Parking Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). .0103 Number of Spaces for Mixed-Use Projects. Due to variations in parking demand and the needs of each project, vehicle parking requirements, the demand for drop-off and pick-up locations and the design of the parking areas, including ingress and egress, shall be determined as part of the final site plan review process by the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department based upon information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer, as approved by the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department and/or its designee. The parking demand study shall be prepared at the property owner/developer’s expense and provided as part of the final site plan application. .0104 On-Street Parking. Parking located on a private or public street directly in front of a use may be considered for parking credit; providing a parking management plan is approved by the City Engineer, which adequately addresses how parking will be limited to the use that it is intended to serve. .0105 Tandem Parking. Tandem Parking may be permitted in conjunction with subterranean parking and tuck-under buildings, where both spaces are assigned to the same designated dwelling unit. .0106 Valet Parking. Valet parking may be permitted in conjunction with subterranean parking, provided valet services are provided for and managed by an on-site management company or homeowner's association. .0107 Drop-off and Pick-Up Locations. Drop-off and pick-up locations shall be incorporated into the design of parking areas, and the number, location and design shall be approved by the City Engineer. .020 Designation of Parking for Residential and Non-Residential Uses. Parking spaces specifically designated for non-residential and residential uses shall be marked by the use of ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 posting, pavement markings, and/or physical separation. Parking design shall incorporate separate entrances and exits, or a designated lane, for residents, so that residents are not waiting in line behind non-residential drivers. .030 Vehicle Access. All vehicle access shall be designed and improved in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. .0301 Primary Vehicle Access. Parcels located adjacent to connector or collector streets shall have their primary vehicle access off of said streets. .0302 Minimum Distance Between Driveways of Arterials. The minimum distance between adjacent driveways on the same site or adjacent properties located along arterials shall be not less than three hundred and fifty (350) feet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. .0303 Vehicular Access from Katella Avenue. When two or more parcels or lots located adjacent to Katella Avenue are considered as a single, integrated development, additional driveways may be permitted, subject to the Standard Driveway Detail requirements of the Public Works Department. .0304 Driveway Width Dimensions. Driveways shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet wide, and a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet wide, in order to enhance the pedestrian experience. Wider widths may be allowed if pedestrian circulation is not significantly compromised, subject to the approval of the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager, based on sound engineering practices. .040 Streets. As provided in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, connector and collector streets and a Market Street will be required within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The location of these streets shall be in conformance with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer, based on an access and alignment study. Additional connector streets may be required by the City Engineer, based on projected traffic volumes as determined by a traffic study. .0401 The streets shall be designed to comply with the cross sections in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; provided that the final width, including supplemental turn lanes if required, shall be determined, based on anticipated traffic volumes analyzed as part of a project specific traffic impact study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. .0402 Traffic-calming and special street design features, such as enhanced paving and parkway tapers at intersections, are permitted and encouraged, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. .050 Loading Areas. Off-street loading spaces shall be provided as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 .0501 Non-residential uses off-street loading requirements shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.42.100 (Loading Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading). .0502 Residential Uses. .01 Residential uses shall have one off-street loading space or moving plaza for every one hundred and fifty (150) units. .02 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be located near entries and/or elevators. .03 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be incorporated into the design of vehicular access areas. .04 Decorative paving, removable bollards and potted plants are permitted and encouraged to enhance loading spaces or moving plazas. .05 Loading spaces or moving plazas may be located on a local or connector street, with the approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. The adjacent parkway and setback landscape treatment shall be designed to allow for loading and unloading. (Ord. 5935 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6101 § 13; April 22, 2008: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.130 REFUSE STORAGE AND RECYCLING FACILITIES, AND PRIVATE STORAGE AREAS. .010 Refuse Storage and Recycling Facilities. Refuse storage areas and recycling facilities shall conform to the standards set forth in the document entitled "Refuse Container Enclosure for Multiple-Family Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Use" (Form 139), on file with the City of Anaheim or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works, with the additional requirement that the refuse storage facilities for residential and non-residential users shall be maintained as separate facilities, and shall not allow commingling of the separate facilities. The storage areas shall be screened from adjacent public or private rights-of-way, or railroads. .020 Private Storage Areas. General storage cabinets, with a minimum size of one hundred (100) cubic feet capacity, shall be required for each dwelling unit. Provision of said storage areas shall be in addition to the minimum floor area of the unit. Storage areas may be located inside the dwelling unit, adjacent to the dwelling unit's balcony or patio, or in close proximity to the dwelling unit. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 18.20.140 DESIGN STANDARDS. .010 The design of buildings within the Platinum Triangle shall be of the highest quality in massing, design details and amenities. .020 Amenities. High quality recreational and service amenities to serve the tenants of the residential complexes shall be provided. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, private health clubs or fitness centers, meeting rooms, recreational rooms, pools, spas, dry cleaning collection and distribution, computer facilities, barbecues, decks, court game facilities, and community fireplaces. .030 Integrated Design. The design of buildings, signs, landscaping and other structures or elements shall feature a unified and integrated theme. .040 Architectural Massing. With the exception of office buildings and hotels, and as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, buildings shall comply with the following: .0401 Regardless of style, a building shall not have a continuous roof or parapet line exceeding one hundred twenty (120) feet in length, without vertical breaks that cause a change in height of at least six feet. .0402 When a building exceeds two hundred forty (240) feet in length, building height shall step down, in at least one location at least one floor, for a minimum length of twenty- four (24) feet. .0403. The wall plane of a building facade shall not extend longer than eighty (80) feet, without a break in the plane no less than three feet in depth. .050 Facades. .0501 Street wall facades shall be architecturally enhanced through the use of arcades, colonnades, recessed entrances, window details, bays, variation in building materials, and other details such as cornices and contrasting colors. Total blank wall areas (without windows or entrances) are prohibited. In addition to architectural massing requirements, building facades shall be articulated through the use of separated wall surfaces, contrasting colors and materials, variations in building setbacks, and attractive window fenestrations. .0502 Street wall facades shall be integrated with public plazas, mini parks, outdoor dining, and other pedestrian-oriented amenities. .0503 Buildings at corners of any street intersection not identified as requiring landmark architecture in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, shall receive special treatment to enhance the pedestrian experience, and create visual interest and focal points at the such as but not limited to, building cut-offs and corner entrances with additional architectural detail. ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 .0504 Tops of building facades shall be visually terminated through the use of cornices, stepped parapets, hip and mansard roofs, stepped terraces, domes and other forms of multifaceted building tops. .060 Architectural Detail. .0601 Buildings on corners must address both streets with an equal level of architectural detail. .0602 Projecting features to create visual interest and distinction between units, such as balconies, porches, bays, and dormer windows, are required. Trim detail on rooflines, porches, windows and doors on street-facing elevations are required. .0603 When trim is used, a minimum of one-inch by four-inch x trim is required. .0604 With stucco walls, a minimum one-inch deep, raised relief around the window is required. .0605 With brick, a minimum two-inch wide brickmold is required around windows. .0606 “Corner Boards” (the board upon which siding is fitted at the corner of a frame structure) are required with wood or simulated wood sidings. .0607 Dormers must be authentic and either be habitable or provide attic ventilation and have a symmetrical gable, hip, shed or curved form. .0608 Windows shall have clear glazing, (panes or sheets of glass) or tinted glazing e.g., low emissivity, solar or spandrel glazing (opaque glass for concealing structural elements). Other types of mirror glazing (including tinted or opaque glass) are not permitted. .0609 Windows shall be recessed (not flush with the wall plane) to create shadow lines and to impart a three-dimensional design feature. .0610 All first floor exterior doors shall be hinged. Sliding glass doors are permitted only above the first floor, and on rear or interior side yard elevations not visible from public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. .0611 Primary wall materials used on the front facade must be repeated on the rear and side elevations. .0612 The lower thirty percent (30 portion of balcony rails shall be finished with a permanent, solid, building material that matches or is otherwise compatible with the building. .0613 Balconies shall provide penetrations in the building mass at least three feet, create shadow, and expose extended wall thickness. ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 .070 Roof Treatments. .0701 Roofs shall be of a monochromic color, and all penetrations and appurtenances shall be painted to match, or be compatible with, the roof color so that their visibility is minimized. .0702 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be mounted behind major rooftop elements such as stair or elevator penthouses, parapets or architectural projections, so that the equipment is not visible from the adjacent public rights-of-way or adjacent property at grade level. .080 Parking Treatments. .0801 Parking structures shall be screened from view, and shall include architectural detailing, facade treatment, artwork, landscaping, or similar visual features to enhance the street façade, except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District. .0802 With the exception of parking structures for office buildings and hotels, and as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, any parking structure facing the street, excluding vehicular access areas, shall be lined with residential, live/work or other usable space, to clad the face of the structure so that it is not visible from the adjacent street. .0803 Subterranean parking structures can extend above grade up to two feet six inches without requiring cladding treatment as required above, except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District. .0804 Parking structures for office buildings and hotels facing the street shall screen and enhance the design of the parking structure through architectural detailing, landscaping, façade treatment, or similar visual features. .0805 Parking structures shall include a squeal-free floor treatment. .090 Service Areas. Service areas and mechanical/electrical/backflow prevention equipment shall be located and screened to reduce their visibility from public and communal gathering areas; methods of screening that are compatible with the project's architecture shall be utilized. .100 Landmark Architecture. Building architecture on key intersection corners, as shown on the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, requires special treatment. This treatment shall consist of the following: .1001 Tower element that demonstrates distinctive architectural features on the facade, by providing both greater height and off-set from the building wall plane. .1002 Enhanced pedestrian entry on the corner defined as including at least three of the following characteristics: ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 .01 Oriented on a diagonal to the corner. .02 Setback at least three feet behind the building facade. .03 Two story entrance height and twenty (20) foot entrance width. .04 Canopy, overhang or other architectural covering over the building entry. .05 Other architectural elements of a size and scale easily visible from at least one block away, and customized for that specific corner location. .06 Decorative landscaping, hardscape, planters and/or fountains. .110 Building Treatment Adjacent to Streets. Consistent with the goal of creating walkable and safe neighborhoods, the ground floor of a building, and the space between the building and street, require "pedestrian friendly" design treatments. .1101 Commercial Ground Floor Treatment. Except as otherwise provided for office development in the Orangewood District, when the ground floor is intended for retail or other commercial use in a vertically mixed use building, the ground floor elevation exposed to the street shall provide: .01 Primary pedestrian access directly from the adjacent public street frontage. .02 A maximum eighteen (18) inch deep area, measured out from the face of the building, within which a commercial tenant may customize store front design. .03 A pedestrian signage area at least twenty-four (24) inches in height integrated into the front ground floor elevation of the building. .04 An average of fourteen (14) foot floor to ceiling height on the retail ground floor. .05 Projecting signs. .06 Approximately twice the amount of window area on the ground floor compared to other floors. .07 At least one of the following devices shall be used to visually differentiate the retail from other levels: Minimum two foot and maximum six foot setback between the ground and upper floors; Use of overhangs, awnings or trellis work for at least sixty percent (60%) of the frontage. ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 .1102 Arterial Streets – Residential Ground Floor. When residential ground floor use is adjacent to an arterial street, the ground floor shall be designed to provide the following: .01 At least one residential entry into a communal lobby or courtyard per block. .02 Dwelling unit patios shall be located at least eighteen (18) inches above the sidewalk grade. .1103 Connector Streets – Residential Ground Floor. When residential ground floor use is adjacent to a connector street, regardless of the number of floors, the ground floor shall be designed to provide the following: .01 Communal or individual dwelling unit entries accessible from the adjacent street and/or individual dwelling unit walkway connections to the adjacent street sidewalk. .02 Residential entry stoops, patios or communal entries shall be at least eighteen (18) inches above the sidewalk grade, for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the entries along connector streets. .120 Pedestrian Circulation. On-site pedestrian circulation shall be continuous, connect various on-site uses and, where feasible, connect to off-site transit stops. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6075 7-9 September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.150 SIGNS. .010 Coordinated Program. A coordinated sign program is required to be submitted to the Planning Department, per the requirements of subsection 18.44.060.040 (Coordinated Sign Program), prior to the issuance of the first sign permit and shall address the following: .0101 Signs shall complement the architecture of the building and provide a unifying element along the streetscape. .0102 The size, scale, and style of signs shall be internally consistent, and consistent with the scale of the buildings of which they are a part. .0103 Wall signs for ground floor uses shall be placed between the doorway and the upper facade, and shall be located at approximately the same height as all other ground floor wall signs to create a unifying, horizontal pattern. .020 Applicability of Other Regulations. The provisions in Chapter 18.44 (Signs) shall apply to projects within the PTMU Overlay Zone except as listed below. Residential uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.44.070 (Signs in Residential Zones). ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 .0201 Awning signs and projecting signs are permitted for buildings with ground floor commercial uses. .0202 Thematic elements, three-dimensional objects or non-habitable structures, such as a gateway, tower, sculpture, spire and similar architectural features to entertain pedestrians, are permitted. .030 Banners used as temporary Real Estate signs in Mixed Use Developments. In conjunction with obtaining a Special Event Permit (Section 18.38.240), Mixed Use Developments within the PTMU Overlay Zone are permitted to use banners as real estate signage (as defined in Section 18.44.030) if all of the following provisions are met: .0301 Banners shall be kept clean, neatly maintained, with no missing sign copy, or ripped or faded material. Any un-maintained or damaged portion of the banners shall be repaired or replaced immediately. Non-compliance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate termination of the permit. .0302 Banners shall be no greater than 225 square feet or one percent of the building face to which the banner is attached, whichever is greater. .0303 Banners shall be safely affixed to the building in a manner which ensures the safety of the public. .0304 A maximum of one banner shall be permitted per street frontage. .0305 Banners shall only apply to projects implementing the PTMU Overlay Zone. .0306 Banners shall not be permitted on the same street frontage of a lot that concurrently contains a freestanding real estate sign advertising the same project, as defined by Sections 18.44.180 and 18.44.190. .0307 Banners shall be subject to the time limitations contained in Section 18.44.190.060 regarding Temporary Tract Signs. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.160 COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. The following standards are intended to ensure the compatibility of uses in a mixed-use project. .010 Security. Residential units shall be designed to ensure the security of residents, through the provision of secured entrances and exits that are separate from the non-residential uses, and are directly accessible to parking areas. Non-residential and residential uses shall not ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 have common entrance hallways or common balconies. These separations shall be shown on the development plan, and the separations shall be permanently maintained. .020 Restriction on Activities. Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited, so that neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries or late night activity. No use shall produce continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. .030 Vibrations and Odors. No use, activity or process shall produce continual vibrations or noxious odors that are perceptible without instruments by the average person at the property lines of the site or within the interior of residential units on the site. .040 Lighting. Outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses shall not adversely impact surrounding residential uses, but shall provide sufficient illumination for access and security purposes. Such lighting shall not blink, flash or oscillate. .050 Windows. Residential windows shall not directly face loading areas and docks. To the extent windows of residential units face each other, the windows shall be offset to maximize privacy. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.170 GATEWAY DISTRICT SUB-AREA B STANDARDS. Multiple-Family development in the Gateway District Sub-Area B shall be subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, as may be amended from time to time, as set forth in Table 20-A (Primary Uses: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) and shall comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone), except as set forth in Section 18.20.210 (Implementation) or as set forth below: .010 The required setbacks prescribed in Section 18.20.090 (Structural Setbacks) shall be applicable, except as set forth below. .0101 No minimum setback area is required adjacent to the interior southerly property line abutting the City boundary adjacent to the City of Orange. .0102 Where an on-site driveway is provided between two buildings, no minimum landscaped area is required; however, building walls shall be planted with clinging vines. .020 The required public park provision and construction requirements prescribed in subsection 18.20.110.010 (Public Parks) shall not be applicable to development in Sub-Area B; however, payment of park-in-lieu fees is required. ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 .030 The standards prescribed in subsection 18.20.140.040 (Architectural Massing) paragraph .0403 shall not be applicable. .040 The standards prescribed in subsection 18.20.140.060 (Architectural Detail) paragraph .0610 shall not be applicable. .050 The standards prescribed in paragraph 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] (Arterial Streets - Residential Ground Floor) shall not be applicable. (Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) 18.20.180 ORANGEWOOD DISTRICT STANDARDS. Office development in the Orangewood District shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) or as set forth below: .010 Architectural Massing. .0101 An office building is permitted to have a continuous roof or parapet line exceeding two hundred forty (240) feet in length without vertical breaks or stepping down one floor. .0102 The wall plane of an office building façade shall not extend longer than one hundred twenty feet (120), without a break in the plane of no less than three feet in depth. .020 Parking Treatments. .0201 Parking structures facing the street are not required to clad the face of the structure with residential, live/work or other usable space. Said structures shall be screened through architectural detailing, landscaping, façade treatment, or similar visual features to disguise the building as a parking structure. .0202 Subterranean parking structures can extend above grade up to two feet six inches subject to screening requirements as listed above. .030 Not withstanding the foregoing, the standards prescribed in subsection .110 (Building Treatment Adjacent to Streets) of Section 18.20.140 shall not be applicable. (Ord. 6075 § 10; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008) 18.20.190 ARTIC, STADIUM AND ARENA DISTRICT STANDARDS. Development in the ARTIC, Stadium and Arena Districts shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone), except as set forth below: ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 .010 Modification of Development Standards. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the City Council may approve the modification of development standards contained in Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) for development in the ARTIC, Stadium and Arena Districts. A final site plan or master site plan that requires the modification of development standards contained in Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) shall be processed concurrently with the development agreement as required by subsection 18.20.200.020. Before the City Council may approve the modification of development standards pursuant to this Section, it must make a finding of fact in the ordinance approving the development agreement or other written decision that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: .0101 That the modification of development standards will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the citizens of Anaheim; and .0102 That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety; and .0103 That the proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the purpose and intent of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) and any other related design criteria; and .0104 That the design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with existing or proposed development in the surrounding area; and .0105 That adequate provisions have been made for the loading and unloading of persons, supplies and materials in a manner that does not obstruct required parking and accessways or impact adjacent land uses; and .0106 That the proposed development will not limit or adversely affect the growth and development of adjoining lands or the general area in which it is proposed to be located. 18.20.200 IMPLEMENTATION. An approved final site plan and a development agreement between the property owner and the City of Anaheim are required for all development under the PTMU Overlay Zone except as exempt under subsection 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] (Development Agreement Exemptions). .010 Final Site Plan Review. A final site plan application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director as to conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Said application shall include, but not be limited to, site plans, floor plans, elevations, landscape plans, sign plans and any other such information as determined by the Planning Director. The approved final site plan shall be attached as an exhibit to the development agreement as required ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 pursuant to subsection 18.20.200.020 (Development Agreement) and submitted to Planning Commission and City Council for review at a noticed public hearing. .0101 Master Site Plan. For projects over twelve (12) acres, an approved master site plan may be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director as to conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and attached to the development agreement in lieu of an approved final site plan. If a master site plan is attached to the development agreement, final site plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed hearing and conditions of approval may be imposed by the Planning Commission to ensure conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits. A master site plan shall include any such information as determined by the Planning Director. .0102 Variances. A final site plan or master site plan which includes a request for a variance shall have an application for said variance processed concurrently with the development agreement. .0103 Conditional Use Permit. A final site plan or master site plan which includes a request for a conditional use permit shall have an application for said conditional use permit processed concurrently with the development agreement. .020 Development Agreement. A development agreement shall be processed for all development under the PTMU Overlay Zone per Resolution No. 82R-565 (Procedures Resolution) adopted by the City pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, except as otherwise exempt under subsection 18.20.200.020, paragraphs .0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions) and .0203 (Gateway District Sub-Area A final site plan or master site plan found to be in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan shall be attached as an exhibit to said development agreement. .0201 The Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement. For all development in the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Orangewood and Office Districts, the form of the development agreement shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004-179, as may be amended, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, except as otherwise indicated under subsection 18.20.[PHONE REDACTED] (Development Agreements in conjunction with a Master Site Plan). .0202 Development Agreement Exemptions. Following construction and commencement of operation of a project that has been implemented pursuant to an approved development agreement, the following projects or improvements do not require a development agreement; however, plans for said projects or improvements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval for consistency with all applicable provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan prior to the issuance of building, landscape or sign permits. ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 .01 Interior building alterations, modifications or improvements which do not result in an increase in the gross square footage of the building. .02 Minor building additions or improvements interior to or at the rear of a building or development complex which are not visible from the public right-of-way; do not exceed five percent of the building’s gross square footage or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is lesser; are in substantial conformance with the building envelope; and are in conformance with the design plan and the zoning and development standards set forth in this chapter. .03 Exterior façade improvements which do not add to the gross square footage of a building or development complex, are not visible from the public right-of-way, and are in substantial conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .04 Signage, including wall signs and on-site directional/informational signs and which signs are in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .05 Landscape/hardscape improvements or modifications which are not in connection with building modifications and are in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .06 Conditionally permitted uses that will not increase the square footage or parking demand of the existing development as determined by the Planning Director and City Engineer. .0203 Gateway District Sub-Area B. Multiple-Family development in the Gateway District Sub-Area B, as authorized by approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, shall be exempt from the requirement for the property owner to enter into a development agreement with the City of Anaheim. .0204 Development Agreements in conjunction with a Master Site Plan. The form of a development agreement used in conjunction with a master site plan for all development within the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Orangewood and Office Districts shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004-179, as it may be amended, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, with the exception that the term “final site plan” shall be replaced with “master site plan” and that time extensions may be requested provided that project milestones are met as indicated in the development agreement. .030 Environmental Review. Development agreement review by the Planning Commission shall include an environmental determination for the proposed project as depicted in the final site plan or master site plan. (Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6031 § 21: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6075 § 11; September 11, 2007: Ord. 6103 § 1 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 B APPENDIX B The Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form - Mixed Use Districts RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92805 (Space Above Line For Recorder's Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RECITALS Section 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Assessment District 1.2 Authorizing Ordinance 1.3 City 1.4 Development 1.5 Development Agreement 1.6 Development Agreement Date 1.7 Development Agreement Statute 1.8 Development Approvals 1.9 Enabling Ordinance 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations 1.11 Final Site Plan 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA 1.13 Interim Development Fees 1.14 Mortgage 1.15 Mortgagee 1.16 Owner 1.17 Parking Areas 1.18 Permitted Development 1.19 Platinum Triangle 1.20 Procedures Resolution 1.21 Project 1.22 Property 1.23 Support Commercial Uses 1.24 Term 1.25 Zoning Section 2. TERM Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ii Section 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT 6.1 Description of Permitted Buildings 6.2 Parking Areas Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED BUILDINGS Section 8. ENFORCEMENT Section 9. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES 9.1 Public Park 9.2 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, & Drainage) 9.2.1 Water Service 9.2.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains 9.3 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities 9.4 Traffic Circulation Improvements Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS Section 12. FEES, TAXES AND ASSESSMENT 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments 12.2 Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees 12.2.1 Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee 12.2.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee 12.2.3 Library Facilities Fee 12.3 Excluded Development 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees 12.3.3 City Processing Fees 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District 12.5 Accounting of Funds 12.6. Imposition of Increased Fees, Taxes or Assessments Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT Section 16. EXISTING USES Section 17. FUTURE APPROVALS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts iii 17.1 Basis for Denying or Conditionally Granting Future Approvals 17.2 Standard of Review 17.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan Section 18. AMENDMENT 18.1 Initiation of Amendment 18.2 Procedure 18.3 Consent 18.4 Amendments 18.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement Section 19. NON-CANCELLATION OF RIGHTS Section 20. BENEFITS TO CITY Section 21. BENEFITS TO OWNER Section 22. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE Section 23. RESERVED AUTHORITY 23.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations 23.2 Model Codes 23.3 Public Health and Safety Section 24. CANCELLATION 24.1 Initiation of Cancellation 24.2 Procedure 24.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY Section 25. PERIODIC REVIEW 25.1 Time for Review 25.2 OWNER's Submission 25.3 Findings 25.4 Initiation of Review by City Council Section 26. EVENTS OF DEFAULT 26.1 Defaults by OWNER 26.2 Specific Performance Remedy 26.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy Section 27. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION 27.1 Notice to OWNER 27.2 Public Hearing 27.3 Decision ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts iv 27.4 Standard of Review 27.5 Implementation 27.6 Schedule for Compliance Section 28. ASSIGNMENT 28.1 Right to Assign 28.2 Release upon Transfer Section 29. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS Section 30. GENERAL 30.1 Force Majeure 30.2 Construction of Development Agreement 30.3 Severability 30.4 Cumulative Remedies 30.5 Hold Harmless Agreement 30.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge 30.7 Public Agency Coordination 30.8 Initiative Measures 30.9 Attorneys’ Fees 30.10 No Waiver 30.11 Authority to Execute 30.12 Notice 30.12.1 To Owner 30.12.2 To City 30.13 Captions 30.14 Consent 30.15 Further Actions and Instruments 30.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute 30.17 Governing Law 30.18 Effect on Title 30.19 Mortgagee Protection 30.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee, Right of Mortgagee to Cure 30.21 Bankruptcy 30.22 Disaffirmance 30.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries 30.24 Project as a Private Undertaking 30.25 Restrictions 30.26 Recitals 30.27 Recording 30.28 Title Report 30.29 Entire Agreement 30.30 Successors and Assigns 30.31 OWNER’s Title of Property 30.32 Exhibits ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts v LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Legal Description of the Property Exhibit Final Site Plan Exhibit Conditions of Approval Exhibit Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees Exhibit “D-1” Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee Exhibit “D-2" General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee Exhibit “D-3" Library Facilities Fee Exhibit Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations Exhibit Preliminary Title Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND This Development Agreement is entered into this day of , 20__, by and between the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY") (referred to herein as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority set forth in Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division l of Title 7, Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"). RECITALS This Development Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the Development Agreement Statute, Sections 65864, et seq., of the Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other things: encourage and provide for the development of public facilities in order to support development projects; provide certainty in the approval of development projects in order to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in project costs and encourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which will make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; provide assurance to the applicants of development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to the conditions of approval of such projects and provisions of such development agreements, and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development. B. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Development Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. C. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 setting forth the City’s vision for development of the City of Anaheim (the “General Plan Amendment”), and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330, adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plans (“FEIR No. 330"), in conjunction with its consideration and approval of the General Plan Amendment, amendment of CITY’s zoning code, and a series of related actions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 2 D. CITY desires that the approximately 820-acre area generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company Easement on the north (hereinafter called “Platinum Triangle") be developed as a combination of high quality industrial, office, commercial and residential uses, as envisioned in the General Plan Amendment. E. In order to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan for the Platinum Triangle, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, setting forth the new vision for the Platinum Triangle. F. To further implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council has established the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter the “PTMU Overlay Zone”) consisting of approximately three hundred and eighty-three acres within the Platinum Triangle as depicted in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to provide opportunities for high quality well-designed development projects that could be stand-alone projects or combine residential with non-residential uses including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the area. G. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, adopting a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the updated and modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A (“FSEIR No. 332”) to provide for the implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036 and a series of related actions. H. the Anaheim City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471 and approved an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188) and certified EIR No. 2008-00339, to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,909 dwelling units, increase the maximum number of commercial square footage to4,909,682, increase the maximum number of office square footage to 14,340,522 and add 1,500,000 square feet of square footage of institutional land uses. I. OWNER represents that it owns in fee approximately acres of real property located at in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange (hereinafter "County"), State of California, (hereinafter collectively called the “Property") in the Platinum Triangle and zoned PTMU Overlay and more particularly shown and described on Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. J. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement by developing a all as more particularly set forth in the Final Site Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Project"). ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 3 K. CITY desires to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in the CITY's General Plan and the objectives for the PTMU Overlay Zone as set forth in subsection 18.20.010.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and finds that the Project will accomplish said goals and objectives. L. Pursuant to the Final Site Plan, OWNER will submit tentative maps and/or vesting tentative maps, if required. OWNER further anticipates the submission of detailed construction plans and other documentation required by CITY in order for the OWNER to obtain its building permits. M. As consideration for the benefits gained from the vested rights acquired pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, to conform with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone, and to comply with the applicable mitigation measures imposed by Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 C and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. for the Project, CITY is requiring that OWNER construct and install certain public improvements, including off-site traffic circulation improvements, and provide other public benefits. N. In order to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes which may arise from time to time between OWNER and CITY concerning the proposed development of the Project and to assure each party of the intention of the other as to the processing of any land use entitlements which now or hereafter may be required for such development, the parties believe it is desirable to set forth their intentions and understandings in this Development Agreement. In order for both CITY and OWNER to achieve their respective objectives, it is imperative that each be as certain as possible that OWNER will develop and that CITY will permit OWNER to develop the Project and public improvements as approved by CITY within the time periods provided in this Development Agreement. O. CITY, as a charter city, has enacted Ordinance No. 4377 on November 23, 1982, which makes CITY subject to the Development Agreement Statute. Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, CITY adopted Resolution No. 82R-565 (the "Procedures Resolution") on November 23, 1982. The Procedures Resolution establishes procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon receipt of an application. P. On as required by Section 1.0 of the Procedures Resolution, OWNER submitted to the Planning Department an application for approval of a development agreement (hereinafter called the "Application"). The Application included a proposed development agreement (the "Proposed Development Agreement"). Q. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the Planning Director gave public notice of the City Planning Commission's intention to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of a development agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 4 R. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application. S. On that date, the City Planning Commission, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, found and determined and recommended that the City Council find that previously-certified FSEIR No. 339, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C for the Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. T. The Planning Commission further found that the Development Agreement meets the following standards set forth in Section 2.3 of the Procedures Resolution, to wit, that the Proposed Project: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan, is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the applicable zoning district, is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area and is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY. Based upon the aforesaid findings, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Application and this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. PC . U. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Clerk caused public notice to be given of the City Council's intention to consider adoption of a development agreement. V. On , 20 , as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Council held a public hearing on the Application. W. On that date, the City Council, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, did find and determined that previously-certified FSEIR No. 339, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C for the Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. X. On , 20 , the City Council found and determined that this Development Agreement: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan; (ii) is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY; (iii) is entered into pursuant to and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) is ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 5 entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. Y. In preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, CITY considered the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of CITY and prepared in this regard an extensive environmental impact report and other studies. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, the City Council carefully considered and determined the projected needs (taking into consideration the planned development of the Project and all other areas within the CITY) for water service, sewer service, storm drains, electrical facilities, traffic/circulation infrastructure, police and fire services, paramedic and similar improvements, facilities and services within the Platinum Triangle, and the appropriateness of the density and intensity of the development comprising the Project and the needs of the CITY and surrounding areas for other infrastructure. Z. On , 20 , the City Council adopted the Authorizing Ordinance authorizing the execution of this Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Statute, as it applies to CITY, and pursuant to the Enabling Ordinance, the Procedures Resolution and the CITY's inherent powers as a charter city, and pursuant to the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement, and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1 Assessment District. "Assessment District" for purposes of this Development Agreement means a special district, assessment district or benefit area existing pursuant to State law or the charter powers of the CITY for purposes of financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a distinct geographic area of the CITY. l.2 Authorizing Ordinance. The "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement. l.3 CITY. The "CITY" means the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of California. l.4 Development. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for purposes of effecting the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 6 Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping. 1.5 Development Agreement. “Development Agreement” means this Development Agreement and any subsequent amendments to this Development Agreement which have been made in compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement, the Development Agreement Statute, the Enabling Ordinance, and the Procedures Resolution. l.6 Development Agreement Date. The "Development Agreement Date" means the latest of the date of recordation in the office of the County Recorder of this Development Agreement, or a memorandum thereof, or (ii) the effective date of the Authorizing Ordinance. l.7 Development Agreement Statute. The "Development Agreement Statute" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Development Agreement Date. 1.8 Development Approvals. "Development Approvals" means the Final Site Plan and all site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use of every kind and nature contemplated by the Final Site Plan which are approved or granted by CITY in connection with development of the Property, including, but not limited to: site plans, tentative and final subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits and grading, building and other similar permits. To the extent any of such site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use are amended from time to time, "Development Approvals" shall include, if OWNER and CITY agree in writing, such matters as so amended. If this Development Agreement is required by law to be amended in order for "Development Approvals" to include any such amendments, "Development Approvals" shall not include such amendments unless and until this Development Agreement is so amended. 1.9 Enabling Ordinance. The "Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 4377 enacted by the CITY on November 23, 1982. 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations. “Existing Land Use Regulations” mean the ordinances and regulations adopted by the City of Anaheim in effect on the Effective Date, including the adopting ordinances and regulations that govern the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use, and the design, improvement, construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, including, but not limited to, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, and all other ordinances of the City establishing subdivision standards, park regulations, impact or development fees and building and improvement standards, but only to the extent the Zoning Ordinance and such other regulations are not inconsistent with this Development Agreement. Existing Land Use Regulations do not include non-land use regulations, which includes taxes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 7 1.11 Final Site Plan. The "Final Site Plan" means the Project as described in this Development Agreement and conditions with respect thereto, as set forth as Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA. "Gross Floor Area" or "GFA" means the gross floor area of any buildings which are part of the Permitted Development. 1.13 Interim Development Fees. "Interim Development Fees" are the fees imposed within the Platinum Triangle pending adoption of permanent fee programs by the City as set forth in Paragraph 12.2 of this Agreement. 1.14 Mortgage. "Mortgage" means a mortgage, deed of trust or sale and leaseback arrangement or other transaction in which the Property, or a portion thereof or an interest therein, is pledged as security. 1.15 Mortgagee. "Mortgagee" means the holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or the owner of the Property, or interest therein, under a Mortgage. 1.16 OWNER. "OWNER" is and any person or entity with which or into which may merge, and any person or entity who may acquire substantially all of the assets of and any person or entity who receives any of the rights or obligations of under this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 (Assignment) of this Development Agreement. 1.17 Parking Areas. The "Parking Areas" means all parking structure(s), and/or all surface parking servicing the Project. 1.18 Permitted Development. "Permitted Development" includes all buildings and the Parking Areas as identified in Section 6 of this Development Agreement and as further set forth in the Final Site Plan. This Development Agreement establishes maximum and minimum characteristics for all Permitted Development as set forth in the Final Site Plan. 1.19 Platinum Triangle. “Platinum Triangle" means that portion of the City of Anaheim generally bounded on the east by the Santa Ana River, on the south by the Anaheim city limits, on the west by the Santa Ana Freeway, and on the north by the Southern California Edison Easement. 1.20 Procedures Resolution. The "Procedures Resolution" is Resolution No. 82R-565 adopted by CITY pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute. 1.21 Project. The "Project" means the development project contemplated by the Final Site Plan with respect to the Property, including but not limited to on-site and off-site improvements, as such development project is further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 8 1.22 Property. The "Property" means that certain real property shown and described on Exhibit to this Development Agreement. 1.23 Support Commercial Uses. "Support Commercial Uses" are commercial\retail uses which may include retail uses, banking or financial offices, food service, restaurants, service establishments and other similar uses in keeping with the nature of the Project and the required uses needed to support the occupants of office buildings, other office development, sports and entertainment venues and residential development in the Platinum Triangle. 1.24 Term. "Term" is defined in Section 2 of this Development Agreement. 1.25 Zoning Code. “Zoning Code” refers to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Section 2. TERM. 2.1 The term (hereinafter called "Term") of this Development Agreement shall be that period of time during which this Development Agreement shall be in effect and bind the parties hereto. The Term shall commence on the Development Agreement Date and shall extend for a period of five years thereafter, terminating at the end of the day on the fifth anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, subject to the periodic review and modification or termination provisions defined in Section 25 and Section 27, respectively, of this Development Agreement, and further subject to a reasonable extension for completion of the Project in accordance with the Timing of Development schedule set forth in Section 15 of this Development Agreement. 2.2 This Development Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of a final order, after all appeals have been exhausted, directed to CITY as a result of any lawsuit filed against CITY to set aside, withdraw or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Development Agreement or if termination occurs pursuant to the provisions of the Procedures Resolution and such termination is so intended thereby. 2.3 If not already terminated by reason of any other provision in this Development Agreement, or for any other reason, this Development Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect upon completion of the Project pursuant to the terms of this Development Agreement and any further amendments thereto and the issuance of all occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY of all dedications and improvements as required by the development of the Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 9 Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS. The provisions of this Development Agreement to the extent permitted by law shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this Development Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT. As a material part of the consideration of this Development Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the parties agree that the Existing Land Use Regulations shall be applicable to development of the Project. In connection with all subsequent discretionary actions by CITY required to implement the Final Site Plan and any discretionary actions which CITY takes or has the right to take under this Development Agreement relating to the Project, including any review, approval, renewal, conditional approval or denial, CITY, shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Final Site Plan, the Existing Land Use Regulations and such other standards, terms and conditions expressly contained in this Development Agreement. CITY shall accept and timely process, in the normal manner for processing such matters as may then be applicable, all applications for further approvals with respect to the Project called for or required under this Development Agreement, including, any necessary site plan, tentative map, vesting tentative map, final map and any grading, construction or other permits filed by OWNER in accordance with the Development Approvals. Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES. 5.1 The Property shall be used for such uses as may be permitted by the Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. The Term, the density and intensity of use, developable GFA, footprint square footage, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and structures, lot sizes, set back requirements, zoning, public improvements, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Approvals, the Existing Land Use Regulations and this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.2 of the Development Agreement Statute. Section 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT. 6.1 Description of Permitted Development. The Permitted Development shall be as set forth on the Final Site Plan. The Project shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. 6.2 Parking Areas. The Parking Areas shall be constructed so that there will be sufficient parking spaces available within the Property to serve the Project, as depicted and substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Owner shall record a covenant against the property in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office that requires Owner and its heirs, assignees and successor-in-interests to reimburse the City for the full cost associated with the use of any Police Department and/or ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 10 Traffic Management Center staff that may be needed for traffic control purposes related to the use of Parking Areas for public parking in connection with events in the Platinum Triangle, including events at Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, or the Grove of Anaheim. Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED BUILDINGS. The Permitted Buildings shall be between the minimum and maximum sizes, and shall not exceed the maximum heights and maximum footprints set forth on the Final Site Plan. Section 8. ENFORCEMENT. Unless this Development Agreement is terminated or cancelled pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement or any amendment hereto, shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or building ordinance adopted by CITY which alters or amends the rules, regulations or policies of Development of the Project as provided in this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.4 of the Development Agreement Statute; provided, however, that the limitations of this Section shall not apply to changes mandated by State or Federal laws or other permissible changes or new regulations as more particularly set forth in Section 23 of this Development Agreement. Section 9. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES. In addition to performing any other obligations heretofore imposed as conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit as material consideration for the CITY's entering into this Development Agreement, OWNER shall undertake the construction and installation of the following public improvements required to support the Project and to enhance area-wide traffic circulation and emergency police and fire protection service within the time periods as set forth below and in conformance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. CITY shall cooperate with OWNER for the purpose of coordinating all public improvements constructed under the Development Approvals or this Development Agreement to existing or newly constructed public improvements, whether located within or outside of the Property. OWNER shall be responsible for and use good faith efforts to acquire any right(s)-of-way necessary to construct the public facility improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement or any Development Approvals. Should it become necessary due to OWNER's failure or inability to acquire said right(s)-of-way within four months after OWNER begins its efforts to so acquire said right(s)-of-way, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary right(s)-of-way to construct the public improvements as required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement and, if necessary in accordance with the procedures established by State law, and the limitations hereinafter set forth in this Section, CITY may use its powers of eminent domain to condemn said required right(s)-of way. OWNER agrees to pay for all costs associated with said acquisition and condemnation proceedings. If the CITY cannot make the proper findings or if for some other reason under the condemnation laws CITY is prevented from acquiring the necessary right(s)-of-way to enable OWNER to construct the public improvements required by, or ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 11 otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement, then the parties agree to amend this Development Agreement to modify OWNER's obligations accordingly. Any such required modification shall involve the substitution of other considerations or obligations by OWNER (of similar value) as are negotiated in good faith between the parties hereto. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to constitute a determination or resolution of necessity by CITY to initiate condemnation proceedings. 9.1 Public Park. If the Property is eight or more acres with residential development totaling more than 325 dwelling units, Owner shall be required to dedicate, improve and maintain a minimum size of 44 square feet for each residential unit for public park purposes as set forth in the Final Site Plan. The value of the parkland dedication will be credited against overall park in lieu fees paid for the project. Consistent with existing Code requirements and policies, not credit will be given for improvements. 9.2 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, and Drainage). OWNER shall construct the public improvements necessary for the provision of requisite water, electrical, gas, sewer and drainage requirements for Project as more fully set forth in the Development Approvals. OWNER shall construct and relocate utilities as may be required to provide services to the Permitted Development on the Property or that are displaced by the construction of the Permitted Development. As OWNER submits detailed construction plans in order to obtain building permits for the Permitted Development and/or the size and nature of the Project varies, the utilities that OWNER will construct or relocate may be revised accordingly by the CITY. 9.2.1 Water Service. OWNER will provide engineering studies to size the water mains for ultimate development within the Project. Said engineering studies will be conducted prior to rendering of water service or signature approval of the final water improvement plans, whichever occurs first. The studies shall be subject to the approval of the General Manager, Public Utilities Department or authorized designee. Alternatively, at OWNER’S election, the water system may be constructed incrementally, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide municipal demands and fire flow protection for the proposed development phasing. OWNER will conform with Rule 15D of the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA and the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. OWNER shall be entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the terms of Rule l5D for the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. 9.2.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains. Prior to final building and zoning inspections for the first building within the Permitted Development, OWNER will construct all sanitary sewers and storm drains and appurtenant structures (including treatment control BMP’s as required by the WQMP) to serve the ultimate development of the Property as provided by areawide engineering studies to be conducted prior to issuance of any building permits for the first building within the Permitted Development and updated prior to the issuance of any building permits for each subsequent building within the Permitted Development. All studies shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. OWNER will construct improvements identified in said studies. The systems may be constructed incrementally subject to the approval ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 12 of the City Engineer, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide capacity for the proposed development phasing. 9.3 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities. The timing, phasing and sequence of the construction of public improvements and facilities or the payment of fees therefor shall be constructed or paid in accordance with the timing, phasing and sequence set forth in this Development Agreement and the Final Site Plan 9.4 Traffic Circulation Improvements. In order to assist CITY in providing for area-wide traffic circulation as required by this Project, OWNER shall cause to be made the traffic circulation improvements identified for the Project including all applicable measures from the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with Subsequent EIR No. 339, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. as shown on the Final Site Plan. Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION. In the event OWNER is required to construct public improvements which are supplemental to the requirements of the Project for the benefit of other properties, CITY will work with OWNER to establish mechanisms for proportional reimbursement from owners of the benefited properties. All costs associated with establishing said mechanisms shall be paid by OWNER. Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, OWNER shall irrevocably offer for dedication the rights-of-way, including the public connector streets, collector streets and Market Street, if applicable, and other areas as more fully set forth in the Final Site Plan for the uses set forth in the Final Site Plan. These dedications shall be in fee or as an easement at the discretion of CITY, and upon completion and acceptance by CITY of the associated improvements in compliance with the specifications as approved by CITY, CITY shall accept OWNER's offer of dedication. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement, however, shall be deemed to preclude CITY from exercising the power of eminent domain with respect to the Property or the Project, or any part thereof. Section 12. FEES, TAXES, AND ASSESSMENTS. 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments. OWNER shall be responsible for the payment of fees in the amount and at the times set forth in the Existing Land Use Regulations, as said amounts and timing may be modified in accordance with this Development Agreement. 12.2 Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees. CITY anticipates that a number of fees will be adopted to pay the costs attributable to new development in the Platinum Triangle. The Interim Development Fees constitute amounts estimated by the applicable City Departments to be the approximate fair share of costs attributable to the Project. If an identified fee has been ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 13 adopted prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project, the OWNER shall pay the fee. If an identified fee has not been adopted prior to the issuance of said certificate of occupancy, the OWNER shall pay the applicable Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees set forth in attached Exhibit If the OWNER has paid a Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fee, and upon subsequent adoption of a corresponding fee it is determined that the OWNER has paid an amount greater than the amount payable pursuant to the adopted fee, the excess amount paid as an Interim Development Fee shall be refunded to the OWNER. CITY shall not be obligated to adopt any of the identified fees. If any such identified fee is not adopted, the parties agree that the Interim Development Fee is adequate to address the impacts of the Project. 12.2.1 Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee. OWNER will pay an Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee as set forth in Exhibit 12.2.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee. OWNER will pay a processing FEE attributable to the cost of creating and establishing the Master Land Use Plan and the PTMU Overlay Zone for the Platinum Triangle, as well as the costs of associated environmental documentation, as said additional costs are set forth in Exhibit 12.2.3 Library Facilities Fee. OWNER will pay a Library Facilities Fee as set forth in Exhibit 12.3 Excluded Development Fees. Fees Excluded from Existing Land Use Regulations. The following fees shall not be included among the fees which would otherwise fall within the definition of Existing Land Use Regulations: 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all applicable fees in accordance with the Water Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service including Rule 15D which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA to construct the necessary water facility improvements within the Platinum Triangle. 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all fees in accordance with the Electrical Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service. 12.3.3 City Processing Fees. OWNER shall pay all standard City-wide processing fees for building permits, zoning review, and other similar fees associated with the Development of the Project which are in existence at the time of approval of this Development Agreement at the rate in existence at the time said fees are normally required to be paid to CITY. 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District. Prior to the date a building or grading permit is issued relating to implementation of the Final Site Plan, or within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this Development Agreement, whichever occurs first, OWNER shall execute and record an unsubordinated covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office wherein OWNER agrees not to contest the formation of any assessment district(s) which may be formed to finance Platinum ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 14 Triangle infrastructure and/or maintenance, which district(s) could include the Property. The covenant shall not preclude OWNER from contesting the determination of benefit of such improvements to the Property, (ii) the properties included in said district or area, (iii) the manner in which said fee is determined or (iv) the manner in which said improvement costs are spread. 12.5 Accounting of Funds. CITY will comply with applicable requirements of Government Code Section 65865 relating to accounting of funds. 12.6 Imposition of Increased Fees, Taxes or Assessments. Except as expressly set forth or reserved in this Development Agreement, CITY shall not, without the prior written consent of OWNER, impose any additional fee, tax or assessment on the Project or any portion thereof as a condition to the implementation of the Project or any portion thereof, except such fees, taxes and assessments as are described in or required by this Development Agreement, including the Existing Land Use Regulations or the Development Approvals. The rates of such fees, taxes and assessments shall be the rates in existence at the time said fees, taxes and assessments are normally required to be paid to CITY, except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit CITY from imposing fees, taxes or assessments on the Property which are unrelated to the approval or implementation of the project. Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS. In consideration for CITY entering into this Development Agreement and other consideration set forth in this Agreement, OWNER agrees to record unsubordinated covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the Property in a form and content satisfactory to the Planning Director, City Engineer and the City Attorney incorporating the requirements and obligations set forth in Exhibit to this Agreement, entitled the “Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations.” Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES. OWNER consents to, and waives any right it may have now or in the future to challenge the legal validity of the conditions, requirements, policies or programs required by Existing Land Use Regulations or this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT. Timing of Development shall be as set forth in the Final Site Plan. Section 16. EXISTING USES. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 15 CITY and OWNER agree that those existing legally established uses on the Property may be retained until the Project is implemented. When those existing uses are demolished, no credit for any such demolished square footage for which Interim Development Fees have not been paid will be given OWNER against Interim Development Fees due on a square footage basis as provided for in this Development Agreement. OWNER will pay the full Interim Development Fees for Permitted Development constructed pursuant to the Final Site Plan. Section 17. FUTURE APPROVALS. 17.1 Basis for Denying or Conditional Granting Future Approvals. Before OWNER can begin grading on the Property or other development of the Property, OWNER must secure several additional permits and/or approvals from CITY. The parties agree that to the extent said Development Approvals are ministerial in nature, CITY shall not, through the enactment or enforcement of any subsequent ordinances, rules, regulations, initiatives, policies, requirements, guidelines, or other constraints, withhold such approvals as a means of blocking construction or of imposing conditions on the Project which were not imposed during an earlier approval period unless CITY has been ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, CITY and OWNER will use their best efforts to ensure each other that all applications for and approvals of grading permits, building permits or other developmental approvals necessary for OWNER to develop the Project in accordance with the Final Site Plan are sought and processed in a timely manner. 17.2 Standard of Review. The rules, regulations and policies that apply to any additional Development Approvals which OWNER must secure prior to the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations, as defined in this Development Agreement. 17.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan. Future amendments to all or a portion of the Final Site Plan which increase the intensity or density of the Development of the Property, or change the permitted uses of the Property, and are not among those described in Section 18.4 of this Development Agreement may subject the portion or portions of the Project being amended or affected by the amendment to any change in the CITY's General Plan, zoning designations and rules applicable to the Property and further environmental review and possible mitigation of adverse impacts under CEQA in effect at the time of such amendment. Any such amendment to the Final Site Plan shall be processed concurrently with the processing of an amendment to this Development Agreement. It is the desire and intent of both parties, except as set forth herein, that any such future amendment of the Final Site Plan will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Development Agreement with respect to the unamended portions of the Final Site Plan. Section l8. AMENDMENT. 18.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either party may propose an amendment to this Development Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 16 18.2 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 18.4 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution. 18.3 Consent. Except as provided elsewhere within this Development Agreement, any amendment to this Development Agreement shall require the consent of both parties. No amendment of this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party hereto. 18.4 Amendments. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Development Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development of the Project and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Development Agreement. If and when the parties find that changes or adjustments are necessary or appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Development Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments as specified in the Development Approvals. l8.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement. The parties agree that except as expressly set forth in any such amendment, an amendment to this Development Agreement will not alter, affect, impair, modify, waive or otherwise impact any other rights, duties or obligations of either party under this Development Agreement. Section l9. NON-CANCELLATION OF RIGHTS. Subject to defeasance pursuant to Sections 25, 26 or 27 of this Development Agreement, the Final Site Plan and other Development Approvals as provided for in this Development Agreement shall be final and the rights once granted thereby shall be vested in the Property upon recordation of this Development Agreement. Section 20. BENEFITS TO CITY. The direct and indirect benefits CITY (including, without limitation, the existing and future anticipated residents of CITY) expects to receive pursuant to this Development Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The participation of OWNER in the accelerated, coordinated and more economic construction, funding and dedication to the public, as provided in this Development Agreement, of certain of the vitally needed on-site and area-wide public improvements and facilities, and assurances that the entire Project will be developed as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement in order to encourage development of the Platinum Triangle; and b. The considerations set forth in Sections 9 and 10 of this Development Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 17 Section 21. BENEFITS TO OWNER. OWNER has expended and will continue to expend large amounts of time and money on the planning and infrastructure construction for the Project. OWNER asserts that OWNER would not make any additional expenditures, or the advanced expenditures required by this Development Agreement, without this Development Agreement and that any additional expenditures which OWNER makes after the Development Agreement Date will be made in reliance upon this Development Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Development Agreement provides for the completion of public improvements and facilities prior to the time when they would be justified economically in connection with the phasing of the Project, and of a size which would be justified only by the magnitude of the Project provided for by the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The benefit to OWNER under this Development Agreement consists of the assurance that OWNER will preserve the right to develop the Property as planned and as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to CITY pursuant to this Development Agreement are in consideration for and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. Section 22. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE. The mutual undertakings and assurances described above and provided for in this Development Agreement are for the benefit of CITY and OWNER and promote the comprehensive planning, private and public cooperation and participation in the provision of public facilities, and the effective and efficient development of infrastructure and facilities supporting development which was contemplated and promoted by the Development Agreement Statute. CITY agrees that it will not take any actions which are intended to circumvent this Development Agreement; provided, however, that any action of the electorate shall not be deemed an action for purposes of this section. Section 23. RESERVED AUTHORITY. 23.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. In the event that the State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after this Development Agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the Development Agreement, such provisions of the Development Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt or undertake any rule, regulation or policy which is inconsistent with this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that such rule, regulation or policy is reasonably necessary to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 18 23.2. Model Codes. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from applying new rules, regulations and policies contained in model codes, including, but not limited to, the Anaheim Building Code as adopted in Title 15, Section 15.02. 23.3 Public Health and Safety. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from adopting new rules, regulations and policies, including amendments or modifications to model codes described in Section 23.2 of this Development Agreement which directly result from findings by CITY that failure to adopt such rules, regulations or policies would result in a condition injurious or detrimental to the public health and safety. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt any such rules, regulations or policies which prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that such rules, regulations or policies are reasonably necessary to correct or avoid such injurious or detrimental condition. Section 24. CANCELLATION. 24.1 Initiation of Cancellation. Either party may propose cancellation of this Development Agreement. 24.2 Procedure. The procedure for proposing a cancellation of and canceling this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution and Section 65868 of the Government Code. 24.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY. Any cancellation of this Development Agreement shall require the mutual consent of OWNER and CITY. Section 25. PERIODIC REVIEW. 25.1 Time for Review. CITY shall, at least every twelve (12) months after the Development Agreement Date, review the extent of good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Development Agreement. OWNER's failure to comply with the timing schedules set forth in the Final Site Plan shall constitute rebuttable evidence of OWNER's lack of good faith compliance with this Development Agreement. Such periodic review shall determine compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1 and other successor laws and regulations. 25.2 OWNER's Submission. Each year, not less than forty-five (45) days nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of its good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall notify the City Council in writing that such evidence is being submitted to CITY pursuant to the requirements of Section 6.2 of the Procedures Resolution. OWNER shall pay to CITY a reasonable processing fee in an amount as ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 19 CITY may reasonably establish from time to time on each occasion that OWNER submits its evidence for a periodic review. 25.3 Findings. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine, on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non- compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such end. If during the cure period, OWNER fails to cure such noncompliance or is not making reasonable good faith progress towards such end, then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 27 of this Development Agreement. 25.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the periodic review set forth in this Development Agreement, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Development Agreement upon the giving of written notice thereof to OWNER. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Development Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the manner as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Section 26. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. 26.1 Defaults by OWNER. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non-compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such end. If during the cure period OWNER fails to cure such non-compliance or is not making reasonable progress towards such end, then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 27 of this Development Agreement. 26.2 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre-existing condition once ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 20 implementation of this Development Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Development Agreement and will be investing even more significant time in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Development Agreement, and it is not possible to determine sum of the money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, CITY and OWNER agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement. Therefore, specific performance of this Development Agreement is the only remedy which would compensate OWNER if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, and CITY hereby agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to specific performance in the event of a default by CITY hereunder. CITY and OWNER acknowledge that, if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, CITY shall have the right to refuse to issue any permits or other approvals which OWNER would otherwise have been entitled to pursuant to this Development Agreement. If CITY issues a permit or other approval pursuant to this Development Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, CITY shall be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing OWNER to satisfy such condition. The CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner. 26.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy. The parties hereto agree that this Development Agreement creates an obligation and duty upon OWNER to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein. In the event OWNER breaches this Development Agreement by failing to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein, the parties further agree that CITY will suffer actual damages as a result thereof, the amount of which is uncertain and would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix; therefore, OWNER agrees to pay CITY, in the event of any such breach by OWNER, the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as liquidated and actual damages which sum shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY as a result of such breach pursuant to this Section 26. Section 27. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION. If pursuant to Section 26.1 of this Development Agreement, CITY elects to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a revised time schedule for compliance as herein provided, then CITY shall proceed as set forth in this Section. 27.1 Notice to OWNER. CITY shall give notice to OWNER of City Council's intention to proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance within ten (10) days of making the CITY’s findings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 21 27.2 Public Hearing. The City Council shall set and give notice of a public hearing on modification, termination or a time schedule for compliance to be held within forty-days after the City Council gives notice to OWNER. 27.3 Decision. The City Council shall announce its findings and decisions on whether this Development Agreement is to be terminated, how this Development Agreement is to be modified or the provisions of the Development Agreement with which OWNER must comply and a time schedule therefor not more than ten (10) days following completion of the public hearing. 27.4 Standard of Review. Any determination by CITY to terminate this Development Agreement because OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Development Agreement must be based upon a finding by the City Council, based on the preponderance of evidence, that OWNER is in default and has not cured that default in the timeframe permitted by Sections 25 and 26 above, as applicable. 27.5 Implementation. Amending or terminating this Development Agreement shall be accomplished by CITY enacting an ordinance. The ordinance shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of the CITY, make the amendment or termination of this Development Agreement necessary. Not later then ten (10) days following the adoption of the ordinance, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. This Development Agreement shall be terminated or this Development Agreement as modified shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance terminating or modifying this Development Agreement. 27.6 Schedule for Compliance. Setting a reasonable time schedule for compliance with this Development Agreement may be accomplished by CITY enacting a resolution. The resolution shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of CITY, make it advisable to set a schedule for compliance and why the time schedule is reasonable. Not later than ten (10) days following adoption of the resolution, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. Compliance with any time schedule so established as an alternative to amendment or termination shall be subject to periodic review as provided in this Development Agreement and lack of good faith compliance by OWNER with the time schedule shall be basis for termination or modification of this Development Agreement. Section 28. ASSIGNMENT. 28.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer this Development Agreement, and any and all of its rights, duties and obligations hereunder, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, provided that any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of the interest of OWNER in the Property, or a portion thereof. In the event of any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, OWNER shall notify CITY of such event and the name of the transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such transferee and the agreement between OWNER and such transferee shall provide that either ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 22 OWNER or the transferee or both shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of OWNER pursuant to this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. Such transferee and/or OWNER shall notify CITY in writing which entity shall be liable for the performance of such obligations, and upon the express written assumption of any or all of the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement by such assignee, transferee or purchaser shall, without any act of or concurrence by CITY, relieve OWNER of its legal duty to perform said obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property or portion thereof, so transferred, except to the extent OWNER is not in default under the terms of this Development Agreement. 28.2 Release Upon Transfer. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the Property may be subdivided following the Development Agreement Date. One or more of such subdivided parcels may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned or transferred to persons for development by them in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement. Effective upon such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, the obligations of OWNER shall become several and not joint, except as to OWNER’s obligations set forth in Section 9 of this Development Agreement. Upon the sale, transfer, or assignment of OWNER's rights and interests under this Development Agreement as permitted pursuant to the Section 28.1 above, OWNER shall be released from its obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof so transferred, provided that OWNER is not then in default under this Development Agreement, OWNER has provided to CITY the notice of such transfer specified in Section 28.1 above, the transferee executes and delivers to CITY a written agreement in which the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (ii) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals with respect to the property, or portion thereof, so transferred and the transferee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement or the Development Approvals. Non-compliance by any such transferee with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement shall not be deemed a default hereunder or grounds for termination hereof or constitute cause for CITY to initiate enforcement action against other persons then owning or holding interest in the Property or any portion thereof and not themselves in default hereunder. Upon completion of any phase of development of the Project as determined by CITY, CITY may release that completed phase from any further obligations under this Development Agreement. The provisions of this Section shall be self-executing and shall not require the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument. Any and all successors, assigns and transferees of OWNER shall have all of the same rights, benefits and obligations of OWNER as used in this Development Agreement and the term "OWNER" as used in this Development Agreement shall refer to any such successors, assigns and transferees unless expressly provided herein to the contrary. Section 29. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, OWNER is obtaining vested rights to proceed with the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, and in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 23 Approvals. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, CITY is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and general welfare. CITY therefore agrees that except as provided in Section 23 of this Development Agreement, neither the City Council nor any other agency of CITY shall enact a rule, regulation, ordinance or other measure which relates to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and which is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement. Section 30. GENERAL. 30.1 Force Majeure. The Term of this Development Agreement and the time within which OWNER shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably by strikes, lock-outs, Acts of God, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, initiative or referenda, moratoria, enemy action, civil disturbances, fire, unavoidable casualties, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of OWNER. 30.2 Construction of Development Agreement. The language in all parts of this Development Agreement shall in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of constructions. This Development Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of CITY, and in particular, the CITY’s police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY’s governmental powers over the Property. 30.3 Severability. If any provision of this Development Agreement shall be adjudged to be invalid, void or unenforceable, such provision shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof, unless such judgment affects a material part of this Development Agreement, the parties hereby agree that they would have entered into the remaining portions of this Development Agreement not adjudged to be invalid, void or illegal. In the event that all or any portion of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable shall be deemed to be a statement of intention by the parties; and the parties further agree that in such event they shall take all steps necessary to comply with such public hearings and/or notice requirements as may be necessary in order to make valid this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Development Agreement, in the event that any material provision of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, void or voidable, OWNER or CITY may terminate this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 24 30.4 Cumulative Remedies. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, relief in the nature of mandamus and actions for damages. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. 30.5 Hold Harmless Agreement. OWNER and CITY hereby mutually agree to, and shall hold each other, each other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissions, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, and from claims for property damage which may arise from the activities of the other's or the other's contractors', subcontractors', agents’, or employees' which relate to the Project whether such activities be by OWNER or CITY, or by any of the OWNER’s or the CITY’s contractors, subcontractors, or by any one or more persons indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for OWNER any of the OWNER's or the CITY's contractors or subcontractors. OWNER and CITY agree to and shall defend the other and the other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissioners, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees from any suits or actions at law or in equity for damage caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the aforementioned activities which relate to the Project. 30.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement and/or the Development Approvals, the parties hereby agree to cooperate fully with each other in defending said action and the validity of each provision of this Development Agreement, however, OWNER shall be liable for all legal expenses and costs incurred in defending any such action. OWNER shall be entitled to choose legal counsel to defend against any such legal action and shall pay any attorneys' fees awarded against CITY or OWNER, or both, resulting from any such legal action. OWNER shall be entitled to any award of attorneys' fees arising out of any such legal action. 30.7 Public Agency Coordination. CITY and OWNER shall cooperate and use their respective best efforts in coordinating the implementation of the Development Approvals with other public agencies, if any, having jurisdiction over the Property or the Project. 30.8 Initiative Measures. Both CITY and OWNER intend that this Development Agreement is a legally binding contract which will supersede any initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use approved, issued or granted within the CITY, or portions of the CITY, and which Agreement shall apply to the Project to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation is inconsistent or in conflict with this ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 25 Development Agreement. Should an initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance, or other limitation be enacted by the citizens of CITY which would preclude construction of all or any part of the Project, and to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate or prevail over all or any part of this Development Agreement, OWNER shall have no recourse against CITY pursuant to the Development Agreement, but shall retain all other rights, claims and causes of action under this Development Agreement not so invalidated and any and all other rights, claims and causes of action as law or in equity which OWNER may have independent of this Development Agreement with respect to the project. The foregoing shall not be deemed to limit OWNER's right to appeal any such determination that such initiative, measure, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation invalidates or prevails over all or any part of this Development Agreement. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Development Agreement in full force and effect, provided OWNER shall reimburse CITY for its out-of-pocket expenses incurred directly in connection with such cooperation and CITY shall not be obligated to institute a lawsuit or other court proceedings in this connection. 30.9 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute between the parties involving the covenants or conditions contained in this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses, attorneys fees and costs. 30.10 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of non- performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 30.11 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Development Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Development Agreement on behalf of his/her partnership and represents that he/she has the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of OWNER's obligations hereunder. 30.12 Notice. 30.12.1 To OWNER. Any notice required or permitted to be given by CITY to OWNER under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing and delivered personally to an officer of OWNER or mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed; to OWNER as follows: or such changed address as OWNER shall designate in writing to CITY. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 26 30.12.2 To CITY. Any notice required or permitted to be given to CITY under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be made and given in writing, if by mail addressed to: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 With copies to: City Manager City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 City Attorney City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 or such changed address as CITY shall designate in writing to OWNER. Alternatively, notices to CITY may also be personally delivered to the City Clerk, at the Anaheim Civic Center, 200 S. Anaheim. Blvd., Anaheim, California, together with copies marked for the City Manager and the City Attorney or, if so addressed and mailed, with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City Council in care of the City Clerk at the above address with copies likewise so mailed to the City Manager and the City Attorney, respectively and also in care of the City Clerk at the same address. The provisions of this Section shall be deemed permissive only and shall not detract from the validity of any notice given in a manner which would be legally effective in the absence of this Section. 30.13 Captions. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. 30.14 Consent. Any consent required by the parties in carrying out the terms of this Development Agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld. 30.15 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 27 execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement. 30.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute in effect as of the Development Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 23.1 above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Development Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Development Agreement unless necessary for this Development Agreement to be enforceable or unless this Development Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Development Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Development Agreement Date. 30.17 Governing Law. This Development Agreement, including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 30.18 Effect on Title. OWNER and CITY agree that this Development Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Development Agreement has terminated. 30.19 Mortgagee Protection. Entering into or a breach of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of Mortgagees having a mortgage on any portion of the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform OWNER's obligations, or to guarantee such performance prior to any foreclosure or deed in lieu thereof. 30.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee, Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If the City Clerk timely receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Development Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, for a period up to ninety (90) days after the receipt of such notice from CITY to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy the default unless a further extension of time to cure is granted in writing by CITY. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall seek to obtain possession with diligence and continually through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure the default or non-compliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any such default or non-compliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to remedy ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 28 or cure such default or non-compliance if such Mortgagee commences cure during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure. 30.21 Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Section 30.20 of this Development Agreement, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or pursues and prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving CITY, the times specified in this Section for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. 30.22 Disaffirmance. 30.22.1 CITY agrees that in the event of termination of this Agreement by reason of any default by CITY, or by reason of the disaffirmance hereof by a receiver, liquidator or trustee for OWNER or its property, CITY, if requested by any Mortgagee, shall enter into a new Development Agreement for the Project with the most senior Mortgagee requesting such new agreement, for the remainder of the Term, effective as of the date of such termination, upon the terms, provisions, covenants and agreements as herein contained to the extent and subject to the law then in effect, and subject to the rights, if any, of any parties then in possession of any part of the Property, provided: 30.22.2 The Mortgagee shall make written request upon CITY for the new Development Agreement for the Project within thirty (30) days after the date of termination; 30.22.3 The Mortgagee shall pay to CITY at the time of the execution and delivery of the new Development Agreement for the Project expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to which CITY shall have been subjected by reason of OWNER’s default; and 30.22.4 The Mortgagee shall perform and observe all covenants herein contained on OWNER's part to be performed, and shall further remedy any other conditions which OWNER under the terminated agreement was obligated to perform under its terms, to the extent the same are curable or may be performed by the Mortgagee. 30.22.5 Nothing herein contained shall require any Mortgagee to enter into a new agreement pursuant to Section 30.22.1 above, nor to cure any default of OWNER referred to above. 30.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Development Agreement and all provisions hereof is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of CITY, OWNER and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have right of action based upon any provision in this Development Agreement. 30.24 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 29 the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 30.25 Restrictions. Property OWNER shall place in any agreements to sell or convey any interest in the Property or any portion thereof, provisions making the terms of this Development Agreement binding on any successors in interest of OWNER and express provision for OWNER or CITY, acting separately or jointly, to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement and to recover attorneys' fees and costs for such enforcement. 30.26 Recitals. The recitals in this Development Agreement constitute part of this Development Agreement and each party shall be entitled to rely on the truth and accuracy of each recital as an inducement to enter into this Development Agreement. 30.27 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be executed by CITY and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after CITY approves this Development Agreement. 30.28 Title Report. CITY is required to sign this Development Agreement only after OWNER has provided CITY with a satisfactory preliminary title report evidencing and showing OWNER’s legal and equitable ownership interest in the Property, current within six months, unencumbered except for the exceptions (hereinafter the “Permitted Exceptions”) set in the preliminary title report for the Property dated May 24, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibit (the "Preliminary Title Report"). Any instrument of monetary encumbrance such as a deed of trust or a mortgage entered into subsequent to the date of the Preliminary Title Report and prior to the Development Agreement Date, shall contain language expressly subordinating such instruments of monetary encumbrance to the provisions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall present evidence, satisfactory to CITY, of OWNER’s legal title to Property, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions and any such subordinated instruments of monetary encumbrance, at the time of recordation of this Agreement, or a memorandum thereof. 30.29 Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement, and this Development Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 30.30 Successors and Assigns. The burdens of the Development Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Development Agreement inure to all successors in interest and assigns of the parties to the Development Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 30 30.31 OWNER's Title of Property. Neither party hereto shall be bound by any provision of this Agreement unless and until OWNER shall record this Development Agreement or a memorandum thereof, in the office of the County Recorder of the County sufficient to cause this Agreement and the obligations contained herein to attach to and encumber OWNER’s fee title to Property. 30.32 Exhibits. All exhibits, including attachments thereto, are incorporated in this Development Agreement in their entirety by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER have executed this Development Agreement as of the date and year first above written. “CITY” “OWNER” CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation By: By: Mayor Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT FINAL SITE PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT PLATINUM TRIANGLE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT FEES ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT “D-1" ELECTRIC UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING FEE Residential Uses $9.92 per unit The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the Underground Conversion Program envision that the public utilities along Katella Avenue, between the State College Boulevard and Anaheim Way will need to be undergrounded. The City-owned facilities will be undergrounded using City funds, pursuant to the Rule No. 20 of the City of Anaheim Rates, Rules & Regulations. Some of the facilities along Katella Avenue are owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). Moneys available to underground City-owned facilities may not be used to underground SCE facilities. The interim fee will collect the funds necessary to underground the SCE lines, and thereby significantly improve the appearance of the Platinum Triangle. The cost to underground the SCE lines is estimated at $187,505. These funds will be collected by imposing an interim fee on the residential units planned in the Platinum Triangle. The formula for calculating the fee is the following: Cost to Underground SCE lines = Per-Unit Fee Number of residential units The Per-Unit fee is calculated at: $187,505 = $9.92 per Unit 18,909 Units ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT “D-2" GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING FEE Residential Uses: $24.00 per unit Non-residential Uses: $0.03 per sq. ft. These fees are intended to recover the costs associated with the Platinum Triangle including the designation of portions of the Platinum Triangle for mixed use and office development by the General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form, Zone Reclassifications, all other associated documents and amendments thereto, and all associated environmental documentation. The fees are based upon the following calculations: Costs Consultant Contract Costs: $670,623 (includes costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Planning Department Costs: $456,765 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Public Works Costs: $41,325 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) $1,168,713 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) New Development Allowed in the Platinum Triangle Non-Residential Uses 14,340,522 square feet office development 4,909,682 square feet commercial development + 1,500,000 square feet institutional 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development Residential Uses 18,909 residential units x 800 square feet (estimated average unit size) 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development Total Square Feet 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development + 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development 35,877,404 total square feet of residential and non-residential uses Fees (to be updated with DSEIR Planning and Public Works Costs) $1,168,713 costs = $0.03 per square foot 35,877,404 total square feet Non Residential Uses: $0.03 per square foot Residential Uses: $24.00 per unit ($0.03 x 800 square feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT “D-3" LIBRARY FACILITIES FEE Residential Uses $486.77 per unit The increase of density in the Platinum Triangle to an expected population over 27,000 residents requires the inclusion of a library facility in the Platinum Triangle. The library facilities fee includes the cost of the purchase of a 10,000 square foot commercial condominium shell space with 50 assigned parking spaces as well as FF&E and an opening day collection. The projected project cost for a 10,000 square foot library facility in the Platinum Triangle is $8,004,000. The individual unit library impact fee for the Platinum Triangle is now $486.77 per unit. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts EXHIBIT PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B1 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Mixed Use Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form – Office District RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92805 (Space Above Line For Recorder's Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RECITALS Section 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 Assessment District 1.2 Authorizing Ordinance 1.3 City 1.4 Development 1.5 Development Agreement 1.6 Development Agreement Date 1.7 Development Agreement Statute 1.8 Development Approvals 1.9 Enabling Ordinance 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations 1.11 Final Site Plan 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA 1.13 Interim Development Fees 1.14 Mortgage 1.15 Mortgagee 1.16 Owner 1.17 Parking Areas 1.18 Permitted Development 1.19 Platinum 1.20 Procedures Resolution 1.21 Project 1.22 Property 1.23 Support Commercial Uses 1.24 Term 1.25 Zoning Section 2. TERM Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ii Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES Section 6. PERMITTED DELOPMENT 6.1 Description of Permitted Development 6.2 Parking Areas Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT Section 8. ENFORCEMENT Section 9. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES 9.1 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, and Drainage) 9.1.1 Water Service 9.1.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains 9.2 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities 9.3 Traffic Circulation Improvements Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS Section 12. FEES, TAXES AND ASSESSMENT 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments 12.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee 12.3 Excluded Development 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees 12.3.3 City Processing Fees 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District 12.5 Accounting of Funds 12.6. Imposition of Increased Fees, Taxes or Assessments Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT Section 16. EXISTING USES Section 17. FUTURE APPROVALS 17.1 Basis for Denying or Conditionally Granting Future Approvals 17.2 Standard of Review 17.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District iii Section 18. 18.1 Initiation of Amendment 18.2 Procedure 18.3 Consent 18.4 Amendments 18.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement Section 19. NON-CANCELLATION OF RIGHTS Section 20. BENEFITS TO CITY Section 21. BENEFITS TO OWNER Section 22. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE Section 23. RESERVED 23.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations 23.2 Model Codes 23.3 Public Health and Safety Section 24. CANCELLATION 24.1 Initiation of Cancellation 24.2 Procedure 24.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY Section 25. PERIODIC 25.1 Time for Review 25.2 OWNER's Submission 25.3 25.4 Initiation of Review by City Council Section 26. EVENTS OF DEFAULT 26.1 Defaults by OWNER 26.2 Specific Performance Remedy 26.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy Section 27. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION 27.1 Notice to OWNER 27.2 Public Hearing 27.3 Decision 27.4 Standard of Review 27.5 Implementation 27.6 Schedule for Compliance ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District iv Section 28. ASSIGNMENT 28.1 Right to Assign 28.2 Release upon Transfer Section 29. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS Section 30. GENERAL 30.1 Force Majeure 30.2 Construction of Development Agreement 30.3 Severability 30.4 Cumulative Remedies 30.5 Hold Harmless Agreement 30.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge 30.7 Public Agency Coordination 30.8 Initiative Measures 30.9 Attorneys’ Fees 30.10 No Waiver 30.11 Authority to Execute 30.12 Notice 30.12.1 To OWNER 30.12.2 To CITY 30.13 Captions 30.14 Consent 30.15 Further Actions and Instruments 30.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute 30.17 Governing Law 30.18 Effect on Title 30.19 Mortgagee Protection 30.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure 30.21 Bankruptcy 30.22 Disaffirmance 30.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries 30.24 Project as a Private Undertaking 30.25 Restrictions 30.26 Recitals 30.27 Recordings 30.28 Title Report 30.29 Entire Agreement 30.30 Successors and Assigns 30.31 OWNER’S Title to Property 30.32 Exhibits ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District v LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Legal Description of the Property Exhibit Final Site Plan Exhibit Conditions of Approval Exhibit General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee Exhibit Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations Exhibit Preliminary Title Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND This Development Agreement is entered into this day of , 20__, by and between the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY") and (referred to herein as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority set forth in Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division l of Title 7, Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"). RECITALS This Development Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the Development Agreement Statute, Sections 65864, et seq., of the Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other things: encourage and provide for the development of public facilities in order to support development projects; provide certainty in the approval of development projects in order to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in project costs and encourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which will make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; provide assurance to the applicants of development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to the conditions of approval of such projects and provisions of such development agreements, and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development. B. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Development Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. C. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 setting forth the CITY’s vision for development of the City of Anaheim, and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330, adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plans (“FEIR No. 330"), in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419, amendment of the Zoning Code, and a series of related actions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 2 D. CITY desires that the approximately 820-acre area generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company Easement on the north (hereinafter called the “Platinum Triangle") be developed as a combination of high quality industrial, office, commercial and residential uses, as envisioned in the General Plan Amendment. E. In order to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan for the Platinum Triangle, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, setting forth the new vision for the Platinum Triangle. F. To further implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council has established the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (hereinafter the “PTMU Overlay Zone”) consisting of approximately three hundred and eighty-three acres within the Platinum Triangle as depicted in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to provide opportunities for high quality well-designed development projects that could be stand-alone projects or combine residential with non-residential uses including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the area. G. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, adopting a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the updated and modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A (“FSEIR No. 332”) to provide for the implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036 and a series of related actions. H. On the Anaheim City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471 and approved an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188) and certified EIR No. 2008-00339, to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,909 dwelling units, increase the maximum number of commercial square footage to 4,909,682, increase the maximum number of office square footage to 14,340,522 and add 1,500,000 square feet of square footage of institutional land uses. I. OWNER represents that it owns in fee approximately acres of real property located at in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange (hereinafter "County"), State of California, (hereinafter collectively called the “Property") in the Platinum Triangle and zoned PTMU Overlay and more particularly shown and described on Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. J. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement by developing a all as more particularly set forth in the Final Site Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Project"). ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 3 K. CITY desires to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in the CITY's General Plan and the objectives for the PTMU Overlay Zone as set forth in subsection 18.20.010.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and finds that the Project will accomplish said goals and objectives. L. Pursuant to the Final Site Plan, OWNER will submit tentative maps and/or vesting tentative maps, if required. OWNER further anticipates the submission of detailed construction plans and other documentation required by CITY in order for the OWNER to obtain its building permits. M. As consideration for the benefits gained from the vested rights acquired pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, to conform with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone, and to comply with the applicable mitigation measures imposed by Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 C and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. for the Project, CITY is requiring that OWNER construct and install certain public improvements, including off-site traffic circulation improvements, and provide other public benefits. N. In order to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes which may arise from time to time between OWNER and CITY concerning the proposed development of the Project and to assure each party of the intention of the other as to the processing of any land use entitlements which now or hereafter may be required for such development, the parties believe it is desirable to set forth their intentions and understandings in this Development Agreement. In order for both CITY and OWNER to achieve their respective objectives, it is imperative that each be as certain as possible that OWNER will develop and that CITY will permit OWNER to develop the Project and public improvements as approved by CITY within the time periods provided in this Development Agreement. O. CITY, as a charter city, has enacted Ordinance No. 4377 on November 23, 1982, which makes CITY subject to the Development Agreement Statute. Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, CITY adopted Resolution No. 82R-565 (the "Procedures Resolution") on November 23, 1982. The Procedures Resolution establishes procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon receipt of an application. P. On as required by Section 1.0 of the Procedures Resolution, OWNER submitted to the Planning Department an application for approval of a development agreement (hereinafter called the "Application"). The Application included a proposed development agreement (the "Proposed Development Agreement"). Q. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the Planning Director gave public notice of the City Planning Commission's intention to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of a development agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 4 R. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 2.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Application. S. On that date, the City Planning Commission, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, found and determined and recommended that the City Council find that previously-certified FSEIR No. 339, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C for the Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. T. The Planning Commission further found that the Development Agreement meets the following standards set forth in Section 2.3 of the Procedures Resolution, to wit, that the Proposed Project: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan, (ii) is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the applicable zoning district, (iii) is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area, and (iv) is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY. Based upon the aforesaid findings, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Application and this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. PC U. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Clerk caused public notice to be given of the City Council's intention to consider adoption of a development agreement. V. On as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and Section 3.2 of the Procedures Resolution, the City Council held a public hearing on the Application. W. On that date, the City Council, after considering the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, did find and determined that previously-certified FSEIR No. 339, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C for the Platinum Triangle, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Development Agreement, and related Project Actions, and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Development Agreement. X. On the City Council did find and determined that this Development Agreement: is consistent with the CITY's existing General Plan; (ii) is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of CITY; (iii) is entered into pursuant to and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) is ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 5 entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. Y. In preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, CITY considered the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of CITY and prepared in this regard an extensive environmental impact report and other studies. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in preparing and adopting the General Plan and in granting the Development Approvals, the City Council carefully considered and determined the projected needs (taking into consideration the planned development of the Project and all other areas within the CITY) for water service, sewer service, storm drains, electrical facilities, traffic/circulation infrastructure, police and fire services, paramedic and similar improvements, facilities and services within the Platinum Triangle, and the appropriateness of the density and intensity of the development comprising the Project and the needs of the CITY and surrounding areas for other infrastructure. Z. On the City Council adopted the Authorizing Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution of this Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Statute, as it applies to CITY, and pursuant to the Enabling Ordinance, the Procedures Resolution and the CITY's inherent powers as a charter city, and pursuant to the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement, and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1 Assessment District. "Assessment District" for purposes of this Development Agreement means a special district, assessment district or benefit area existing pursuant to State law or the charter powers of the CITY for purposes of financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a distinct geographic area of the CITY. l.2 Authorizing Ordinance. The "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement. l.3 CITY. The "CITY" means the City of Anaheim, a charter city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of California. l.4 Development. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for purposes of effecting the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 6 whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping. 1.5 Development Agreement. “Development Agreement” means this Development Agreement and any subsequent amendments to this Development Agreement which have been made in compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement, the Development Agreement Statute, the Enabling Ordinance, and the Procedures Resolution. 1.6 Development Agreement Date. The "Development Agreement Date" means the later of the date of recordation in the office of the County Recorder of this Development Agreement, or a memorandum thereof, or (ii) the effective date of the Authorizing Ordinance. l.7 Development Agreement Statute. The "Development Agreement Statute" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Development Agreement Date. 1.8 Development Approvals. "Development Approvals" means the Final Site Plan and all site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use, of every kind and nature, contemplated by the Final Site Plan which are approved or granted by CITY in connection with development of the Property, including, but not limited to: site plans (including Final Site Plans), tentative and final subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits and grading, building and other similar permits. To the extent any of such site plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use are amended from time to time, "Development Approvals" shall include, if OWNER and CITY agree in writing, such matters as so amended. If this Development Agreement is required by law to be amended in order for "Development Approvals" to include any such amendments, "Development Approvals" shall not include such amendments unless and until this Development Agreement is so amended. 1.9 Enabling Ordinance. The "Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 4377 enacted by the CITY on November 23, 1982. 1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations. “Existing Land Use Regulations” mean the ordinances and regulations adopted by the City of Anaheim in effect on the Effective Date, including the adopting ordinances and regulations that govern the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use, and the design, improvement, construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, including, but not limited to, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. and all other ordinances of the City establishing subdivision standards, park regulations, impact or development fees and building and improvement standards, but only to the extent the Zoning Code and such other regulations are not inconsistent with this Development Agreement. Existing Land Use Regulations do not include a non-land use regulation, including taxes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 7 1.11 Final Site Plan. The "Final Site Plan" means the Project as described in this Development Agreement and conditions with respect thereto, as set forth as Exhibit attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 1.12 Gross Floor Area/GFA. "Gross Floor Area" or "GFA" means the gross floor area of any buildings which are part of the Permitted Development. 1.13 Interim Development Fees. "Interim Development Fees" are the fees imposed within the Platinum Triangle pending adoption of permanent fee programs by the City as set forth in Paragraph 12.2 of this Agreement. 1.14 Mortgage. "Mortgage" means a mortgage, deed of trust or sale and leaseback arrangement or other transaction in which the Property, or a portion thereof or an interest therein, is pledged as security. 1.15 Mortgagee. "Mortgagee" means the holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or the owner of the Property, or interest therein, under a Mortgage. 1.16 OWNER. "OWNER" is and any person or entity with which or into which may merge, and any person or entity who may acquire substantially all of the assets of and any person or entity who receives any of the rights or obligations of under this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 (Assignment) of this Development Agreement. 1.17 Parking Areas. The "Parking Areas" means all parking structure(s), and/or all surface parking servicing the Project. 1.18 Permitted Development. "Permitted Development" includes all buildings and other development, such as, the Parking Areas as identified in Section 6 of this Development Agreement, and as further set forth in the Final Site Plan. This Development Agreement establishes maximum and minimum characteristics for all Permitted Development as set forth in the Final Site Plan. 1.19 Platinum Triangle. "Platinum Triangle" means that portion of the City of Anaheim generally bounded on the east by the Santa Ana River, on the south by the Anaheim city limits, on the west by the Santa Ana Freeway, and on the north by the Southern California Edison Easement. 1.20 Procedures Resolution. The "Procedures Resolution" is Resolution No. 82R-565 adopted by CITY pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute. 1.21 Project. The "Project" means the development project contemplated by the approved Final Site Plan with respect to the Property, including but not limited to on-site and off-site improvements, as such development project is further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 8 1.22 Property. The "Property" means that certain real property shown and described on Exhibit to this Development Agreement. 1.23 Support Commercial Uses. "Support Commercial Uses" are commercial\retail uses which may include retail uses, banking or financial offices, food service, restaurants, service establishments and other similar uses in keeping with the nature of the Project and the required uses needed to support the occupants of office buildings, other office development, sports and entertainment venues and residential development in the Platinum Triangle. 1.24 Term. "Term" is defined in Section 2 of this Development Agreement. 1.25 Zoning Code. "Zoning Code" refers to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Section 2. TERM. 2.1 The term of this Development Agreement (hereinafter called "Term") shall be that period of time during which this Development Agreement shall be in effect and bind the parties hereto. The Term shall commence on the Development Agreement Date and shall extend for a period of five years thereafter, terminating at the end of the day on the fifth anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, subject to the periodic review and modification or termination provisions defined in Section 25 and Section 27, respectively, of this Development Agreement, and further subject to a reasonable extension for completion of the Project in accordance with the Timing of Development schedule set forth in Section 15 of this Development Agreement. 2.2 This Development Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of a final order, after all appeals have been exhausted, from a court with applicable jurisdiction directing CITY to set aside, withdraw or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Development Agreement or if termination occurs pursuant to the provisions of the Procedures Resolution and such termination is so intended thereby. 2.3 If not already terminated by reason of any other provision in this Development Agreement, or for any other reason, this Development Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect upon completion of the Project in its entirety pursuant to the terms of this Development Agreement and the issuance of all occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY of all dedications and improvements as required by the development of the Project. Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS. The provisions of this Development Agreement to the extent permitted by law shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this Development Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 9 Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT. As a material part of the consideration of this Development Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the parties agree that the Existing Land Use Regulations shall be applicable to development of the Project. In connection with all subsequent discretionary actions by CITY required to implement the Final Site Plan and any discretionary actions which CITY takes or has the right to take under this Development Agreement relating to the Project, including any review, approval, renewal, conditional approval or denial, CITY, shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Final Site Plan, the Existing Land Use Regulations and such other standards, terms and conditions expressly contained in this Development Agreement. CITY shall accept and timely process, in the normal manner for processing such matters as may then be applicable, all applications for further approvals with respect to the Project called for or required under this Development Agreement, including, any necessary site plan, tentative and final subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps and any grading, construction, building and other similar permits filed by OWNER in accordance with the Development Approvals. Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES. 5.1 The Property shall be used for such uses as may be permitted by the Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. The Term, the density and intensity of use, developable GFA, footprint square footage, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and structures, lot sizes, set back requirements, zoning, public improvements, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Approvals, the Existing Land Use Regulations and this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.2 of the Development Agreement Statute. Section 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT. 6.1 Description of Permitted Development. The Permitted Development shall be as set forth on the Final Site Plan. The Project shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. 6.2 Parking Areas. The Parking Areas shall be constructed so that there will be sufficient parking spaces available within the Property to serve the Project, as depicted and substantially in conformance with the Final Site Plan. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Owner shall record a covenant against the property in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office that requires Owner and its heirs, assignees and successor-in-interests to reimburse the City for the full cost associated with the use of any Police Department and/or Traffic Management Center staff that may be needed for traffic control purposes related to the use of Parking Areas for public parking in connection with events in the Platinum Triangle, including events at Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, or the Grove of Anaheim. Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 10 The Permitted Development shall be between the minimum and maximum sizes, and shall not exceed the maximum heights and maximum footprints set forth on the Final Site Plan. Section 8. ENFORCEMENT. Unless this Development Agreement is terminated or cancelled pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement or any amendment hereto, shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or building ordinance adopted by CITY which alters or amends the rules, regulations or policies of Development of the Project as provided in this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.4 of the Development Agreement Statute; provided, however, that the limitations of this Section shall not apply to changes mandated by State or Federal laws or other permissible changes or new regulations as more particularly set forth in Section 23 of this Development Agreement. Section 9 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES. In addition to performing any other obligations heretofore imposed as conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit as material consideration for the CITY's entering into this Development Agreement, OWNER shall undertake the construction and installation of the following public improvements required to support the Project and to enhance area-wide traffic circulation and emergency police and fire protection service within the time periods as set forth below and in conformance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. CITY shall cooperate with OWNER for the purpose of coordinating all public improvements constructed under the Development Approvals or this Development Agreement to existing or newly constructed public improvements, whether located within or outside of the Property. OWNER shall be responsible for and use good faith efforts to acquire any right(s)-of-way necessary to construct the public facility improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement or any Development Approvals. Should it become necessary due to OWNER's failure or inability to acquire said right(s)-of-way within four months after OWNER begins its efforts to so acquire said right(s)-of-way, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary right(s)-of-way to construct the public improvements as required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement and, if necessary in accordance with the procedures established by State law, and the limitations hereinafter set forth in this Section, CITY may use its powers of eminent domain to condemn said required right(s)-of way. OWNER agrees to pay for all costs associated with said acquisition and condemnation proceedings. If the CITY cannot make the proper findings or if for some other reason under the condemnation laws CITY is prevented from acquiring the necessary right(s)-of-way to enable OWNER to construct the public improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement, then the parties agree to amend this Development Agreement to modify OWNER's obligations accordingly. Any such required modification shall involve the substitution of other considerations or obligations by OWNER (of similar value) as are negotiated in good faith between the parties hereto. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to constitute a determination or resolution of necessity by CITY to initiate condemnation proceedings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 11 9.1 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, and Drainage). OWNER shall construct the public improvements necessary for the provision of requisite water, electrical, gas, sewer and drainage requirements for Project as more fully set forth in the Development Approvals. OWNER shall construct and relocate utilities as may be required to provide services to the Permitted Development on the Property or that are displaced by the construction of the Permitted Development. As OWNER submits detailed construction plans in order to obtain building permits for a Permitted Development and/or the size and nature of the Project varies, the utilities that OWNER will construct or relocate may be revised accordingly by the CITY. 9.1.1 Water Service. OWNER will provide engineering studies to size the water mains for ultimate development within the Project. Said engineering studies will be conducted prior to rendering of water service or signature approval of the final water improvement plans, whichever occurs first. The studies shall be subject to the approval of the General Manager, Public Utilities Department or authorized designee. Alternatively, at OWNER’S election, the water system may be constructed incrementally, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide municipal demands and fire flow protection for the proposed development phasing. OWNER will conform with Rule 15D of the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA and the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. OWNER shall be entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the terms of Rule l5D for the advancement of additional funds to construct the upgraded water facilities. 9.1.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains. Prior to final building and zoning inspections for the first building within the Permitted Development, OWNER will construct all sanitary sewers, storm drains, and appurtenant structures (including treatment control BMP’s as required by the WQMP) to serve the ultimate development of the Property as provided by areawide engineering studies to be conducted prior to issuance of any building permits for the first building within the Permitted Development and updated prior to the issuance of any building permits for each subsequent building within the Permitted Development. All studies shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. OWNER will construct improvements identified in said studies. The systems may be constructed incrementally subject to the approval of the City Engineer, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide capacity for the proposed development phasing. 9.2 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities. The phasing and sequence of the construction of public improvements and facilities or the payment of fees therefor shall be constructed or paid in accordance with the timing, phasing and sequence set forth in this Development Agreement and the Final Site Plan. 9.3 Traffic Circulation Improvements. In order to assist CITY in providing for area-wide traffic circulation as required by this Project, OWNER shall cause to be made the traffic circulation improvements identified for the Project including all applicable measures from the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C approved in conjunction with ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 12 FSEIR No. 339, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. and as shown on the Final Site Plan. Section 10. REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION. In the event OWNER is required to construct public improvements which are supplemental to the requirements of the Project for the benefit of other properties, CITY will work with OWNER to establish mechanisms for proportional reimbursement from owners of the benefited properties. All costs associated with establishing said mechanisms shall be paid by OWNER. Section 11. DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, OWNER shall irrevocably offer for dedication the rights-of-way, including the public connector streets, collector streets and Market Street, if applicable, and other areas as more fully set forth in the Final Site Plan. These dedications shall be in fee or as an easement at the discretion of CITY, and upon completion and acceptance by CITY of the associated improvements in compliance with the specifications as approved by CITY, CITY shall accept OWNER's offer of dedication. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement, however, shall be deemed to preclude CITY from exercising the power of eminent domain with respect to the Property or the Project, or any part thereof. Section 12. FEES, TAXES, AND ASSESSMENTS. 12.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments. OWNER shall be responsible for the payment of fees in the amount and at the times set forth in the Existing Land Use Regulations, as said amounts and timing may be modified in accordance with this Development Agreement. 12.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee. OWNER will pay a processing fee prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project attributable to the cost of creating and establishing the Master Land Use Plan and the PTMU Overlay Zone for the Platinum Triangle, as well as the costs of associated environmental documentation, as said additional costs are set forth in Exhibit 12.3 Excluded Development Fees. The following fees shall not be included among the fees which would otherwise fall within the definition of Existing Land Use Regulations: 12.3.1 Water Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all applicable fees in accordance with the Water Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service including Rule 15D which provides for, in part, a fee based on GFA to construct the necessary water facility improvements within the Platinum Triangle. 12.3.2 Electrical Utilities Fees. OWNER will pay all fees in accordance with the Electrical Utilities Rates, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of application for service. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 13 12.3.3 City Processing Fees. OWNER shall pay all standard City-wide processing fees for building permits, zoning review, and other similar fees associated with the Development of the Project which are in existence at the time of approval of this Development Agreement at the rate in existence at the time said fees are normally required to be paid to CITY. 12.4 Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District. Prior to the date a building or grading permit is issued relating to implementation of the Final Site Plan, or within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this Development Agreement, whichever occurs first, OWNER shall execute and record an unsubordinated covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office wherein OWNER agrees not to contest the formation of any assessment district(s) which may be formed to finance Platinum Triangle infrastructure and/or maintenance, which district(s) could include the Property. The covenant shall not preclude OWNER from contesting the determination of benefit of such improvements to the Property, (ii) the properties included in said district or area, (iii) the manner in which said fee is determined or (iv) the manner in which said improvement costs are spread. 12.5 Accounting of Funds. CITY will comply with applicable requirements of Government Code Section 65865 relating to accounting of funds. 12.6 Imposition of Increased Fees Taxes or Assessments. Except as expressly set forth or reserved in this Development Agreement, CITY shall not, without the prior written consent of OWNER, impose any additional fee, tax or assessment on the Project or any portion thereof as a condition to the implementation of the Project or any portion thereof, except such fees, taxes and assessments as are described in or required by this Development Agreement, including the Existing Land Use Regulations or the Development Approvals. The rates of such fees, taxes and assessments shall be the rates in existence at the time said fees, taxes and assessments are normally required to be paid to CITY, except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit CITY from imposing fees, taxes or assessments on the Property which are unrelated to the approval or implementation of the Project. Section 13. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS. In consideration for CITY entering into this Development Agreement and other consideration set forth in this Agreement, OWNER agrees to record unsubordinated covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the Property in a form and content satisfactory to the Planning Director, City Engineer and the City Attorney incorporating the requirements and obligations set forth in Exhibit to this Agreement, entitled the “Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations.” Section 14. NEXUS/REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES. OWNER consents to, and waives any right it may have now or in the future to challenge the legal validity of the conditions, requirements, policies or programs required by Existing Land Use Regulations or this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any claim that ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 14 they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. Section 15. TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT. Timing of Development shall be as set forth in the Final Site Plan. Section 16. EXISTING USES. CITY and OWNER agree that those existing legally established uses on the Property may be retained until the Project is implemented. Section 17. FUTURE APPROVALS. 17.1 Basis for Denying or Conditional Granting Future Approvals. Before OWNER can begin grading on the Property or other development of the Property, OWNER must secure several additional permits and/or approvals from CITY. The parties agree that to the extent said Development Approvals are ministerial in nature, CITY shall not, through the enactment or enforcement of any subsequent ordinances, rules, regulations, initiatives, policies, requirements, guidelines, or other constraints, withhold such approvals as a means of blocking construction or of imposing conditions on the Project which were not imposed during an earlier approval period unless CITY has been ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, CITY and OWNER will use their best efforts to ensure each other that all applications for and approvals of grading permits, building permits or other developmental approvals necessary for OWNER to develop the Project in accordance with the Final Site Plan are sought and processed in a timely manner. 17.2 Standard of Review. The rules, regulations and policies that apply to any additional Development Approvals which OWNER must secure prior to the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations, as defined in this Development Agreement. 17.3 Future Amendments to Final Site Plan. Future amendments to all or a portion of the Final Site Plan which increase the intensity or density of the Development of the Property, or change the permitted uses of the Property, and are not among those described in Section 17.4 of this Development Agreement may subject the portion or portions of the Project being amended or affected by the amendment to any change in the CITY's General Plan, zoning designations and rules applicable to the Property and further environmental review and possible mitigation of adverse impacts under CEQA in effect at the time of such amendment. Any such amendment to the Final Site Plan shall be processed concurrently with the processing of an amendment to this Development Agreement. It is the desire and intent of both parties, except as set forth herein, that any such future amendment of the Final Site Plan will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Development Agreement with respect to those portions of the Final Site Plan that have not been amended. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 15 Section 18. AMENDMENT. 18.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either party may propose an amendment to this Development Agreement. 18.2 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 17.4 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution. 18.3 Consent. Except as provided elsewhere within this Development Agreement, any amendment to this Development Agreement shall require the consent of both parties. No amendment of this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party hereto. 18.4 Amendments. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Development Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development of the Project and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Development Agreement. If and when the parties find that changes or adjustments are necessary or appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Development Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments as specified in the Development Approvals. 18.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement. The parties agree that except as expressly set forth in any such amendment, an amendment to this Development Agreement will not alter, affect, impair, modify, waive or otherwise impact any other rights, duties or obligations of either party under this Development Agreement. Section 19. NON-CANCELLATION RIGHTS. Subject to defeasance pursuant to Sections 24, 25 or 26 of this Development Agreement, the Final Site Plan and other Development Approvals as provided for in this Development Agreement shall be final and the rights once granted thereby shall be vested in the Property upon recordation of this Development Agreement. Section 20. BENEFITS TO CITY. The direct and indirect benefits CITY (including, without limitation, the existing and future anticipated residents of CITY) expects to receive pursuant to this Development Agreement include, but are not limited to, the following: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 16 a, The participation of OWNER in the accelerated, coordinated and more economic construction, funding and dedication to the public, as provided in this Development Agreement, of certain of the vitally needed on-site and area-wide public improvements and facilities, and assurances that the entire Project will be developed as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement in order to encourage development of the Platinum Triangle; and b. The considerations set forth in Sections 9 and 11 of this Development Agreement. Section 21. BENEFITS TO OWNER. OWNER has expended and will continue to expend large amounts of time and money on the planning and infrastructure construction for the Project. OWNER asserts that OWNER would not make any additional expenditures, or the advanced expenditures required by this Development Agreement, without this Development Agreement and that any additional expenditures which OWNER makes after the Development Agreement Date will be made in reliance upon this Development Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Development Agreement provides for the completion of public improvements and facilities prior to the time when they would be justified economically in connection with the phasing of the Project, and of a size which would be justified only by the magnitude of the Project provided for by the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The benefit to OWNER under this Development Agreement consists of the assurance that OWNER will preserve the right to develop the Property as planned and as set forth in the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to CITY pursuant to this Development Agreement are in consideration for and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Final Site Plan and this Development Agreement. Section 22. UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSURANCES CONTEMPLATED AND PROMOTED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE. The mutual undertakings and assurances described above and provided for in this Development Agreement are for the benefit of CITY and OWNER and promote the comprehensive planning, private and public cooperation and participation in the provision of public facilities, and the effective and efficient development of infrastructure and facilities supporting development which was contemplated and promoted by the Development Agreement Statute. CITY agrees that it will not take any actions which are intended to circumvent this Development Agreement; provided, however, that any action of the electorate shall not be deemed an action for purposes of this Section. Section 23. RESERVED AUTHORITY. 23.1 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. In the event that the State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the this Development Agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the Development Agreement, such provisions of the Development Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 17 to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt or undertake any rule, regulation or policy which is inconsistent with this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that such rule, regulation or policy is reasonably necessary to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations. 23.2 Model Codes. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from applying new rules, regulations and policies contained in model codes, including, but not limited to, the Anaheim Building Code as adopted in Title 15, Section 15.02. 23.3 Public Health and Safety. This Development Agreement shall not prevent CITY from adopting new rules, regulations and policies, including amendments or modifications to model codes described in Section 22.2 of this Development Agreement which directly result from findings by CITY that failure to adopt such rules, regulations or policies would result in a condition injurious or detrimental to the public health and safety. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not adopt any such rules, regulations or policies which prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement until CITY makes a finding that those rules, regulations or policies are reasonably necessary to correct or avoid such injurious or detrimental condition. Section 24. CANCELLATION. 24.1 Initiation of Cancellation. Either party may propose cancellation of this Development Agreement. 24.2 Procedure. The procedure for canceling this Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Procedures Resolution and Section 65868 of the Government Code. 24.3 Consent of OWNER and CITY. Any cancellation of this Development Agreement shall require the mutual consent of OWNER and CITY. Section 25. PERIODIC REVIEW. 25.1 Time for Review. CITY shall, at least every twelve (12) months after the Development Agreement Date, review the extent of good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Development Agreement. OWNER's failure to comply with the phasing schedules set forth in the Final Site Plan combined with OWNER’s failure to explain the reason for said non-compliance shall constitute rebuttable evidence of OWNER's lack of good faith compliance with this Development Agreement. Such periodic review shall determine compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1 and other successor laws and regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 18 25.2 OWNER's Submission. Each year, not less than forty-five (45) days nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of its good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall notify the City Council in writing that such evidence is being submitted to CITY pursuant to the requirements of Section 6.2 of the Procedures Resolution. OWNER shall pay to CITY a reasonable processing fee in an amount as CITY may reasonably establish from time to time on each occasion that OWNER submits its evidence for a periodic review. 25.3 Findings. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine, on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non- compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such end. If during the cure period, OWNER fails to cure such noncompliance or is not making reasonable good faith progress towards such end, and then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 26 of this Development Agreement. 25.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the periodic review set forth in this Development Agreement, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Development Agreement upon the giving of written notice thereof to OWNER. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Development Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the manner as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Section 26. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. 26.1 Defaults by OWNER. Within forty-five (45) days after the submission of OWNER's evidence, the City Council shall determine on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not OWNER has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period shall be deemed concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, OWNER shall be given at least sixty (60) days to cure such non-compliance and if the actions required to cure such non-compliance take more than sixty (60) days, then CITY shall give OWNER additional time provided that OWNER is making reasonable progress towards such ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 19 end. If during the cure period OWNER fails to cure such non-compliance or is not making reasonable progress towards such end, then the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 26 of this Development Agreement. 26.2 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre-existing condition once implementation of this Development Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Development Agreement and will be investing even more significant time in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Development Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, CITY and OWNER agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement. Therefore, specific performance of this Development Agreement is the only remedy which would compensate OWNER if CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, and CITY hereby agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to specific performance in the event of a default by CITY hereunder. CITY and OWNER acknowledge that, if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, CITY shall have the right to refuse to issue any permits or other approvals which OWNER would otherwise have been entitled to pursuant to this Development Agreement. If CITY issues a permit or other approval pursuant to this Development Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, CITY shall be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing OWNER to satisfy such condition. The CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner. 26.3 Liquidated Damages Remedy. The parties hereto agree that this Development Agreement creates an obligation and duty upon OWNER to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein. In the event OWNER breaches this Development Agreement by failing to undertake and complete development of the Project within the time and manner specified herein, the parties further agree that CITY will suffer actual damages as a result thereof, the amount of which is uncertain and would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix; therefore, OWNER agrees to pay CITY, in the event of any such breach by OWNER, the sum One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) as liquidated and actual damages, which sum shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY as result of such breach pursuant to this Section 25. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 20 Section 27. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION. If pursuant to Section 24 and 25 of this Development Agreement, CITY elects to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a revised time schedule for compliance as herein provided, then CITY shall proceed as set forth in this Section. 27.1 Notice to OWNER. CITY shall give notice to OWNER of City Council's intention to proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for compliance within ten (10) days of making the CITY’s findings. 27.2 Public Hearing. The City Council shall set and give notice of a public hearing on modification, termination or a time schedule for compliance to be held within forty (40) days after the City Council gives notice to OWNER. 27.3 Decision. The City Council shall announce its findings and decisions on whether this Development Agreement is to be terminated, how this Development Agreement is to be modified or the provisions of the Development Agreement with which OWNER must comply and a time schedule therefor not than ten (10) days following completion of the public hearing. 27.4 Standard of Review. Any determination by CITY to terminate this Development Agreement because OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Development Agreement must be based upon a finding by the City Council, based on the preponderance of evidence, that OWNER is in default and has not cured that default in the timeframe permitted by Sections 24 and 25 above, as applicable. 27.5 Implementation. Amending or terminating this Development Agreement shall be accomplished by CITY enacting an ordinance. The ordinance shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of the CITY, make the amendment or termination of this Development Agreement necessary. Not later then ten (10) days following the adoption of the ordinance, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. This Development Agreement shall be terminated or this Development Agreement as modified shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance terminating or modifying this Development Agreement. 27.5 Schedule for Compliance. Setting a reasonable time schedule for compliance with this Development Agreement may be accomplished by CITY enacting a resolution. The resolution shall recite the reasons which, in the opinion of CITY, make it advisable to set a schedule for compliance and why the time schedule is reasonable. Not later than ten (10) days following adoption of the resolution, one copy thereof shall be forwarded to OWNER. Compliance with any time schedule so established as an alternative to modification or termination shall be subject to periodic review as provided in this Development Agreement and lack of good faith compliance by OWNER with the time schedule shall be basis for termination or modification of this Development Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 21 Section 28. ASSIGNMENT. 28.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer this Development Agreement, and any and all of its rights, duties and obligations hereunder, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, provided that any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of the interest of OWNER in the Property, or a portion thereof. In the event of any such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, OWNER shall notify CITY of such event and the name of the transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such transferee and the agreement between OWNER and such transferee shall provide that either OWNER or the transferee or both shall be liable for the performance of all obligations of OWNER pursuant to this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals. Such transferee and/or OWNER shall notify CITY in writing which entity shall be liable for the performance of such obligations, and upon the express written assumption of any or all of the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement by such assignee, transferee or purchaser shall, without any act of or concurrence by CITY, relieve OWNER of its legal duty to perform said obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property or portion thereof, so transferred, except to the extent OWNER is not in default under the terms of this Development Agreement. 28.2 Release Upon Transfer. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the Property may be subdivided following the Development Agreement Date. One or more of such subdivided parcels may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned or transferred to persons for development by them in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement. Effective upon such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, the obligations of OWNER shall become several and not joint, except as to OWNER’s obligations set forth in Section 9 of this Development Agreement. Upon the sale, transfer, or assignment of OWNER's rights and interests under this Development Agreement as permitted pursuant to the Section 27.1 above, OWNER shall be released from its obligations under this Development Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof so transferred, provided that OWNER is not then in default under this Development Agreement, OWNER has provided to CITY the notice of such transfer specified in Section 27.1 above, the transferee executes and delivers to CITY a written agreement in which the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (ii) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the obligations of OWNER under this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals with respect to the property, or portion thereof, so transferred and the transferee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement or the Development Approvals. Non-compliance by any such transferee with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement shall not be deemed a default hereunder or grounds for termination hereof or constitute cause for CITY to initiate enforcement action against other persons then owning or holding interest in the Property or any portion thereof and not themselves in default hereunder. Upon completion of any phase of development of the Project as determined by CITY, CITY may release that completed phase from any further obligations under this Development Agreement. The provisions of this Section ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 22 shall be self-executing and shall not require the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument. Any and all successors, assigns and transferees of OWNER shall have all of the same rights, benefits and obligations of OWNER as used in this Development Agreement and the term "OWNER" as used in this Development Agreement shall refer to any such successors, assigns and transferees unless expressly provided herein to the contrary. Section 29. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, OWNER is obtaining vested rights to proceed with the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, and in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Approvals. By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, CITY is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and general welfare. CITY therefore agrees that except as provided in Section 22 of this Development Agreement, neither the City Council nor any other agency of CITY shall enact a rule, regulation, ordinance or other measure which relates to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and which is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement. Section 30. GENERAL. 30.1 Force Majeure. The Term of this Development Agreement and the time within which OWNER shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably by strikes, lock-outs, Acts of God, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, initiative or referenda, moratoria, enemy action, civil disturbances, fire, unavoidable casualties, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of OWNER. 30.2 Construction of Development Agreement. The language in all parts of this Development Agreement shall in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of constructions. This Development Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of CITY, and in particular, the CITY’s police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Development Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY’s governmental powers over the Property. 30.3 Severability. If any provision of this Development Agreement shall be adjudged to be invalid, void or unenforceable, such provision shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof, unless such judgment affects a material part of this Development Agreement, the parties hereby agree that they would have entered into the remaining portions of ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 23 this Development Agreement not adjudged to be invalid, void or illegal. In the event that all or any portion of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable shall be deemed to be a statement of intention by the parties; and the parties further agree that in such event they shall take all steps necessary to comply with such public hearings and/or notice requirements as may be necessary in order to make valid this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Development Agreement, in the event that any material provision of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, void or voidable, OWNER or CITY may terminate this Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution. 30.4 Cumulative Remedies. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, relief in the nature of mandamus and actions for damages. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. 30.5 Hold Harmless Agreement. OWNER and CITY hereby mutually agree to, and shall hold each other, each other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissions, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, and from claims for property damage which may arise from the activities of the other's or the other's contractors', subcontractors', agents’, or employees' which relate to the Project whether such activities be by OWNER or CITY, or by any of the OWNER’s or the CITY’s contractors, subcontractors, or by any one or more persons indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for OWNER any of the OWNER's or the CITY's contractors or subcontractors. OWNER and CITY agree to and shall defend the other and the other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissioners, officers, partners, agents, representatives and employees from any suits or actions at law or in equity for damage caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the aforementioned activities which relate to the Project. 30.6 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement and/or the Development Approvals, the parties hereby agree to cooperate fully with each other in defending said action and the validity of each provision of this Development Agreement, however, OWNER shall be liable for all legal expenses and costs incurred in defending any such action. OWNER shall be entitled to choose legal counsel to defend against any such legal action and shall pay any attorneys' fees awarded against CITY or OWNER, or both, resulting from any such legal action. OWNER shall be entitled to any award of attorneys' fees arising out of any such legal action. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 24 30.7 Public Agency Coordination. CITY and OWNER shall cooperate and use their respective best efforts in coordinating the implementation of the Development Approvals with other public agencies, if any, having jurisdiction over the Property or the Project. 30.8 Initiative Measures. Both CITY and OWNER intend that this Development Agreement is a legally binding contract which will supersede any initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use approved, issued or granted within the CITY, or portions of the CITY, and which Agreement shall apply to the Project to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement. Should an initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance, or other limitation be enacted by the citizens of CITY which would preclude construction of all or any part of the Project, and to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate or prevail over all or any part of this Development Agreement, OWNER shall have no recourse against CITY pursuant to the Development Agreement, but shall retain all other rights, claims and causes of action under this Development Agreement not so invalidated and any and all other rights, claims and causes of action as law or in equity which OWNER may have independent of this Development Agreement with respect to the project. The foregoing shall not be deemed to limit OWNER's right to appeal any such determination that such initiative, measure, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation invalidates or prevails over all or any part of this Development Agreement. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Development Agreement in full force and effect, provided OWNER shall reimburse CITY for its out-of-pocket expenses incurred directly in connection with such cooperation and CITY shall not be obligated to institute a lawsuit or other court proceedings in this connection. 30.9 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute between the parties involving the covenants or conditions contained in this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs. 30.10 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of non- performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 30.11 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Development Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Development Agreement on behalf of his/her partnership and represents that he/she has the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of OWNER's obligations hereunder. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 25 30.12 Notice. 30.12.1 To OWNER. Any notice required or permitted to be given by CITY to OWNER under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing and delivered personally to an officer of OWNER or mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed; to OWNER as follows: Attention: or such changed address as OWNER shall designate in writing to CITY. 30.12.2 To CITY. Any notice required or permitted to be given to CITY under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be made and given in writing, if by mail addressed to: City Council City of Anaheim c/o City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 With copies to: City Manager City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 City Attorney City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 or such changed address as CITY shall designate in writing to OWNER. Alternatively, notices to CITY may also be personally delivered to the City Clerk, at the Anaheim Civic Center, 200 S. Anaheim. Blvd., Anaheim, California, together with copies marked for the City Manager and the City Attorney or, if so addressed and mailed, with postage thereon fully prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City Council in care of the City Clerk at the above address with copies likewise so mailed to the City Manager and the City Attorney, respectively and also in care of the City Clerk at the same address. The provisions of this Section shall be deemed permissive only and shall not detract from the validity of any notice given in a manner which would be legally effective in the absence of this Section. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 26 30.13 Captions. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. 30.14 Consent. Any consent required by the parties in carrying out the terms of this Development agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld. 30.15 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement. 30.16 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute in effect as of the Development Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 22.1 above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Development Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Development Agreement unless necessary for this Development Agreement to be enforceable or unless this Development Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Development Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Development Agreement Date. 30.17 Governing Law. This Development Agreement, including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 30.18 Effect on Title. OWNER and CITY agree that this Development Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Development Agreement has terminated. 30.19 Mortgagee Protection. Entering into or a breach of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of Mortgagees having a mortgage on any portion of the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform OWNER's obligations, or to guarantee such performance prior to any foreclosure or deed in lieu thereof. 30.20 Notice of Default to Mortgagee, Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If the City Clerk timely receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 27 OWNER under the terms of this Development Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, for a period up to ninety (90) days after the receipt of such notice from CITY to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy the default unless a further extension of time to cure is granted in writing by CITY. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall seek to obtain possession with diligence and continually through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure the default or non- compliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any such default or non- compliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such default or non-compliance if such Mortgagee commences cure during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure. 30.21 Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Section 29.20 of this Development Agreement, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or pursues and prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving CITY, the times specified in this Section for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. 30.22 Disaffirmance. 29.22.1 CITY agrees that in the event of termination of this Agreement by reason of any default by CITY, or by reason of the disaffirmance hereof by a receiver, liquidator or trustee for OWNER or its property, CITY, if requested by any Mortgagee, shall enter into a new Development Agreement for the Project with the most senior Mortgagee requesting such new agreement, for the remainder of the Term, effective as of the date of such termination, upon the terms, provisions, covenants and agreements as herein contained to the extent and subject to the law then in effect, and subject to the rights, if any, of any parties then in possession of any part of the Property, provided: 30.22.2 The Mortgagee shall make written request upon CITY for the new Development Agreement for the Project within thirty (30) days after the date of termination; 30.22.3 The Mortgagee shall pay to CITY at the time of the execution and delivery of the new Development Agreement for the Project expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to which CITY shall have been subjected by reason of OWNER’s default; and 30.22.4 The Mortgagee shall perform and observe all covenants herein contained on OWNER's part to be performed, and shall further remedy any other conditions which OWNER under the terminated agreement was obligated to perform under its terms, to the extent the same are curable or may be performed by the Mortgagee. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 28 30.22.5 Nothing herein contained shall require any Mortgagee to enter into a new agreement pursuant to Section 29.22.1 above, nor to cure any default of OWNER referred to above. 30.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Development Agreement and all provisions hereof is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of CITY, OWNER and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have right of action based upon any provision in this Development Agreement. 30.24 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, join venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 30.25 Restrictions. Property OWNER shall place in any agreements to sell or convey any interest in the Property or any portion thereof, provisions making the terms of this Development Agreement binding on any successors in interest of OWNER and express provision for OWNER or CITY, acting separately or jointly, to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement and to recover attorneys' fees and costs for such enforcement. 30.26 Recitals. The recitals in this Development Agreement constitute part of this Development Agreement and each party shall be entitled to rely on the truth and accuracy of each recital as an inducement to enter into this Development Agreement. 30.27 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be executed by CITY and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after CITY approves this Development Agreement. 30.28 Title Report. CITY is required to sign this Development Agreement only after OWNER has provided CITY with a satisfactory preliminary title report evidencing and showing OWNER’s legal and equitable ownership interest in the Property, current within six months, unencumbered except for the exceptions (hereinafter the “Permitted Exceptions”) set in the preliminary title reports for the Property attached hereto as Exhibit (the "Preliminary Title Reports"). Any instrument of monetary encumbrance such as a deed of trust or a mortgage entered into subsequent to the date of the Preliminary Title Report and prior to the Development Agreement Date, shall contain language expressly subordinating such instruments of monetary encumbrance to the provisions of this Development Agreement. OWNER shall present evidence, satisfactory to CITY, of OWNER’s legal title to Property, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions and any such subordinated instruments of monetary encumbrance, at the time of recordation of this Agreement, or a memorandum thereof. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 29 30.29 Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement, and this Development Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 30.30 Successors and Assigns. The burdens of the Development Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Development Agreement inure to all successors in interest and assigns of the parties to the Development Agreement. 30.31 OWNER's Title to Property. Neither party hereto shall be bound by any provision of this Agreement unless and until OWNER shall record this Development Agreement or a memorandum thereof, in the office of the County Recorder of the County sufficient to cause this Agreement and the obligations contained herein to attach to and encumber OWNER’s fee title to Property. 30.32 Exhibits. All exhibits, including attachments thereto, are incorporated in this Development Agreement in their entirety by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER have executed this Development Agreement as of the date and year first above written. “CITY” “OWNER” CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation By: By: Mayor Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT FINAL SITE PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING FEE Non-residential Uses: $0.03 per sq. ft. These fees are intended to recover the costs associated with the Platinum Triangle including the designation of portions of the Platinum Triangle for mixed use and office development by the General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form, Zone Reclassifications, all other associated documents and amendments thereto, and all associated environmental documentation. The fees are based upon the following calculations: Costs Consultant Contract Costs: $670,623 (includes costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Planning Department Costs: $456,765 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) Public Works Costs: $41,325 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) $1,168,713 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339) New Development Allowed in the Platinum Triangle Non-Residential Uses 14,340,522 square feet office development 4,909,682 square feet commercial development + 1,500,000 square feet institutional 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development Residential Uses 18,909 residential units x 800 square feet (estimated average unit size) 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development Total Square Feet 20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development + 15,127,200 total square feet of residential development 35,877,404 total square feet of residential and non-residential uses Fees (to be updated with DSEIR Planning and Public Works Costs) $1,168,713 costs = $0.03 per square foot 35,877,404 total square feet EXHIBIT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District EXHIBIT PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B2 Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form Office District ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 C APPENDIX C Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for The Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 was created for the Environmental Impact Report associated with The Anaheim Stadium Master Land Use Plan (EIR No. 321) and was updated and modified in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update Program (EIR No. 330), adopted on May 25, 2004. A revised mitigation monitoring plan will be prepared in conjunction with DSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 D APPENDIX D Standard Detail for Newspaper Racks in the Platinum Triangle There are no proposed changes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 E APPENDIX E The Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 6 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue to East of State College Blvd. (Stadium Entrance) (Figure 22) Date Palm - Phoenix Dactylifera "Medjool" (UL) Bouganvillea (San Diego Red) attached to trunk of Palm Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm in combination with alternate mass plantings of Agapantha shrub and Star Jasmine ‘asiaticum’ ground cover (not mixed) 30’ 18” 18” 9” 30’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon 5 gallon * Date Palm - Phoenix Dactylifera "Medjool" (UL) Agapantha shrub 24” ht. max Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm 30’ 18” 30’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Katella Avenue East of State College Blvd. (Stadium Entrance) to Orange Freeway (Figure 23) And Orange Freeway to east City Limits (Figure 24) Date Palm - Phoenix Dactylifera "Medjool" (UL) Bouganvillea (San Diego Red) attached to trunk of Palm Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm in combination with alternate mass plantings of Agapantha shrub and Star Jasmine ‘asiaticum’ ground cover (not mixed) 30’ 18” 18” 9” 30’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon 5 gallon * Mexican Fan Palm (UL) Agapantha shrub 24” ht. max 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 6 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size State College Blvd. South City Limits to Gene Autry Way (Figure 25) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 24” box 5 gallon * State College Blvd. Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue (Figure 26) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree Bouganvillea (San Diego Red) attached to trunk of Palm Bird of Paradise at trunk of Palm Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 24” box 5 gallon 5 gallon * State College Blvd. Katella Avenue to 500' North of Howell Avenue (Figure 27) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 15 gallon * ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 6 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size State College Blvd. 500' North of Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (Figure 28) Single Row of Camphor Trees Crape – Muskogee installed at both ends of each median Agapantha – Blue Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 18” 9” 36” box 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Golden Trumpet Tree Vinca Major - Periwinkle ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 24” box * Gene Autry Way Santa Cruz Street to State College Blvd. (Figure 29) Single Row of Evergreen Pear Star Jasmine ground cover 20’ 18” 15 gallon 5 gallon Crape Bird of Paradise, except at driveway entrances use Orange Daylilies 20’ 18” 15 gallon 5 gallon Orangewood Avenue Santa Ana Freeway to State College Blvd. (Figure 30) Magnolia Trees Halls Honeysuckle ground cover 20’ 9” 15 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Magnolia Tree ‘Samuel Sommer’ Daylilies (Orange/Yellow) around base of tree Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 36” box 5 gallon * ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 6 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Orangewood Avenue State College Blvd. to Dupont Drive (Figure 31) Magnolia Trees Daylilies (Orange) around base of tree Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Magnolia Trees Bouganvillea (Orange) attached to the trunk of the Palm Birds of Paradise around base of trees Halls Honeysuckle(orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 15 gallon 5 gallon 5 gallon * Orangewood Avenue Dupont Drive to East City Limits (Figure 32) Magnolia Trees Daylilies (Orange) around base of tree Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white)ground cover 20’ 9” 15 gallon 5 gallon * Alternating Mexican Fan Palm and Magnolia Trees Birds of Paradise around base of trees Halls Honeysuckle (orange/white) ground cover 20’ 9” 20’ BTH 15 gallon 5 gallon * Douglass Road North of Katella Avenue (Figure 33) To be Determined Mexican Fan Palm Bouganvillea attached to trunk of Palm Daylilies (yellow and orange) at base of Palm 24” max ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 6 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Anaheim Way (Figure 34) Not Applicable Mexican Fan Palm Bougainvillea attached to trunk of Palm Birds of Paradise shrub - 24” max. ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Lewis Street Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue (Figure 35) Single Row of Gold Medallion Halls Honeysuckle ground cover 20’ 9” 24” box * Mexican Fan Palm Yellow Trumpet vines attached to trunk of Palm; India Hawthorne shrub - 24” max ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Lewis Street Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (Figure 36) Single Row of Gold Medallion Halls Honeysuckle ground cover 20’ 9” 24” box * Mexican Fan Palm Yellow Trumpet vines attached to trunk of Palm; India Hawthorne shrub - 24” max ht. 25’ 18” 20’ BTH 5 gallon 5 gallon Amtrak/Metrolink Line (Figure 37) Not Applicable Not Applicable Secondary Streets (Figure 38) Not Applicable Brisbane Box India Hawthorne shrub 24" max. ht. or ground cover 20’ 18” 24” box 5 gallon ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 6 Platinum Triangle Median and Parkway Planting Matrix Street Median Planting o.c. Plant Size Parkway Trees/Shrubs o.c. Plant Size Market Street (Figure 39) Not Applicable Ginkgo Biloba Entry off of Katella Avenue: Date Palm 20’ 24”box Connector Streets (Figure 40) Not Applicable Southern Magnolia, Bradford Pear, Fern Pine or Live Oak, Tree in tree wells or in parkways with turf or ground cover dependent on whether adjacent on-street parking is provided Daylilies, Camellia, India Hawthorn shrub 24” max. ht. Honeysuckle or Star Jasmine ‘asiaticum’ ground cover - 18” 9” 36” box * Collector Streets (Figure 41) Not Applicable Brisbane Box India Hawthorne shrub 24" max. ht. or ground cover 20’ 18” 24” box 5 gallon Bus Stops Public Works Standard Detail No. 119 Not Applicable Gold Medallion Tree planted on both sides of the bus stop 24” box UL = Uplighting of tree required * Plants contained in flats ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 F APPENDIX F A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program There are no proposed changes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan October 14, 2008 G APPENDIX G PTMU Overlay Zone District Sub-Area Development Intensity Maps ---PAGE BREAK--- DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER ORANG E FRE EWA Y (SR -57) HARRIS CT. KATELLA AVE 425 DU 100,000 S.F. Office 100,000 S.F. Commercial Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E 2439-31 CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 16, 2008 Arena District 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary Arena - 41 acres ---PAGE BREAK--- DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER ORANG E FRE EWAY (SR-5 7) SINCLAIR ST. 520 D.U. 1,500,000 S.F. Institutional 2,202,803 S.F. Office 358,000 S.F. Commercial 2439-13 ARTIC District C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS November 7, 2008 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District ARTIC - 17 acres Anaheim City Boundary The Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. CHRIS LN. BETMOR LN. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. DUPONT DR. TOWNE CE 250 DU 690 DU 341 DU 24,000 S.F. Office 12,000 S.F. Commercial 438 DU 538,250 S.F. Office 52,000 S.F. Commercial 352 DU 878 DU Sub-Area A Sub-Area C Sub-Area B C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE 2439-11 CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 21, 2008 Gateway District 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Gateway - 53 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. KATELLA AVE. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. TALBOT WAY 1,208 DU 219,000 S.F. Office 118,000 S.F. Commercial 491 DU 103,800 S.F. Commercial 663 DU 119,200 S.F. Office 82,900 S.F. Commercial 5 Sub-Area A Sub-Area C Sub-Area B Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E 2439-10 Gene Autry District 0 250 500 125 Feeto CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Gene Autry - 33 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY LEWIS ST. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) MANCHESTER AVE. KATELLA AVE. W CLAUDINA WAY HOWELL AVE. CHRIS LN. BETMOR LN. SANTA CRUZ ST. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. TALBOT WA 254,759 S.F. Office 320 D.U. 209,419 S.F. Office 114,571 S.F. Commercial 350 D.U. 60,000 S.F. Commercial 364 D.U. 91,000 S.F. Office 45,500 S.F. Commercial 399,881 S.F. Office 260,120 S.F. Office 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area A Map C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 21, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area A - 32 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. LEWIS ST. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) KATELLA AVE. HOWELL AVE. CHRIS LN. SANTA CRUZ ST. SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. 859 DU 2,190 DU 126,000 S.F. Commercial 336 DU 1,298 S.F. Commercial 382 DU 102,400 S.F. Office 51,200 S.F. Commercial 390 DU 10,659 S.F. Commercial 17,800 S.F. Office 8,900 S.F. Commercial 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area B Map C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 20, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area B - 69 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- STATE COLLEGE BLVD. HOWELL AVE. SUNKIST ST. ORANG E FRE EWAY (SR-57 ) BABBITT AVE. PAGE CT. SINCLAIR ST. STADIUM VIEW AVE. 105,000 S.F. Office 202,467 S.F. Commercial 265 DU 643,482 S.F. Office 25,526 S.F. Commercial 14,185 S.F. Commercial 17,708 S.F. Commercial 251 DU 12,600 S.F. Commercial 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area C Map Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , CA THE PL ATI NU M TR IAN GLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 20, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area C - 33 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER ORANG E FRE EWAY (SR-5 7) SINCLAIR ST. 47,197 S.F. Office 142,000 S.F. Commercial 2439-9 Katella District Sub-Area D Map Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , CA THE PL ATI NU M TR IAN GLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 20, 2008 0 300 600 150 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Katella Sub-Area D - 8 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. HOWELL AVE. SUNKIST ST. DOUGLASS RD. SANTA ANA RIVER WRIGHT CIR. ORANG E FRE E W AY (SR -57) BABBITT AVE. PAGE CT. TALBOT WAY SINCLAIR ST. STADIUM VIEW AVE. HARRIS CT. 879,613 S.F. Office 383,250 S.F. Office 58,700 S.F. Office 267,458 S.F. Office 2439-19 Office District East of State College Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 0 500 1,000 250 Feeto Key to Features Office District Office - Low - 30.3 acres Office - High - 22.1 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORA CERRITOS AVE. BLVD. HOWELL HASTER ST. LEWIS ST. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) KATELLA AVE. WRIGHT CIR. CLAUDINA WAY HOWELL AVE. BABBITT AVE. PA SANTA CRUZ ST. STANFORD CT. TALBOT WAY 669,082 S.F. Office 716,127 S.F. Office 845,935 S.F. Office 64,904 S.F. Office 356,321 S.F. Office 236,966 S.F. Office 2439-19 Office District West of State College Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , CA THE PL ATI NU M TR IAN GLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 0 500 1,000 250 Feeto Key to Features Office District Office - Low - 43.6 acres Office - High - 33.3 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. DUPONT DR. TOWNE CENTRE PL. RAMPART ST. 1,450 DU 812,855 S.F. Office 120,000 S.F. Commercial 321 DU 590,000 S.F. Office 10,000 S.F. Commercial 2439-12 Orangewood District C i t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 0 250 500 125 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Orangewood - 35 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD. ORANGEWOOD AVE. SANT WRIGHT CIR. ORANGE F REE WAY (S R-57) DUPONT DR. TOWNE CENTRE PL. RAMPART ST. TALBOT WAY 5,175 DU 3,125,000 S.F. Office 3,120,368 S.F. Commercial KAT ELL A AV ENU E Ci t y o f A n a h e i m , C A THE PLAT IN UM TRIAN GL E 2439-30 CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning GIS October 17, 2008 Stadium District 0 500 1,000 250 Feeto Key to Features Mixed Use Overlay Zone District Stadium - 153 acres The Platinum Triangle Anaheim City Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix J Infrastructure/Facility Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 440 W. First Street, Suite 203 Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 656-0160 Prepared By: Engineering Department 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92803 Prepared For: July 2010 PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for PUBLIC WORKS BACKBONE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS C I T Y O F A N A H E I M ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2.0 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 3.0 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 4.0 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 5.0 WATER IMPROVEMENTS 6.0 ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 7.0 PROJECT COSTS 8.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE 9.0 CASH FLOW ---PAGE BREAK--- revised July 2010 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Platinum Triangle is located in the City of Anaheim at the confluence of the I-5 and SR-57 freeways. The Platinum Triangle is approximately 820 acres in size. It is traversed by a major intercity/commuter railroad line and encompasses Angel Stadium of Anaheim, as well as the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. Figure 1 below depicts the project location. The Platinum Triangle project will be a mixed-use development with a dynamic mix of uses including upscale, high density urban housing integrated by a carefully planned network of pedestrian walkways, streetscape improvements and recreation spaces. In 2004, the City of Anaheim completed, and in 2005, the City of Anaheim updated The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. There are multiple subsequent documents which describe the land use infrastructure parameters for the Platinum Triangle. These documents are:  General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR No. 330)  Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan  Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone  Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form  Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle  Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 Most of these documents are available on the City’s website (www.anaheim.net). The Draft EIR No. 339 is scheduled for public review beginning in summer, 2010. All of these documents described above, including DSEIR No. 339, are the basis for the public infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle project and surrounding areas described herein, including the proposed street network and streetscape design. Honda Center ---PAGE BREAK--- revised July 2010 Additional engineering studies were completed to establish the sewer and storm drain system improvements required to support the Platinum Triangle project. Necessary electrical and water system improvements were provided by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The information herein constitutes the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan for Backbone Public Works Facilities. The purpose of this Implementation Plan is:  to delineate the required arterial roadway, streetscape and landscape improvements  to delineate the required sewer system improvements  to delineate the required storm drain system improvements  to delineate the required water system improvements  to delineate the required electrical system improvements  to identify right of way acquisition required to construct all backbone infrastructure improvements  to develop a logical breakdown of project segments for implementation  to complete cost estimates for all project segments  to develop a schedule for implementation of the capital improvement program  to calculate a cash flow estimate for the overall implementation of the program Section 2.0 herein contains conceptual alignment plans for the arterial roadways proposed to be constructed in the Platinum Triangle and the surrounding area. All right of way acquisition necessary to facilitate the required roadway improvements is depicted in yellow. Section 3.0 contains a plan depicting the backbone storm drain system improvements required to support the Platinum Triangle project. These improvements are based upon the results of the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study, completed by Merit Civil Engineering in September, 2004; The Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Chanel Tributary Area, completed by CH2M Hill in January, 2006; and the Size Estimate for the Southeast Anaheim Channel (E-12), completed by Merit Civil Engineering in July, 2006. Section 4.0 contains a plan depicting the backbone sewer system improvements required to support the Platinum Triangle project. These improvements are based upon the results of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Sewer Study, completed by CH2M Hill in June, 2009 (DSEIR No. 339). Section 5.0 contains a plan depicting the backbone water system improvements required to support the Platinum Triangle project. These required improvements were provided by the Anaheim Water Department. Section 6.0 contains a plan depicting the backbone electrical system improvements required to support the Platinum Triangle project. These required improvements were provided by the Anaheim Electrical Department. ---PAGE BREAK--- revised July 2010 Section 7.0 contains three sections of budgetary cost estimates. The first section contains the Platinum Triangle backbone facilities which are being constructed at this time, hereinafter referred to as the “funded improvements.” The estimated total budget for these project improvements is $223.2 million (2010 Some of these improvements have already been constructed by private developers. Windstar (Stadium Lofts) completed eligible project improvements along the frontage of their project site valued at $1.5 million. These improvements have been covered by a separate CFD specifically for the Stadium Lofts project. An additional $5.7 million of eligible improvements have been completed by various developers prior to formation of the Platinum Triangle District. These costs are eligible for reimbursement from the CFD as described below. The second section of budgetary estimates covers planned improvements within the project area which will not be constructed at this time, hereinafter referred to as the “unfunded improvements.” The estimated total cost for these improvements is $30.6 million (2010 The third section of budgetary estimates represents eligible reimbursement budgets for developers that have constructed public improvements (street, sewer, water, etc.) which are consistent with the proposed improvements delineated in Sections 2.0 through 6.0 of this document. The summary sheet depicts not-to-exceed budgets for each developer by funding category (engineering/right of way/construction). Following this summary sheet are the individual cost estimates (by developer, by project). These cost estimates contain three parts. The first part, or left column, summarizes the total not-to-exceed budget available to developers for their entire project based upon approved plans. The second part, or middle column (highlighted in blue), summarizes the not-to-exceed budget available for all eligible work that was completed up to the Resolution of Formation (ROF) date for the Platinum Triangle. The ROF was adopted on April 22, 2008. The third part, or right column, represents the balance of eligible budget remaining after April 22, 2008. The eligible work completed up to the ROF (blue columns) will be reimbursed to the developers with the proceeds of the first bond measure. The work completed after the ROF will be eligible (subject to conformance with the Acquisition Agreement for the for reimbursement when the City initiates construction of that particular project segment that the completed work resides within. Section 8.0 contains two graphics. The first is an implementation schedule for the program, broken out by project. This schedule includes provisions for administration; preliminary engineering; right of way engineering; right of way acquisition; final design; bid phase; and construction. Unique project tasks (i.e. railroad agreements, permits, etc.) are also addressed as required, on a project by project basis. The second graphic in this section is an aerial overview of the project which serves to delineate the construction sequencing of the various funded backbone projects in the Platinum Triangle. Section 9.0 includes the cash flow summary for the implementation of backbone improvements based upon the project cost estimates, reimbursements, and schedules contained in Sections 6.0 through 8.0 herein. The cash flows are broken out by categories consisting of engineering right of way and construction Escalation factors of 3% per annum for each of the categories were utilized. ---PAGE BREAK--- revised July 2010 The eligible capital costs associated with the Stadium Lofts project have been removed from the because a separate CFD was formed for this project by the developer to reimburse the capital costs for this project. All eligible costs incurred by all other developers up through the Resolution of Formation (4/22/08) of the will be reimbursed with the first bond measure and, as such, have been accounted for and depicted in a separate column under Phase 1. The reimbursement amounts shown herein represent budgetary not-to-exceed amounts. The amounts of actual reimbursements will be subject to financial auditing of the developers’ costs pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement for the The City of Anaheim has also incurred eligible costs of approximately $2 million to date for formation and oversight of the project. These expenditures will also be reimbursed with the first bond measure. The first bond measure is expected to yield net proceeds of approximately $30 million. After City ($2M) and developer ($5.7M) reimbursements this will leave approximately $22.3 million for capital project improvements. The cash flow summary delineates the projects which the City of Anaheim has programmed for project development activities with the initial, or Phase 1, bonding for the Platinum Triangle. These project activities and their corresponding budgets, in 2010 are summarized as follows:  Engineering, R/W acquisition and Construction of Katella Avenue from 600’ e/o Lewis to 350’ e/o State College (Project 1A)……$9.4 million  Engineering, R/W acquisition and a portion of construction funding (25%) for Katella Avenue from e/o SR-57 to the east City limit (Project 1C)…..$2.2 million  Engineering for Katella Avenue from Anaheim Boulevard to 600’ e/o Lewis (Project 1D)……$730,000  A portion of funding for right of way ($2M) and construction ($8M) activities for the Gene Autry west project between Haster Street and I-5 (Project million The budgets for these project activities total approximately $22.3 million (2010 Subsequent bonding and capital improvement programming beyond Phase 1 will be largely driven by the economy and growth in the local real estate market. As new developments come on line within the Platinum Triangle additional bonding capacity will be realized. For purposes of this Implementation Plan, we have established a project development schedule and strategy which provides a steady flow of project activities and overall District progress beyond the designated Phase 1 improvements, starting in 2013 and finishing in 2020. The cash flow summary in Section 9.0 estimates the cash flow requirements for the Platinum Triangle capital improvement program. These requirements are summarized in the table on the following page. ---PAGE BREAK--- revised July 2010 Platinum Triangle Annual Cash Flow Requirements Description Phase Total Cumulative Total Phase 1 Bond • City Reimbursement • Developer Reimbursements • 2011 Capital Projects • 2012 Capital Projects Phase 1 Total $30,172,177 $30,172,177 2013 Capital Projects $16,635,813 $46,807,990 2014 Capital Projects $19,674,094 $66,482,084 2015 Capital Projects $22,460,772 $88,942,856 2016 Capital Projects $23,257,108 $112,199,963 2017 Capital Projects $27,567,261 $139,767,224 2018 Capital Projects $37,606,705 $177,373,930 2019 Capital Projects $44,123,608 $221,497,537 2010 Capital Projects $39,788,474 $261,286,011 Total $261,286,011 ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets\01 Title.dgn 8/9/2010 11:45:07 AM SCALE: 2000.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 42407 RICK KREUZER 3-31-12 SCALE: 1" = 1000’ 1 T-1 PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Sheet Index TITLE SHEET AN-2 AN-1 AN-7 AN-6 AN-8 OR-2 OR-3 AN-3 OR-4 OR-5 AN-4 AN-4/5 OR-1 K-1 K-2 K-3 K-4 K-5 K-6 K-7 K-8 K-9 SC-6 SC-4 SC-5 SC-2 SC-1 O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 SC-3 TITLE SHEET KATELLA AVENUE STATE COLLEGE BLVD ORANGEWOOD AVENUE GENE AUTRY WAY ANAHEIM WAY LEWIS STREET DOUGLASS ROAD STATE ROUTE 57 ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS ORANGE INTERSECTIONS CERRITOS AVENUE SUNKIST ROAD T1 K1 - K9 SC1 - SC6 O1 - O5 G1 - G4 A1 - A3 L1 - L3 D1 - D3 SR57-1 - SR57-3 AN1 - AN9 OR1 - OR5 C1 - C3 SK1 - SK2 1 2-10 11-16 17-21 22-25 26-28 29-31 32-34 35-37 38-46 47-51 52-54 55-56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 15 PROJECT DESIGNATION SHEET DESCRIPTION PLANS G-3 G-4 G-1 G-2 L-3 L-2 L-1 C-1 C-2 C-3 D-3 D-2 D-1 SR57-2 SR57-1 SK-1 SK-2 KATELLA WALNUT CHAPMAN BALL CERRITOS KATELLA COLLINS GENE AUTRY SANTA ANA RIVER SR-22 GARDEN GROVE I-5 I-5 NINTH WEST MAIN GLASSELL SR-57 SR-57 LEWIS STATE COLLEGE ANAHEIM BLVD VERMONT ANAHEIM WAY A-3 A-2 A-1 SUNKIST HOWELL OR-4 K-4 DENOTES PLAN NUMBERS HARBOR HASTER CITY DR ORANGEWOOD NOTE: THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN CROSS-SECTIONS SHOWN ON THE SHEETS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE CONCEPTUAL AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION. THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AT THE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION. SR57-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12’ 10’ JOIN EXISTING SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets\SR57 3.dgn 8/9/2010 6:24:46 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SR57 ALIGNMENT SR57-3 MATCHLINE PLAN NO. SR57-2 END PROJECT 11 SR-57 PROJECT 11 from 1,100’ s/o Ball Road to 850’ n/o Cerritos Avenue BALL ROAD SUNKIST GARDENS MOBILE HOME PARK LARK ELLEN LANE RILES CIRCLE 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 40’ 45’ 39’ 57’ 47’ 46’ 51’ 60’ 60’ 71’ 61’ TS 32’ 32’ 20’ 20’ 11’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 8’ PARKING 5’ BIKE 10’ 11’ 19’ 10’ 32’ 40’ 30’ 30’ TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN01 Ninth & Katella.dgn 8/9/2010 6:29:55 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 38 AN-1 SCALE: 1" = 50’ NINTH STREET KATELLA AVENUE LOCATION #2 KATELLA / NINTH INTERSECTION PROJECT 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 137-01-113 137-01-119 137-01-120 090-25-224 090-25-223 090-25-221 090-25-222 TS 75’ 64’ 75’ 59’ 48’ 59’ 58’ 59’ 74’ 74’ 64’ 48’ 49’ 46’ 62’ 60’ 39’ 55’ 62’ 46’ 13’ 47’ 63’ 24’ 16’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 13’ 59’RT 47’RT SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN02 West & Katella.dgn 8/9/2010 6:30:33 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES KATELLA WEST ST DISNEYLAND DR DISNEYLAND DR WEST ST SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 39 AN-2 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CFD WILL COVER THE FAIR SHARE COST OF STRIPING THE 4th LANE ONLY. ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN WILL BE FUNDED BY OTHER SOURCES. LOCATION #6 KATELLA / WEST INTERSECTION PROJECT 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 037-072-41 037-072-47 037-072-43 037-072-18 037-072-17 037-072-16 037-072-15 234-171-20 234-171-04 234-171-05 234-171-06 234-171-07 234-131-01 234-131-02 234-131-03 234-131-04 234-131-05 234-131-06 037-091-25 037-091-09 037-091-08 037-091-07 037-091-06 037-091-05 037-091-027 SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN03 Vermont & Anaheim Blvd.dgn 8/9/2010 6:31:07 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES TS 43’ 43’ 40’ 40’ 8’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 50’ 53’ 50’ 53’ 47’ 53’ 47’ 43’ RESTRICT ON-STREET PARKING VERMONT AVE MIDWAY MANOR VALENCIA AVE CLAUDINA ST ANAHEIM BLVD SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 40 AN-3 037-072-18 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE CFD WILL COVER THE FAIR SHARE COST FOR STRIPING ONLY. ALL OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN WILL BE FUNDED BY OTHER SOURCES. PROJECT 12 ANAHEIM / VERMONT INTERSECTION LOCATION #8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 082-46-125 082-33-316 082-46-131 082-46-129 082-33-103 082-33-104 082-33-105 082-33-106 082-33-107 082-33-108 082-33-109 234-18-111 234-18-105 234-18-113 234-18-112 234-18-108 234-18-109 234-18-110 234-18-103 234-18107 251-06-230 251-06-229 234-16-125 234-16-104 234-16-129 234-16-126 234-16-107 234-16-108 234-16-110 234-16-109 082-33-110 082-33-111 082-33-112 082-33-113 082-33-114 082-33-115 082-33-116 082-33-201 082-33-202 082-33-203 082-33-204 082-33-205 082-33-206 082-33--207 TS 13’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 150’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 150’ 200’ 160’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 240’ 43’ 43’ 54’ 53’ 63’ 64’ 53’ 53’ 43’ 43’ 50’ 53’ 18’ 8’ 64’ 43’ 53’ 68’ 59’ 74’ 43’ 43’ 53’ 150’ 7’ 29’ 43’ 51’ 53’ 60’ 74’ 64’ 75’ 85’ 65’ 53’ 43’ 56’ 53’ 53’ 53’ 50’ 100’ 300’ SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN04 Ball & Anaheim Blvd 1.dgn 8/9/2010 6:31:21 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES LEMON STREET ANAHEIM BLVD IRIS STREET TECHNOLOGY CIRCLE BALL ROAD CLAUDINA STREET R=1200’ R=1200’ SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 41 AN-4 MATCHLINE PLAN NO. AN-5 MATCHLINE PLAN NO. AN-5 PROJECT 12 LOCATION #19 ANAHEIM / BALL INTERSECTION ---PAGE BREAK--- 234-171-06 234-171-07 234-171-08 18-114 234-18-104 234-18-111 234-18-105 234-18-113 234-18-112 234-15-308 234-16-125 234-16-129 43’ 51’ 100’ 300’ 41’ 51’ SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN05 Ball & Anaheim Blvd 2.dgn 8/9/2010 6:37:23 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES 53’ 43’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 08240325 08240324 082-40-308 082-40-307 082-40-306 082-46-135 082-46-134 08246124 082-46-123 082-33-317 SCALE: 1" = 50’ 42 AN-5 PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 29’LT 19’LT 7’RT 8’LT 43’LT 54’LT 64’LT 74’LT 7’RT ANAHEIM BLVD ANAHEIM BLVD CLIFTON AVENUE REMOVE ON-STREET PARKING TO FACILITATE TRANSITION FROM 3 LANES TO 2 LANES. 43’ 64’ 74’ 43’ 53’ PROJECT 12 MATCHLINE PLAN NO. AN-4 MATCHLINE PLAN NO. AN-4 ANAHEIM / BALL INTERSECTION LOCATION #19 ---PAGE BREAK--- 08223053 082-18-547 082-13-016 082-13-014 082-18-546 082-23-071 082-18-546 082-48-213 SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN06 Cerritos & Anaheim Blvd.dgn 8/9/2010 6:37:37 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES 250’ 300’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ TS 13’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 300’ 150’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 14’ 300’ 11’ 11’ 14’ 55’ 65’ 43’ 53’ 43’ 43’ 53’ 53’ 43’ 43’ 53’ 53’ 8’ 8’ 7’ 3’ 32’ 32’ 45’ 53’ 26’ 26’ 34’ 34’ 8’ 42’ 32’ 53’ 45’ 32’ 65’ 74’ 56’ 65’ 43’ 53’ 19’ 32’ 8’ CERRITOS AVE MIDWAY DR SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 43 AN-6 ANAHEIM BLVD PROJECT 12 ANAHEIM / CERRITOS INTERSECTION LOCATION #20 ---PAGE BREAK--- TS RELOCATE SIGNAL POLE 12’ S/B I-5 300’ SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN07 Anaheim Blvd & I-5.dgn 8/9/2010 6:38:10 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES I-5 ANAHEIM WAY SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 44 AN-7 ANAHEIM BOULEVARD I-5 PROJECT 12 ANAHEIM BLVD / ANAHEIM WAY INTERSECTION LOCATION #21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 082-24-106 082-241-03 082-54-237 082-54-228 082-16-027 082-25-075 082-25-085 082-25-086 082-25-077 082-25-076 082-25-079 082-25-081 082-24-106 082-241-03 082-54-237 082-54-228 082-16-027 082-25-075 082-25-085 082-25-086 082-25-077 082-25-076 082-25-079 082-25-081 TS 43’ 53’ 32’ 32’ 45’ 45’ 43’ 53’ 32’ 45’ 32’ 45’ 32’ 45’ 7’ 55’ 45’ 45’ 32’ 6’ 11’ 12’ 12’ 13’ 150’ 10’ 150’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 15’ TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN08 Cerritos & Lewis.dgn 8/9/2010 6:38:21 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 CERRITOS AVE ALLEC METROLINK SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 45 AN-8 LEWIS STREET PROJECT 6B LIMIT PROJECT 12 LEWIS / CERRITOS INTERSECTION LOCATION #31 ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Anaheim Ints\AN09 Gene Autry & Haster.dgn 8/9/2010 6:38:47 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 32’ 45’ 54’ 64’ 42’ 55’ 55’ 42’ 32’ 45’ 66’ 76’ 32’ 45’ 54’ 64’ 32’ 54’ 64’ 45’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 200’ 200’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 250’ 43’ 43’ 53’ 53’ 54’ 64’ FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES WAKEFIELD AVE GENE AUTRY WAY ATLAS DR VIA KONA DR ROCKET DR THOR RD PROJECT 12 SCALE: 1" = 50’ LEATRICE LANE PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 46 AN-9 PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN GENE AUTRY/HASTER INTERSECTION LOCATION #24 HASTER STREET PROPOSED GENE AUTRY WAY IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT 4B) ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Orange Ints\OR01 Chapman & State College.dgn 8/9/2010 6:43:26 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES PROJECT IMPS ORANGE GP PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50’ OR-1 CHAPMAN AVENUE THE CITY DRIVE LOCATION #57 CHAPMAN/STATE COLLEGE INTERSECTION PROJECT 13 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 386-392-04 386-392-06 386-392-06 386-392-07 386-392-02 386-501-02 386-501-01 11’ 16’ 11’ 11’ 16’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 8’ 11’ 8’ SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Orange Ints\OR02 Main & Collins.dgn 8/9/2010 6:43:42 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES SCALE: 1" = 50’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN LOCATION #80 MAIN/COLLINS INTERSECTION OR-2 PROJECT IMPS ORANGE GP PROJECT 13 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- 375-271-05 375-271-04 375-271-03 375-141-06 375-141-05 375-141-04 8’ 8’ SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Orange Ints\OR03 Glassell & Katella.dgn 8/9/2010 6:43:53 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES PROJECT IMPS ORANGE GP PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50’ OR-3 KATELLA/GLASSELL INTERSECTION LOCATION #87 PROJECT 13 GLASSELL ST KATELLA AVE LEMON ST HOOVER AVE E WILSON AVE W WILSON AVE 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Orange Ints\OR04 22WB & Metropolitan.dgn 8/9/2010 6:40:47 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 50’ SR-22 METROPOLITAN DRIVE THE CITY DRIVE OR-4 PROJECT IMPS ORANGE GP PROJECT 13 LOCATION #98 SR22 W/B RAMPS / METROPOLITAN INTERSECTION 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 15’ 13’ 16’ SHEET OF PLAN NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED DATE SCALE: HORIZ. APPROVED APPROVED NO. DATE INITIAL D E S C R I P T I O N APPROVED BY FIELD BOOKS PAGES FOR STANDARD DETAILS SEE PLANS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: BENCH MARK NO. ELEVATION = FOR NOTES TO CONTRACTOR SEE PLAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 42407 RICK KREUZER CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R E V I S I O N S R E F E R E N C E S 3-31-12 56 0 1 2 3 4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets Orange Ints\OR05 City Drive & GG Blvd.dgn 8/9/2010 6:40:25 PM SCALE: 100.0000 ’ / IN. EG Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN MAY 2009 DATE: JUNE 2010 TS 56’ 44’ 41’ PROPOSED CURB LINE PROPOSED STRIPING EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING PARCEL OWNER AND NUMBER PROPOSED CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSION EXISTING CURB LINE DIMENSION PROPOSED BUS STOP WITH CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION EXISTING CURB JANE DOE AP# 128-081-24 LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDENING R/W DEDICATED (BY DEVELOPER) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES PROJECT IMPS ORANGE GP PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50’ MEMORY LANE THE CITY DRIVE GARDEN GROVE BLVD PROJECT 13 OR-5 CITY DRIVE / GARDEN GROVE INTERSECTION LOCATION #102 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- GP 1624 GP 1624 GP 1624 GP 1624 GP 1624 16367 G.S.3 PAGE 19 19678 19677 19675 19676 7690 7691 G.S. 3 PAGE 19 7692 7692 G.S. 3 PAGE 19 1693 1692 7694 7694 18329 18328 18328 F.C.627(SHT.12) 7696 F.C.627(SHT.12) 6470 F.C.627(SHT.11) F.C.627(SHT.12) F.C.627(SHT.12) 13157 13158 13159 F.C.627(SHT.10) F.C.627(SHT.9) F.C.627(SHT.9) F.C.627(SHT.8) 7695 4400 8739 8485 4400 14189 14190 19673 19674 I-5 #10 A-25 21308 I-5-43 SHT.27-31 I-5-43 SHT.27-31 S.A.FWY#206-A-17 S.A.FRY.NO.206-A-17 S.A.FWY #.206-A-17 I-5 FWY SHT 27/31 20790 6396 6396 20790 6396 20790 15724 15725 15723 15724 SA FW.N0.206-A-17 S.A.FWY. NO-206-A-17 15864 15864 gp 1229 GP 1229 15863 F.C.627(SHT.7) F.C.627(SHT.7) F.C.627(SHT.5) F.C.627(SHT.6) F.C.627(SHT.4) 15443 15442 15444 15442 15442 F.C.627(SHT.7) 19675 15037 15037 18343 ORANGE FWY #1 SHT.84 GP 812 12479 12479 F.C.# 902 PG 3 F.C.# 902 PG 3 18343 GP 1569 SHT.8 GP 1569 SHT.8 GP 1569 ANAHEIM ARENA PLAN 18759 18762 18762 18761 18760 18760 GP 1618 18760 GP 1618 ANAHEIM ARENA PLAN 18759 GP 1569 SHT.8 ANAHEIM ARENA PLAN 2C.2-1 12277 10678 8473 13532 8475 F.C.# 32 PG 2 F.C.# 902 PG 2 F.C.# 804 F.C.# 32 PG 2 15252 8476 8476 F.C.# 32 PG 2 GP 1542 SHT.4 GP 1542 SHT.4 G.S. #5 PAGE 12 GP 1542 SHT.6 G.S. #5 PAGE 12 GP 1542 SHT.6 GP 1542 SHT.6 GP 1542 SHT.6 G.S. #5 PAGE 12 GP 1542 SHT.6 GP 1542 SHT.4 F.C.# 31 PG 4 GP 1542 SHT.6 G.S. #5 PAGE 12 F.C.# 31 PG 3 12615 12615 12616 12615 G.S. #5 PAGE 12 GP 1542 SHT.4 GP 1542 SHT.4 6819 6818 6818 6807 F.C.# 31 PG 2 18970 18969 6807 F.C.# 31 PG 2 18344 7689 7689 7690 18331 18331 18330 18330 18330 18330 13158 13193 13193 LEWIS STREET GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD KATELLA AVENUE SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE DOUGLASS ROAD ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SR-57 HOWELL AVENUE SUNKIST STREET CERRITOS AVENUE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD METROLINK METROLINK I-5 SANTA ANA RIVER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD SR-57 SANTA ANA RIVER ANAHEIM WAY HASTER STREET PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY SCALE: 1" = 400’ CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LEGEND: l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets\zDrainage.dgn 2:04:16 PM 7/27/2010 USER: Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl 400.0000 ’ / IN. SCALE: EG PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DRAINAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY EXISTING REGIONAL STORM DRAIN LINES EXISTING CITY STORM DRAIN LINES PROPOSED BACKBONE STORM DRAIN LINE STORM DRAIN SIZE REQUIRED PROPOSED LOCAL STORM DRAIN LINE STORM DRAIN SIZE REQUIRED PROPOSED PROJECT LIMIT PROJECT NUMBER # 3A 2A 4A 2A 3B 1B 6A REVISION: JUNE 2010 5 5 1A PROPOSED "UNFUNDED" BACKBONE STORM DRAIN LINE CORE CFD BOUNDARY FUTURE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES BY OTHERS (NOT A PART) PREPARED BY: 6B 10B 10B 10B 10B 10B 10B 10B 10B 10A 10A PROJECT BREAKDOWN SUMMARY # PROJECT DESCRIPTION KATELLA AVENUE – 600’ e/o Lewis to 350’ e/o State College KATELLA AVENUE – 350’ e/o State College to w/o SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE – e/o SR-57 to East City Limit KATELLA AVENUE – Anaheim Boulevard to 600’ e/o Lewis STATE COLLEGE BLVD – Orangewood to 300’ s/o Katella STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 300’ s/o Katella to Cerritos (UPRR Grade Separation) STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 1,000’ s/o Orangewood to Orangewood ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Anahiem Way to w/o State College ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Santa Ana River Bridge Widening GENE AUTRY WAY – I-5 to State College GENE AUTRY WAY – w/o I-5 ANAHEIM WAY – 700’ n/o Katella to Orangewood LEWIS STREET – Gene Autry to n/o Katella LEWIS STREET – n/o Katella to Cerritos DOUGLASS ROAD – SR-57 to Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – Katella to 750’ n/o Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – 1,000’ n/o Katella to Cerritos NEW WATER WELL NEW FIRE STATION MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Funded) MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Unfunded) S/B SR-57 IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS CITY OF ORANGE INTERSECTIONS CERRITOS AVENUE – 550’ w/o State College to 600’ e/o State College CERRITOS AVENUE – 600’ e/o State College to Douglass SUNKIST STREET – Howell to Cerritos 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8 9 10A 10B 11 12 13 14A 14B 15 STORM DRAIN SIZE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED BY DEVELOPERS PRIOR TO RECORD OF FORMATION (ROF) ---PAGE BREAK--- LEWIS STREET GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD KATELLA AVENUE SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE DOUGLASS ROAD ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SR-57 HOWELL AVENUE SUNKIST STREET CERRITOS AVENUE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD METROLINK METROLINK I-5 SANTA ANA RIVER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD SR-57 SANTA ANA RIVER ANAHEIM WAY HASTER STREET PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SEWER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS LEGEND: SEWER SIZE REQUIRED SEWER SIZE REQUIRED PROPOSED BACKBONE SEWER LINE PROPOSED LOCAL SEWER LINE EXISTING CITY SEWER LINE PROPOSED PROJECT LIMIT PROJECT NUMBER # 4A 4A 1A 1B PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY EXISTING CSDOC REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER LINE CORE CFD BOUNDARY REVISION: JUNE 2010 PREPARED BY: SCALE: 1" = 400’ l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets\zSewer.dgn 2:02:39 PM 7/27/2010 USER: Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl 400.0000 ’ / IN. SCALE: EG PROJECT BREAKDOWN SUMMARY PROJECT # DESCRIPTION KATELLA AVENUE – 600’ e/o Lewis to 350’ e/o State College KATELLA AVENUE – 350’ e/o State College to w/o SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE – e/o SR-57 to East City Limit KATELLA AVENUE – Anaheim Boulevard to 600’ e/o Lewis STATE COLLEGE BLVD – Orangewood to 300’ s/o Katella STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 300’ s/o Katella to Cerritos (UPRR Grade Separation) STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 1,000’ s/o Orangewood to Orangewood ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Anahiem Way to w/o State College ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Santa Ana River Bridge Widening GENE AUTRY WAY – I-5 to State College GENE AUTRY WAY – w/o I-5 ANAHEIM WAY – 700’ n/o Katella to Orangewood LEWIS STREET – Gene Autry to n/o Katella LEWIS STREET – n/o Katella to Cerritos DOUGLASS ROAD – SR-57 to Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – Katella to 750’ n/o Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – 1,000’ n/o Katella to Cerritos NEW WATER WELL NEW FIRE STATION MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Funded) MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Unfunded) S/B SR-57 IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS CITY OF ORANGE INTERSECTIONS CERRITOS AVENUE – 550’ w/o State College to 600’ e/o State College CERRITOS AVENUE – 600’ e/o State College to Douglass SUNKIST STREET – Howell to Cerritos 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8 9 10A 10B 11 12 13 14A 14B 15 SEWER SIZE PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED BY DEVELOPERS PRIOR TO RECORD OF FORMATION (ROF) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3A 2A 2B 2C 3B 7A 8 6A 1D LEWIS STREET GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD KATELLA AVENUE SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE DOUGLASS ROAD ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SR-57 HOWELL AVENUE SUNKIST STREET CERRITOS AVENUE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD METROLINK METROLINK I-5 SANTA ANA RIVER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD SR-57 SANTA ANA RIVER ANAHEIM WAY HASTER STREET PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN LEGEND: PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROJECT LIMIT PROJECT NUMBER # WATER LINE SIZE REQUIRED PROPOSED BACKBONE WATER LINE WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets\zWater.dgn 1:58:25 PM 7/27/2010 USER: Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl 400.0000 ’ / IN. SCALE: EG CORE CFD BOUNDARY SCALE: 1" = 400’ REVISION: JUNE 2010 PREPARED BY: PROJECT BREAKDOWN SUMMARY DESCRIPTION PROJECT # KATELLA AVENUE – 600’ e/o Lewis to 350’ e/o State College KATELLA AVENUE – 350’ e/o State College to w/o SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE – e/o SR-57 to East City Limit KATELLA AVENUE – Anaheim Boulevard to 600’ e/o Lewis STATE COLLEGE BLVD – Orangewood to 300’ s/o Katella STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 300’ s/o Katella to Cerritos (UPRR Grade Separation) STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 1,000’ s/o Orangewood to Orangewood ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Anahiem Way to w/o State College ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Santa Ana River Bridge Widening GENE AUTRY WAY – I-5 to State College GENE AUTRY WAY – w/o I-5 ANAHEIM WAY – 700’ n/o Katella to Orangewood LEWIS STREET – Gene Autry to n/o Katella LEWIS STREET – n/o Katella to Cerritos DOUGLASS ROAD – SR-57 to Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – Katella to 750’ n/o Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – 1,000’ n/o Katella to Cerritos NEW WATER WELL NEW FIRE STATION MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Funded) MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Unfunded) S/B SR-57 IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS CITY OF ORANGE INTERSECTIONS CERRITOS AVENUE – 550’ w/o State College to 600’ e/o State College CERRITOS AVENUE – 600’ e/o State College to Douglass SUNKIST STREET – Howell to Cerritos 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8 9 10A 10B 11 12 13 14A 14B 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3B 6A 1A 3A 4A 5 6A 2B 1B 1C 7A 4B 5 5 6B 2B 1B 14A 14B 7B 1D 7C LEWIS STREET GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD KATELLA AVENUE SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE DOUGLASS ROAD ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SR-57 HOWELL AVENUE SUNKIST STREET CERRITOS AVENUE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD METROLINK METROLINK I-5 SANTA ANA RIVER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD SR-57 SANTA ANA RIVER ANAHEIM WAY HASTER STREET PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN LEGEND: PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROJECT LIMIT PROJECT NUMBER # PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED "UNFUNDED" ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS CORE CFD BOUNDARY REVISION: JUNE 2010 PREPARED BY: SCALE: 1" = 400’ l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets\zElectrical.dgn 2:02:17 PM 7/27/2010 USER: Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl 400.0000 ’ / IN. SCALE: EG PROJECT BREAKDOWN SUMMARY DESCRIPTION PROJECT # KATELLA AVENUE – 600’ e/o Lewis to 350’ e/o State College KATELLA AVENUE – 350’ e/o State College to w/o SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE – e/o SR-57 to East City Limit KATELLA AVENUE – Anaheim Boulevard to 600’ e/o Lewis STATE COLLEGE BLVD – Orangewood to 300’ s/o Katella STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 300’ s/o Katella to Cerritos (UPRR Grade Separation) STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 1,000’ s/o Orangewood to Orangewood ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Anahiem Way to w/o State College ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Santa Ana River Bridge Widening GENE AUTRY WAY – I-5 to State College GENE AUTRY WAY – w/o I-5 ANAHEIM WAY – 700’ n/o Katella to Orangewood LEWIS STREET – Gene Autry to n/o Katella LEWIS STREET – n/o Katella to Cerritos DOUGLASS ROAD – SR-57 to Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – Katella to 750’ n/o Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – 1,000’ n/o Katella to Cerritos NEW WATER WELL NEW FIRE STATION MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Funded) MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Unfunded) S/B SR-57 IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS CITY OF ORANGE INTERSECTIONS CERRITOS AVENUE – 550’ w/o State College to 600’ e/o State College CERRITOS AVENUE – 600’ e/o State College to Douglass SUNKIST STREET – Howell to Cerritos 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8 9 10A 10B 11 12 13 14A 14B 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Platinum Triangle PROJECT COSTS FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS ---PAGE BREAK--- PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST SUMMARY FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS Project Construction R/W TOTAL desig. Street Limits Roadway Sewer Storm Drain Electrical Water Other Total Total COST Notes 1a Katella 600' e/o Lewis to 350' e/o State College $5,088,720 $0 $0 $1,976,000 $0 $0 $7,064,720 $3,008,858 $10,073,578 1b Katella 350' e/o State College to w/o SR 57 $5,015,536 $0 $504,000 $1,332,500 $0 $0 $6,852,036 $1,488,281 $8,340,317 1c Katella e/o SR 57 to East City Limit $3,593,138 $0 $0 $650,000 $0 $0 $4,243,138 $974,063 $5,217,201 1d Katella Anaheim Blvd. to 600' e/o Lewis $8,912,089 $0 $133,000 $988,000 $660,800 $0 $10,693,889 $7,373,906 $18,067,795 Subtotal Katella $22,609,483 $0 $637,000 $4,946,500 $660,800 $0 $28,853,783 $12,845,108 $41,698,891 2a State College Orangewood to 300' s/o Katella $4,014,811 $0 $280,000 $0 $581,234 $0 $4,876,045 $2,501,250 $7,377,295 2b State College 300' s/o Katella to Cerritos (grade sep.) $19,658,933 $1,149,400 $385,000 $1,105,000 $333,900 $0 $22,632,233 $9,630,063 $32,262,296 50% Funding Allocation 2c State College 1,000 s/o Orangewood to Orangewood $1,129,205 $0 $0 $0 $584,090 $0 $1,713,295 $365,625 $2,078,920 Subtotal State College $24,802,949 $1,149,400 $665,000 $1,105,000 $1,499,224 $0 $29,221,573 $12,496,938 $41,718,511 3a Orangewood Anaheim Way to w/o State College $1,512,255 $0 $0 $3,250,000 $650,150 $0 $5,412,405 $463,125 $5,875,530 3b Orangewood e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River $5,356,670 $0 $650,650 $5,915,000 $1,207,696 $0 $13,130,016 $5,446,406 $18,576,422 3c Orangewood Santa Ana River Bridge $7,197,439 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,197,439 $87,656 $7,285,095 Subtotal Orangewood $14,066,364 $0 $650,650 $9,165,000 $1,857,846 $0 $25,739,860 $5,997,187 $31,737,047 4a Gene Autry I-5 to State College $3,155,258 $0 $399,000 $3,185,000 $0 $0 $6,739,258 $1,672,313 $8,411,571 4b Gene Autry West of I-5 $6,625,000 $0 $0 $1,375,000 $0 $0 $8,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 Partial Funding Allocation Subtotal Gene Autry $9,780,258 $0 $399,000 $4,560,000 $0 $0 $14,739,258 $3,672,313 $18,411,571 5 Anaheim Way 700' n/o Katella to Orangewood $1,567,615 $0 $2,804,200 $3,120,000 $0 $0 $7,491,815 $0 $7,491,815 Subtotal Anaheim Way $1,567,615 $0 $2,804,200 $3,120,000 $0 $0 $7,491,815 $0 $7,491,815 6a Lewis Gene Autry to n/o Katella $5,698,330 $0 $1,366,400 $1,527,500 $701,432 $0 $9,293,662 $24,898,706 $34,192,368 6b Lewis n/o Katella to Cerritos $0 $0 Subtotal Lewis $5,698,330 $0 $1,366,400 $1,527,500 $701,432 $0 $9,293,662 $24,898,706 $34,192,368 7a Douglass SR-57 to Katella $1,867,279 $0 $0 $325,000 $945,841 $0 $3,138,120 $0 $3,138,120 7b Douglass Katella to 750' n/o Katella $806,100 $0 $0 $162,500 $0 $0 $968,600 $1,060,781 $2,029,381 7c Douglass 1,000' n/o Katella to Cerritos $0 $0 Subtotal Douglass $2,673,379 $0 $0 $487,500 $945,841 $0 $4,106,720 $1,060,781 $5,167,501 8 New Water Well $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,572,551 $0 $3,572,551 $0 $3,572,551 Subtotal New Well $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,572,551 $0 $3,572,551 $0 $3,572,551 9 New Fire Station $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,337,066 $9,337,066 $1,000,000 $10,337,066 Subtotal New Fire Station $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,337,066 $9,337,066 $1,000,000 $10,337,066 10A Major Storm Drain (Funded) $0 $0 $9,786,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,786,000 $2,187,500 $11,973,500 10B Major Storm Drain (Unfunded) $0 $0 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $0 $0 $9,786,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,973,500 11 S/B SR 57 Improvements $3,334,348 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,334,348 $0 $3,334,348 PT Fair Share % = 55% Subtotal SR 57 Improvements $3,334,348 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,334,348 $0 $3,334,348 #2 - Katella/Ninth Intersection $1,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,750 $0 $1,750 PT Fair Share % = 10% #6 - Katella/West Intersection $840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $840 $0 $840 PT Fair Share % = 10% #18 - Anaheim/Vermont Intersection $672 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $672 $0 $672 PT Fair Share % = 8% #19 - Anaheim Ball Intersection $1,122,738 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,122,738 $2,119,500 $3,242,238 PT Fair Share % = 40% #20 - Anaheim Cerritos Intersection $318,517 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $318,517 $71,719 $390,236 PT Fair Share % = 20% #21 - Anaheim Blvd/Anaheim Way Int. $44,891 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,891 $0 $44,891 PT Fair Share % = 25% #24 - Gene Autry/Haster Intersection $144,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,425 $121,875 $266,300 PT Fair Share % = 10% #31 - Lewis/Cerritos Intersection $39,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,900 $32,813 $72,713 PT Fair Share % = 20% Subtotal Anaheim Intersections $1,673,733 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,673,733 $2,345,907 $4,019,640 #57 - Chapman/State College Intersection $2,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,660 $0 $2,660 PT Fair Share % = 19% #80 - Main/Collins Intersection $37,645 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,645 $52,800 $90,445 PT Fair Share % = 8% #87 - Glassell/Katella Intersection $34,642 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,642 $54,000 $88,642 PT Fair Share % = 12% #89 - Glassell/Walnut Intersection $4,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,185 $4,050 $8,235 PT Fair Share % = 2% #98 - SR 22 w/b ramps/Metropolitan $12,544 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,544 $0 $12,544 PT Fair Share % = 7% #102 - City Drive/Garden Grove Intersection $2,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,800 $0 $2,800 PT Fair Share % = 10% Subtotal Orange Intersections $94,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,476 $110,850 $205,326 14A Cerritos 550' w/o to 600' e/o State College $1,490,615 $0 $0 $455,000 $0 $0 $1,945,615 $1,681,406 $3,627,021 14B Cerritos 600' e/o State College to Douglass $0 $0 Subtotal Cerritos $1,490,615 $0 $0 $455,000 $0 $0 $1,945,615 $1,681,406 $3,627,021 15 Sunkist Howell to Cerritos $0 $0 Subtotal Sunkist $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTALS $87,791,550 $1,149,400 $16,308,250 $25,366,500 $9,237,694 $9,337,066 $139,404,460 $66,109,196 $217,487,156 Developer Constructed Improvements prior to ROF $593,691 $3,533,855 $862,400 $0 $0 $0 $4,989,946 $708,750 $5,698,696 GRAND TOTALS $88,385,241 $4,683,255 $17,170,650 $25,366,500 $9,237,694 $9,337,066 $144,394,406 $66,817,946 $223,185,852 see unfunded - sheet 2 see unfunded - sheet 2 Anaheim Intersections 12 13 Orange Intersections see unfunded - sheet 2 see unfunded - sheet 2 see unfunded - sheet 2 Page 1 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Cost Summary Revised 07202010.xlsx ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01A Katella Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from 600' e/o Lewis to 350' e/o State College PROJECT 1A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $150,000 1 $150,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $30,000 1 $30,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 3,470 $6,940 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 17,800 $8,900 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 10,172 $203,440 7 AC/AB SF $6 55,255 $331,530 8 Curb LF $17 4,200 $71,400 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 3,450 $69,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 20,700 $103,500 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 218,650 $306,110 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 3,450 $69,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $60,000 1 $60,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 48 $216,000 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 120 $540,000 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 2,905 $17,430 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 32,000 $96,000 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 32,000 $96,000 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 22,425 $67,275 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 22,425 $67,275 22 PT Entry Monument EA $300,000 1 $300,000 23 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 4 $60,000 24 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $140,000 1 $140,000 25 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.50 $90,000 26 Communication System LS $130,000 1 $130,000 27 Street Light System LS $260,000 1 $260,000 28 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 1 $40,000 29 Traffic Control LS $105,000 1 $105,000 Subtototal $3,634,800 Construction Contingency (15%) $545,220 Engineering (10%) $363,480 Construction Management (15%) $545,220 TOTAL ROADWAY $5,088,720 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization 2 8" Sewer 3 12" Sewer 4 15" Sewer 5 18" Sewer 6 21"Sewer 7 24" Sewer 8 Sewer Manhole Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $5,000 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $10,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 Total Mainline Sewer Constructed - See Developer Reimbursements ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01A Katella Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from 600' e/o Lewis to 350' e/o State College PROJECT 1A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $1,520,000 1 $1,520,000 Subtototal $1,520,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $152,000 Engineering $76,000 Construction Management (15%) $228,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $1,976,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $7,064,720 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 720 $54,000 2 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 2,856 $214,200 3 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 2,640 $198,000 4 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 4,065 $304,875 5 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 1,620 $121,500 6 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 2,970 $222,750 7 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 10,260 $769,500 8 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 4,260 $319,500 9 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 7,080 $531,000 Subtototal $2,735,325 Contingency (10%) $273,533 Total R/W $3,008,858 GRAND TOTALS $10,073,578 $439,480 $3,008,858 $6,625,240 $10,073,578 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01B Katella Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from 350' e/o State College to w/o SR-57 PROJECT 1B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $150,000 1 $150,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $30,000 1 $30,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 2,890 $5,780 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 20,100 $10,050 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 12,000 $24,000 6 Excavation CY $20 5,180 $103,600 7 AC/AB SF $6 22,200 $133,200 8 Curb LF $17 2,810 $47,770 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 2,870 $57,400 10 Sidewalk SF $5 28,050 $140,250 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 216,690 $303,366 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 2,870 $57,400 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $90,000 1 $90,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 15,200 $608,000 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 26 $117,000 16 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 117 $315,900 17 Canopy Trees (parkway) EA $1,750 62 $108,500 18 Median Hardscape SF $6 2,225 $13,350 19 Median Groundcover SF $3 11,050 $33,150 20 Median Irrigation SF $3 11,050 $33,150 21 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 30,110 $90,330 22 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 30,110 $90,330 23 Bus Shelter w/street furniture EA $15,000 2 $30,000 24 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $100,000 1 $100,000 25 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 2 $360,000 26 Communication System LS $130,000 1 $130,000 27 Street Light System LS $260,000 1 $260,000 28 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 1 $40,000 29 Traffic Control LS $100,000 1 $100,000 Subtototal $3,582,526 Construction Contingency (15%) $537,379 Engineering (10%) $358,253 Construction Management (15%) $537,379 TOTAL ROADWAY $5,015,536 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization 2 8" Sewer 3 12" Sewer 4 15" Sewer 5 18" Sewer 6 21"Sewer 7 24" Sewer 8 Sewer Manhole Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $30,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 1,400 $280,000 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' x 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $50,000 Subtototal $360,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $54,000 Engineering (10%) $36,000 Construction Management (15%) $54,000 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $504,000 Total Mainline Sewer Constructed - See Developer Reimbursements ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01B Katella Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from 350' e/o State College to w/o SR-57 PROJECT 1B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $1,025,000 1 $1,025,000 Subtototal $1,025,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $102,500 Engineering $51,250 Construction Management (15%) $153,750 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $1,332,500 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Construction Subtototal $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (10%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $6,852,036 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-011-47 SF $75 5,760 $432,000 2 AP#232-011-02 SF $75 2,280 $171,000 3 AP#253-622-04 SF $75 3,080 $231,000 4 AP#253-532-12 SF $75 750 $56,250 5 AP#253-532-04 SF $75 1,335 $100,125 6 AP#253-623-01 SF $75 600 $45,000 7 SCRRA R/W SF $75 2,070 $155,250 Subtototal $1,190,625 Contingency (25%) $297,656 Total R/W $1,488,281 GRAND TOTALS $8,340,318 $445,503 $1,488,281 $6,406,534 $8,340,318 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01C Katella Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from e/o SR57 to East City Limit PROJECT 1C I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $100,000 1 $100,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $20,000 1 $20,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 1,610 $3,220 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 14,670 $7,335 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 3,030 $6,060 6 Excavation CY $20 3,032 $60,640 7 AC/AB SF $6 15,810 $94,860 8 Curb LF $17 510 $8,670 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 1,610 $32,200 10 Sidewalk SF $5 9,840 $49,200 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 118,030 $165,242 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 1,610 $32,200 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $60,000 1 $60,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 7 $31,500 16 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 62 $167,400 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 1,500 $9,000 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 3,150 $9,450 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 3,150 $9,450 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 10,850 $32,550 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 10,850 $32,550 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furnishings EA $15,000 2 $30,000 23 OH Structure w/PT Monument Sign LS $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 24 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $20,000 1 $20,000 25 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 1 $180,000 26 Communication System LS $250,000 1 $250,000 27 Street Light System LS $100,000 1 $100,000 28 Signing and Striping LS $15,000 1 $15,000 29 Traffic Control LS $40,000 1 $40,000 Subtototal $2,566,527 Construction Contingency (15%) $384,979 Engineering (10%) $256,653 Construction Management (15%) $384,979 TOTAL ROADWAY $3,593,138 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01C Katella Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from e/o SR57 to East City Limit PROJECT 1C I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $500,000 1 $500,000 Subtototal $500,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $50,000 Engineering $25,000 Construction Management (15%) $75,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $650,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $4,243,138 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#253-521-16 SF $75 6,650 $498,750 2 AP#232-071-01 SF $75 3,740 $280,500 Subtototal $779,250 Contingency (25%) $194,813 Total R/W $974,063 GRAND TOTALS $5,217,200 $281,653 $974,063 $3,961,485 $5,217,200 R/W Acquisition Construction Total Breakdown Design Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01D Revised Katella 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Manchester to 600' e/o Lewis PROJECT 1D I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $375,000 1 $375,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $75,000 1 $75,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 6,405 $12,810 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 52,020 $26,010 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 13,910 $27,820 6 Excavation CY $20 14,625 $292,500 7 AC/AB SF $6 98,340 $590,040 8 Curb LF $17 3,480 $59,160 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 6,190 $123,800 10 Sidewalk SF $5 41,570 $207,850 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 361,220 $505,708 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 6,190 $123,800 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $225,000 1 $225,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $175 7,320 $1,281,000 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 45 $202,500 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 121 $544,500 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 2340 $14,040 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 27,000 $81,000 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 27,000 $81,000 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 27,040 $81,120 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 27,040 $81,120 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furnishings EA $15,000 0 $0 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $85,000 1 $85,000 24 Communication System LS $275,000 1 $275,000 25 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 3.25 $585,000 26 Street Light System LS $195,000 1 $195,000 27 Signing and Striping LS $90,000 1 $90,000 28 Traffic Control LS $125,000 1 $125,000 Subtototal $6,365,778 Construction Contingency (15%) $954,867 Engineering (10%) $636,578 Construction Management (15%) $954,867 TOTAL ROADWAY $8,912,089 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $5,000 1 $5,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 400 $80,000 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtototal $95,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $14,250 Engineering (10%) $9,500 Construction Management (15%) $14,250 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $133,000 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\01D Revised Katella 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Manchester to 600' e/o Lewis PROJECT 1D I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $760,000 1 $760,000 Subtototal $760,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $76,000 Engineering $38,000 Construction Management (15%) $114,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $988,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $472,000 1 $472,000 Subtototal $472,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $70,800 Engineering (10%) $47,200 Construction Management (15%) $70,800 TOTAL WATER $660,800 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $10,693,889 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#137-320-93 SF $75 36 $2,700 2 AP#137-320-94 SF $75 37,500 $2,812,500 3 AP#137-320-91 SF $75 3,360 $252,000 4 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 4,500 $337,500 5 UPRR SF $75 2,220 $166,500 6 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 7,475 $560,625 7 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 8,050 $603,750 8 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 4,462 $334,650 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 1,632 $122,400 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 2,040 $153,000 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 1,560 $117,000 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 1,500 $112,500 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 400 $30,000 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 400 $30,000 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 900 $67,500 16 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 1,920 $144,000 17 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 700 $52,500 Subtototal $5,899,125 Contingency (25%) $1,474,781 Total R/W $7,373,906 GRAND TOTALS $18,067,795 $731,278 $7,373,906 $9,962,611 $18,067,795 R/W Acquisition Construction Total Breakdown Design Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\02A State College Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD from Orangewood Ave. to 300' s/o Katella PROJECT 2A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $150,000 1 $150,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $30,000 1 $30,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 4,645 $9,290 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 40,260 $20,130 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 5,500 $11,000 6 Excavation CY $20 8,850 $177,000 7 AC/AB SF $6 28,955 $173,730 8 Curb LF $17 2,650 $45,050 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 4,500 $90,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 27,760 $138,800 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 270,930 $379,302 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 4,500 $90,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $90,000 1 $90,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 0 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 9 $15,750 16 Canopy Tree (parkway) EA $1,750 75 $131,250 17 Fan Palm (parkway) EA $2,700 75 $202,500 18 Median Hardscape SF $6 4,180 $25,080 19 Median Groundcover SF $3 3,200 $9,600 20 Median Irrigation SF $3 3,200 $9,600 21 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 22,440 $67,320 22 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 22,440 $67,320 23 Bus Shelter w/Street Furnishings EA $15,000 4 $60,000 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 2 $360,000 25 Communication System LS $125,000 1 $125,000 26 Street Light System LS $250,000 1 $250,000 27 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 1 $40,000 28 Traffic Control LS $100,000 1 $100,000 Subtototal $2,867,722 Construction Contingency (15%) $430,158 Engineering (10%) $286,772 Construction Management (15%) $430,158 TOTAL ROADWAY $4,014,811 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 750 $150,000 6 48" RCP LF $260 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $25,000 1 $25,000 Subtototal $200,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $30,000 Engineering (10%) $20,000 Construction Management (15%) $30,000 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $280,000 Total Portion of Mainline Storm Drain Constructed by KB - See Developer Reimbursements ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\02A State College Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD from Orangewood Ave. to 300' s/o Katella PROJECT 2A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $427,850 1 $427,850 Construction Contingency (10%) $42,785 Construction Subtototal $470,635 Engineering (12%) $56,476 Construction Management (11.5%) $54,123 TOTAL WATER $581,234 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $4,876,045 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-021-10 SF $75 270 $20,250 2 AP#083-270-75 SF $75 250 $18,750 3 AP#232-081-18 SF $75 120 $9,000 4 Gene Autry Experience (New Urban) SF $75 11,305 $847,875 5 A Town (Lennar) SF $75 3,185 $238,875 6 AP#232-011-50 SF $75 4,565 $342,375 7 Hanover SF $75 990 $74,250 8 AP#083-260-29 SF $75 5,995 $449,625 Subtototal $2,001,000 Contingency (25%) $500,250 Total R/W $2,501,250 GRAND TOTALS $7,377,295 $363,248 $2,501,250 $4,512,797 $7,377,295 Total Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\02B State College Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD from 300' s/o Katella to Cerritos PROJECT 2B (UPRR GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT) I.CONSTRUCTION 50% Share Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $250,000 1 $250,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 8,000 $16,000 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 49,200 $24,600 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 3,280 $6,560 6 Excavation CY $20 138,750 $2,775,000 7 AC/AB SF $6 213,280 $1,279,680 8 Curb LF $17 5,600 $95,200 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 8,000 $160,000 10 Sidewalk SF $4 35,390 $141,560 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 178,050 $249,270 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 8,000 $160,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $1,200,000 1 $1,200,000 Storm Drain System & Pump Station LS $500,000 1 $500,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $140 47,600 $6,664,000 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 126 $220,500 16 Canopy Tree (parkway) EA $1,750 178 $311,500 17 Fan Palm (parkway) SF $2,700 110 $297,000 Median Hardscape SF $6 8,830 $52,980 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 19,990 $59,970 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 19,990 $59,970 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 38,400 $115,200 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 38,400 $115,200 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furnishings EA $15,000 6 $90,000 23 PT Entry Monument EA $300,000 1 $300,000 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 2.5 $450,000 25 Street Light System LS $400,000 1 $400,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $65,000 1 $65,000 27 Traffic Control LS $175,000 1 $175,000 28 Temporary Bypass Track LS $1,800,000 1 $1,800,000 29 Track & Signal Work LS $3,000,000 1 $3,000,000 30 Railroad Flagman LS $300,000 1 $300,000 31 Railway Bridge Structure LS $5,750,000 1 $5,750,000 Subtototal $28,084,190 Construction Contingency (15%) $4,212,629 Engineering (10%) $2,808,419 Construction Management (15%) $4,212,629 TOTAL ROADWAY $39,317,866 $19,658,933 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Sewer Lift Station LS $500,000 1 $500,000 3 Sewer Liine LF $420 2,600 $1,092,000 Subtototal $1,642,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $246,300 Engineering (10%) $164,200 Construction Management (15%) $246,300 TOTAL SEWER $2,298,800 $1,149,400 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Stormwater Pump Station LS $200,000 1 $200,000 3 Storm Drain System LS $300,000 1 $300,000 Subtototal $550,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $82,500 Engineering (10%) $55,000 Construction Management (15%) $82,500 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $770,000 $385,000 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\02B State College Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD from 300' s/o Katella to Cerritos PROJECT 2B (UPRR GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT) I.CONSTRUCTION 50% Share Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $1,700,000 1 $1,700,000 Subtototal $1,700,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $170,000 Engineering $85,000 Construction Management (15%) $255,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $2,210,000 $1,105,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $477,000 1 $477,000 Subtototal $477,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $71,550 Engineering (10%) $47,700 Construction Management (15%) $71,550 TOTAL WATER $667,800 $333,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $45,264,466 $22,632,233 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#253-531-12 SF $75 5,850 $438,750 2 AP#253-531-02 SF $75 3,895 $292,125 3 AP#253-531-01 SF $75 18,562 $1,392,150 4 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 2,310 $173,250 5 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 33 $2,475 6 AP#253-061-05 SF $75 5,510 $413,250 7 AP#253-061-03 SF $75 2,275 $170,625 8 AP#253-061-02 SF $75 1,505 $112,875 9 AP#082-260-62 SF $75 46,710 $3,503,250 10 AP#082-260-82 SF $75 99,520 $7,464,000 11 AP#082-250-40 SF $75 4,245 $318,375 12 AP#082-250-41 SF $75 1,290 $96,750 13 Spur RR R/W SF $75 667 $50,025 14 SBE 148-30-56A-4 SF $75 162 $12,150 15 AP#082-250-54 SF $75 1,540 $115,500 16 SE Corner SF $75 1,400 $105,000 17 SCRRA R/W SF $50 4,283 $214,150 18 AP#253-061-04 SF $75 1,820 $136,500 19 AP#083-210-21 SF $75 2,730 $204,750 20 AP#082-160-19 SF $75 1,540 $115,500 21 AP#082-160-39 SF $75 1,022 $76,650 Subtototal $15,408,100 Contingency (25%) $3,852,025 Total R/W $19,260,125 $9,630,063 GRAND TOTALS $64,524,591 $32,262,296 Platinum Triangle Share (50%) $32,262,296 Breakdown Engineering $1,556,310 Right of Way $9,630,063 Construction $21,075,924 $32,262,296 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\02C State College Revised 07112010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD from 1000' s/o Orangewood Ave. to Orangewood Ave. PROJECT 2C I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 450 $900 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 5,850 $2,925 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 2,023 $40,460 7 AC/AB SF $6 6,500 $39,000 8 Curb LF $17 1,120 $19,040 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 450 $9,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 4,690 $23,450 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 33,600 $47,040 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 670 $13,400 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $15,000 1 $15,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 14 $24,500 16 Canopy Tree (parkway) EA $1,750 15 $26,250 17 Fan Palm (parkway) EA $2,700 15 $40,500 18 Median Hardscape SF $6 510 $3,060 19 Median Groundcover SF $3 8740 $26,220 20 Median Irrigation SF $3 8740 $26,220 21 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 3685 $11,055 22 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 3685 $11,055 23 PT Entry Monument EA $300,000 1 $300,000 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $20,000 1 $20,000 26 Street Light System LS $40,000 1 $40,000 27 Signing and Striping LS $7,500 1 $7,500 28 Traffic Control LS $30,000 1 $30,000 Subtototal $806,575 Construction Contingency (15%) $120,986 Engineering (10%) $80,658 Construction Management (15%) $120,986 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,129,205 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 48" RCP LF $260 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\02C State College Revised 07112010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD from 1000' s/o Orangewood Ave. to Orangewood Ave. PROJECT 2C I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $423,100 1 $423,100 Construction Contingency (10%) $42,310 Construction Subtototal $465,410 Engineering (12%) $55,849 Construction Management (13.5%) $62,830 TOTAL WATER $584,090 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,713,295 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Gateway SF $75 3,900 $292,500 Subtototal $292,500 Contingency (25%) $73,125 Total R/W $365,625 GRAND TOTALS $2,078,920 $136,507 $365,625 $1,576,788 $2,078,920 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\03A Orangewood Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ORANGEWOOD AVENUE from Anaheim Way to w/o St. College PROJECT 3A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $10,000 1 $10,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 1,010 $2,020 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 4,800 $2,400 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 2,010 $40,200 7 AC/AB SF $6 7,800 $46,800 8 Curb LF $17 1,480 $25,160 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 1,010 $20,200 10 Sidewalk SF $5 5,050 $25,250 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 115,430 $161,602 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 1,010 $20,200 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $30,000 1 $30,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 13 $22,750 16 Canopy Tree (parkway) EA $1,750 20 $35,000 17 Fan Palm (parkway) SF $2,700 20 $54,000 18 Median Hardscape SF $6 1350 $8,100 19 Median Groundcover SF $3 8250 $24,750 20 Median Irrigation SF $3 8250 $24,750 21 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 4500 $13,500 22 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 4500 $13,500 23 PT Entry Monument EA $300,000 1 $300,000 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0 $0 25 Street Light System LS $70,000 1 $70,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $20,000 1 $20,000 27 Traffic Control LS $60,000 1 $60,000 Subtototal $1,080,182 Construction Contingency (15%) $162,027 Engineering (10%) $108,018 Construction Management (15%) $162,027 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,512,255 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization 2 18" RCP 3 24"RCP 4 30"RCP 5 36" RCP 6 48" RCP 7 8' x 8' RCB 8 10' X 10' RCB 9 Drainage System Modifications Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 Total Mainline Storm Drain Constructed by KB - See Developer Reimbursements ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\03A Orangewood Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ORANGEWOOD AVENUE from Anaheim Way to w/o St. College PROJECT 3A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $2,500,000 1 $2,500,000 Subtototal $2,500,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $250,000 Engineering $125,000 Construction Management (15%) $375,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $3,250,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $514,400 1 $514,400 Construction Contingency (10%) $51,440 Construction Subtototal $565,840 Engineering $28,292 Construction Management $56,018 TOTAL WATER $650,150 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $5,412,405 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-081-18 SF $75 2,140 $160,500 2 AP#232-081-06 SF $75 2,800 $210,000 Subtototal $370,500 Contingency (25%) $92,625 Total R/W $463,125 GRAND TOTALS $5,875,530 $136,310 $463,125 $5,276,095 $5,875,530 R/W Acquisition Construction Total Breakdown Design Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\03B Orangewood Revised 07112010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ORANGEWOOD AVENUE from e/o St. College to w/o SA River PROJECT 3B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $150,000 1 $150,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $30,000 1 $30,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 5,050 $10,100 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 47,590 $23,795 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 11,975 $239,500 7 AC/AB SF $6 87,720 $526,320 8 Curb LF $17 3,760 $63,920 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 5,150 $103,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 27,250 $136,250 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 236,320 $330,848 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 5,150 $103,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $90,000 1 $90,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 45 $78,750 16 Canopy Tree (parkway) EA $1,750 98 $171,500 17 Fan Palm (parkway) SF $2,700 98 $264,600 18 Median Hardscape SF $6 1610 $9,660 19 Median Groundcover SF $3 $21,300 $63,900 20 Median Irrigation SF $3 $21,300 $63,900 21 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $24,525 $73,575 22 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $24,525 $73,575 23 Bus Shelter w/Street Furnishings EA $15,000 2 $30,000 24 PT Implementation Plan EA $300,000 1 $300,000 25 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 2.00 $360,000 26 Communication System LS $130,000 1 $130,000 27 Street Light System LS $260,000 1 $260,000 28 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 1 $40,000 29 Traffic Control LS $100,000 1 $100,000 Subtototal $3,826,193 Construction Contingency (15%) $573,929 Engineering (10%) $382,619 Construction Management (15%) $573,929 TOTAL ROADWAY $5,356,670 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $30,000 1 $30,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 57" RCP LF $285 1,350 $384,750 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $50,000 1 $50,000 Subtototal $464,750 Construction Contingency (15%) $69,713 Engineering (10%) $46,475 Construction Management (15%) $69,713 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $650,650 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\03B Orangewood Revised 07112010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ORANGEWOOD AVENUE from e/o St. College to w/o SA River PROJECT 3B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $4,550,000 1 $4,550,000 Subtototal $4,550,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $455,000 Engineering $227,500 Construction Management (15%) $682,500 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $5,915,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $954,700 1 $954,700 Construction Contingency (10%) $95,470 Construction Subtototal $1,050,170 Engineering $52,509 Construction Management (10%) $105,017 TOTAL WATER $1,207,696 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $13,130,016 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-011-42 SF $75 2,760 $207,000 2 AP#232-011-44 SF $75 3,920 $294,000 3 AP#232-011-36 SF $75 9,430 $707,250 4 AP#083-271-15 SF $75 3,530 $264,750 5 AP#083-271-13 SF $75 2,700 $202,500 6 AP#083-271-01 SF $75 2,430 $182,250 7 AP#232-011-33 SF $75 5,140 $385,500 8 AP#232-011-32 SF $75 3,450 $258,750 9 AP#232-011-19 SF $75 15,150 $1,136,250 10 AP#083-271-14 SF $75 750 $56,250 11 A Town Stadium (Lennar) SF $75 6,595 $494,625 12 Orangewood Condos (West Mill.) SF $75 2,240 $168,000 Subtototal $4,357,125 Contingency (25%) $1,089,281 Total R/W $5,446,406 GRAND TOTALS $18,576,422 $709,103 $5,446,406 $12,420,913 $18,576,422 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\03C Orangewood 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ORANGEWOOD AVENUE Santa Ana River Bridge PROJECT 3C I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $225,000 1 $225,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $45,000 1 $45,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 720 $1,440 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 3,120 $1,560 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 1,440 $2,880 6 Excavation CY $20 500 $10,000 7 AC/AB SF $6 6,010 $36,060 8 Curb LF $17 1,020 $17,340 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 840 $16,800 10 Sidewalk SF $5 4,750 $23,750 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 64,320 $90,048 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 840 $16,800 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $135,000 1 $135,000 14 Bridge Widening (structural) SF $325 12,250 $3,981,250 15 Retaining Wall SF $40 225 $9,000 16 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 8 $14,000 17 Canopy Tree (parkway) EA $1,750 $0 18 Fan Palm (parkway) SF $2,700 $0 19 Median Hardscape SF $6 350 $2,100 20 Median Groundcover SF $3 3,000 $9,000 21 Median Irrigation SF $3 3,000 $9,000 22 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 23 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.5 $90,000 25 Communication System LS $250,000 1 $250,000 26 Street Light System LS $100,000 1 $100,000 27 Signing and Striping LS $15,000 1 $15,000 28 Traffic Control LS $40,000 1 $40,000 Subtototal $5,141,028 Construction Contingency (15%) $771,154 Engineering (10%) $514,103 Construction Management (15%) $771,154 TOTAL ROADWAY $7,197,439 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 48" RCP LF $260 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\03C Orangewood 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ORANGEWOOD AVENUE Santa Ana River Bridge PROJECT 3C I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $7,197,439 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-011-36 SF $75 935 $70,125 Subtototal $70,125 Contingency (25%) $17,531 Total R/W $87,656 GRAND TOTALS $7,285,095 $514,103 $87,656 $6,683,336 $7,285,095 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\04A Gene Autry Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE GENE AUTRY WAY from I-5 to State College PROJECT 4A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $100,000 1 $100,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $20,000 1 $20,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 2,970 $5,940 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 7,144 $3,572 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 400 $800 6 Excavation CY $20 5,771 $115,420 7 AC/AB SF $6 41,140 $246,840 8 Curb LF $17 2,060 $35,020 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 2,860 $57,200 10 Sidewalk SF $5 21,450 $107,250 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 115,210 $161,294 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 2,860 $57,200 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $60,000 1 $60,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 0 $0 15 Median Hardscape SF $6 1,575 $9,450 16 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 30 $52,500 17 Canopy Tree (parkway) EA $1,750 57 $99,750 18 Fan Palm (parkway) EA $2,700 57 $153,900 19 Median Groundcover SF $3 12,680 $38,040 20 Median Irrigation SF $3 12,680 $38,040 21 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 18,590 $55,770 22 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 18,590 $55,770 23 Communication System LS $275,000 1 $275,000 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 1.5 $270,000 25 Street Light System LS $150,000 1 $150,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $25,000 1 $25,000 27 Traffic Control LS $60,000 1 $60,000 Subtototal \ $2,253,756 Construction Contingency (15%) $338,063 Engineering (10%) $225,376 Construction Management (15%) $338,063 TOTAL ROADWAY $3,155,258 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization 2 8" Sewer 3 12" Sewer 4 15" Sewer 5 18" Sewer 6 21"Sewer 7 24" Sewer 8 Sewer Manhole Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 1,200 $240,000 6 57" RCP LF $285 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Subtototal $285,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $42,750 Engineering (10%) $28,500 Construction Management (15%) $42,750 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $399,000 Total Mainline Sewer Constructed by Lennar - See Developer Reimbursements ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\04A Gene Autry Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE GENE AUTRY WAY from I-5 to State College PROJECT 4A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $2,450,000 1 $2,450,000 Subtototal $2,450,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $245,000 Engineering $122,500 Construction Management (15%) $367,500 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $3,185,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $6,739,258 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#083-260-29 SF $75 4,630 $347,250 2 AP#083-290-84 SF $75 34 $2,550 3 AP#083-290-94 SF $75 564 $42,300 4 AP#232-121-21 SF $75 990 $74,250 5 Gene Autry Experience (AMB) SF $75 7,985 $598,875 6 A Town Metro (Lennar) SF $75 3,635 $272,625 Subtototal $1,337,850 Contingency (25%) $334,463 Total R/W $1,672,313 GRAND TOTALS $8,411,571 $376,376 $1,672,313 $6,362,883 $8,411,571 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\04B Gene Autry Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE GENE AUTRY WEST PROJECT 4B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $4 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Median Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 16 Parkway Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 17 Traffic Signal Modification EA $150,000 $0 18 Street Light System LS $0 19 Signing and Striping LS $0 20 Traffic Control LS $0 Subtototal $5,096,154 Construction Contingency (15%) $764,423 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $764,423 TOTAL ROADWAY $6,625,000 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 57" RCP LF $285 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $1,100,000 1 $1,100,000 Subtototal $1,100,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $110,000 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $165,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $1,375,000 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\04B Gene Autry Revised 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE GENE AUTRY WEST PROJECT 4B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total E.STATION IMPROVEMENTS 1 New Station Construction/Equipment LS 1 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (12%) $0 TOTAL STATION $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $8,000,000 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Portion of Total R/W (per CoA) LS $2,000,000 Total R/W $2,000,000 GRAND TOTALS $10,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 R/W Acquisition Construction Total Breakdown Design Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\05 Anaheim Way 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ANAHEIM WAY from 700' n/o Katella to Orangewood PROJECT 5 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $10,000 1 $10,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 6,130 $3,065 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 16,500 $82,500 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 141,900 $198,660 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $30,000 1 $30,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 132 $356,400 16 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 14850 $44,550 17 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 14850 $44,550 16 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 18 Traffic Signal Upgrade EA $30,000 $0 19 Street Light System LS $195,000 1 $195,000 20 Signing and Striping LS $30,000 1 $30,000 21 Traffic Control LS $75,000 1 $75,000 Subtototal $1,119,725 Construction Contingency (15%) $167,959 Engineering (10%) $111,973 Construction Management (15%) $167,959 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,567,615 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $40,000 1 $40,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 66" RCP LF $340 3,200 $1,088,000 5 96" RCP LF $600 500 $300,000 6 108" RCP LF $700 750 $525,000 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $50,000 1 $50,000 Subtototal $2,003,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $300,450 Engineering (10%) $200,300 Construction Management (15%) $300,450 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $2,804,200 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $2,400,000 1 $2,400,000 Subtototal $2,400,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $240,000 Engineering $120,000 Construction Management (15%) $360,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $3,120,000 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\05 Anaheim Way 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE ANAHEIM WAY from 700' n/o Katella to Orangewood PROJECT 5 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $7,491,815 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 SF $75 $0 2 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $7,491,815 $432,273 $0 $7,059,543 $7,491,815 Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total Project Base Roadway ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\06A Lewis 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE LEWIS STREET from Gene Autry to Katella PROJECT 6A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $175,000 1 $175,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $525,000 1 $525,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 2,990 $5,980 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 17,940 $8,970 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 7,092 $141,840 7 AC/AB SF $6 142,440 $854,640 8 Curb LF $17 3,690 $62,730 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 4,010 $80,200 10 Sidewalk SF $5 20,050 $100,250 11 Roadway Fill CY $20 26,500 $530,000 13 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 47,790 $66,906 14 Off Site Improvements LF $20.00 1,410 $28,200 15 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $105,000 1 $105,000 16 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 17 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 13 $22,750 18 Fan Palm (parkway) EA $2,700 160 $432,000 19 Median Hardscape SF $6 6,270 $37,620 20 Median Groundcover SF $3 7,480 $22,440 21 Median Irrigation SF $3 7,480 $22,440 22 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 18,045 $54,135 23 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 18,045 $54,135 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 1.5 $270,000 Communication System LS $115,000 1 $115,000 25 Street Light System LS $230,000 1 $230,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $35,000 1 $35,000 27 Traffic Control LS $90,000 1 $90,000 Subtototal $4,070,236 Construction Contingency (15%) $610,535 Engineering (10%) $407,024 Construction Management (15%) $610,535 TOTAL ROADWAY $5,698,330 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $25,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 66" RCP LF $340 400 $136,000 6 72" RCP LF $400 600 $240,000 7 108" RCP LF $700 750 $525,000 8 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 9 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 10 Drainage System Modifications LS $50,000 1 $50,000 Subtototal $976,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $146,400 Engineering (10%) $97,600 Construction Management (15%) $146,400 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $1,366,400 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\06A Lewis 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE LEWIS STREET from Gene Autry to Katella PROJECT 6A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $1,175,000 1 $1,175,000 Subtototal $1,175,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $117,500 Engineering $58,750 Construction Management (15%) $176,250 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $1,527,500 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $508,100 1 $508,100 Construction Contingency (10%) $50,810 Construction Subtototal $558,910 Engineering (12%) $67,069 Construction Management (13.5%) $75,453 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $701,432 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $9,293,662 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#083-751-36 SF $45 80,959 $3,643,155 2 AP#083-751-38 SF $45 86,537 $3,894,165 3 AP#083-751-16 SF $70 36,033 $2,522,310 4 AP#083-751-17 SF $60 42,708 $2,562,480 5 AP#083-751-05 SF $75 27,498 $2,062,350 6 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 1,265 $94,875 7 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 1,575 $118,125 8 AP#083-250-46 SF $60 26,263 $1,575,780 9 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 1,495 $112,125 10 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 19,738 $1,480,350 11 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 4,830 $362,250 12 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 2,600 $195,000 13 AP#082-241-13 SF $75 5,850 $438,750 14 AP#083-751-40 SF $75 11,430 $857,250 Subtototal $19,918,965 Contingency (25%) $4,979,741 Total R/W $24,898,706 GRAND TOTALS $34,192,369 $630,443 $24,898,706 $8,663,220 $34,192,369 Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total Project Base Roadway ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\07A Douglass Revised 07202010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE DOUGLASS ROAD from SR-57 to Katella PROJECT 7A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $75,000 1 $75,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $15,000 1 $15,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 1,640 $3,280 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 11,210 $5,605 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 13,186 $263,720 7 AC/AB SF $6 44,390 $266,340 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 1,190 $23,800 10 Sidewalk SF $5 13,140 $65,700 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 90,340 $126,476 12 Roadway Fill CY $15 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $45,000 1 $45,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 44 $118,800 16 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 6,675 $20,025 17 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 6,675 $20,025 18 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 19 Communication System LS $70,000 1 $70,000 20 Street Light System LS $140,000 1 $140,000 21 Signing and Striping LS $20,000 1 $20,000 22 Traffic Control LS $55,000 1 $55,000 Subtototal $1,333,771 Construction Contingency (15%) $200,066 Engineering (10%) $133,377 Construction Management (15%) $200,066 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,867,279 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\07A Douglass Revised 07202010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE DOUGLASS ROAD from SR-57 to Katella PROJECT 7A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 48" RCP LF $260 $0 5 57" RCP LF $285 $0 6 66" RCP LF $340 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $250,000 1 $250,000 Subtototal $250,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $25,000 Engineering $12,500 Construction Management (15%) $37,500 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $325,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $747,700 1 $747,700 Construction Contingency (10%) $74,770 Subtototal $822,470 Engineering $41,124 Construction Management (10%) $82,247 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $945,841 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,138,120 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 2 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $3,138,120 $187,001 $0 $2,951,119 $3,138,120 Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\07B Douglass new 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE DOUGLASS ROAD from Katella to 750' n/o Katella PROJECT 7B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 1,000 $2,000 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 10,000 $5,000 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 1,425 $28,500 7 AC/AB SF $6 10,850 $65,100 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 1,210 $24,200 10 Sidewalk SF $5 7,260 $36,300 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 58,740 $82,236 12 Roadway Fill CY $15 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $15,000 1 $15,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 40 $108,000 16 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 9,075 $27,225 17 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 9,075 $27,225 18 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 19 Communication System LS $30,000 1 $30,000 20 Street Light System LS $60,000 1 $60,000 21 Signing and Striping LS $10,000 1 $10,000 22 Traffic Control LS $25,000 1 $25,000 Subtototal $575,786 Construction Contingency (15%) $86,368 Engineering (10%) $57,579 Construction Management (15%) $86,368 TOTAL ROADWAY $806,100 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\07B Douglass new 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE DOUGLASS ROAD from Katella to 750' n/o Katella PROJECT 7B I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 48" RCP LF $260 $0 5 57" RCP LF $285 $0 6 66" RCP LF $340 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $125,000 1 $125,000 Subtototal $125,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $12,500 Engineering $6,250 Construction Management (15%) $18,750 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $162,500 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Subtototal $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (10%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $968,600 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#253-521-16 SF $75 4,875 $365,625 2 AP#253-601-02 SF $75 6,440 $483,000 Subtototal $848,625 Contingency (25%) $212,156 Total R/W $1,060,781 GRAND TOTALS $2,029,382 $63,829 $1,060,781 $904,772 $2,029,382 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\08 Water Well 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE NEW WATER WELL (Location TBD) PROJECT 8 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $4 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Median Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 16 Parkway Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 17 Traffic Signal Modification EA $150,000 $0 18 Street Light System LS $0 19 Signing and Striping LS $0 20 Traffic Control LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 57" RCP LF $285 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\08 Water Well 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE NEW WATER WELL (Location TBD) PROJECT 8 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 New Water Well LS $2,462,300 1 $2,462,300 Construction Contingency (10%) $246,230 Construction Subtototal $2,708,530 Engineering (12.8%) $346,692 Construction Management (19.1%) $517,329 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $3,572,551 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,572,551 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 SF $75 $0 2 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $3,572,551 $346,692 $0 $3,225,859 $3,572,551 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\09 Fire Station 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE NEW FIRE STATION PROJECT 9 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $4 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Median Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 16 Parkway Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 17 Traffic Signal Modification EA $150,000 $0 18 Street Light System LS $0 19 Signing and Striping LS $0 20 Traffic Control LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 57" RCP LF $285 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\09 Fire Station 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE NEW FIRE STATION PROJECT 9 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total E.STATION IMPROVEMENTS 1 New Station Construction LS $5,623,000 1 $5,623,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $562,300 Construction Subtototal $6,185,300 FF & E's $56,000 Fire Vehicle Equipment $1,735,000 Engineering $556,677 Construction Management (13%) $804,089 TOTAL STATION $9,337,066 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $9,337,066 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Station Site LS $800,000 $0 Subtototal $800,000 Contingency (25%) $200,000 Total R/W $1,000,000 GRAND TOTALS $10,337,066 $556,677 $1,000,000 $8,780,389 $10,337,066 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\10A Major Storm Drain Funded 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE MAJOR STORM DRAIN Funded PROJECT 10A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $4 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 15 Median Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 16 Parkway Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 $0 17 Traffic Signal Modification EA $150,000 $0 18 Street Light System LS $0 19 Signing and Striping LS $0 20 Traffic Control LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\10A Major Storm Drain Funded 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE MAJOR STORM DRAIN Funded PROJECT 10A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $200,000 1 $200,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 57" RCP LF $285 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 3,400 $3,230,000 8 12.5' X 10' RCB LF $1,200 2,800 $3,360,000 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $200,000 1 $200,000 Subtototal $6,990,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $1,048,500 Engineering (10%) $699,000 Construction Management (15%) $1,048,500 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $9,786,000 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.STATION IMPROVEMENTS 1 New Station Construction/Equipment LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (12%) $0 TOTAL STATION $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $9,786,000 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Easement S/O Orangewood SF $25 70,000 $1,750,000 2 $0 Subtototal $1,750,000 Contingency (25%) $437,500 Total R/W $2,187,500 GRAND TOTALS $11,973,500 $699,000 $2,187,500 $9,087,000 $11,973,500 Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total Total ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 / 1 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\ 11 SR57 Auxiliary Lane NB Katella offramp Revised 07112010.xlsx SR 57 AUXILIARY LANE/NB KATELLA OFF RAMP PROJECT 11 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS 1 $250,000 $250,000 2 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $50,000 $50,000 3 Embankment Fill CY 39,500 $20.00 $790,000 4 Remove Existing AC Shoulder SF 20,000 $2.00 $40,000 5 Construct Concrete Pavement Structural Section SF 16,500 $15.00 $247,500 6 Construct AC/AB Ramp Structural Section SF 9,000 $6.50 $58,500 7 Construct AC Shoulder Structural Section SF 20,000 $3.75 $75,000 8 Construct Retaining Wall SF 25,000 $50.00 $1,250,000 9 Widen Cerritos OH Bridge Structure SF 3,450 $300.00 $1,035,000 10 Embankment Landscaping & Irrigation SF 105,000 $2.00 $210,000 11 Signing & Striping LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 12 Traffic Control LS 1 $150,000 $150,000 Subtotal $4,181,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $627,150 Project Study Report & Project Report $209,050 Final PS & E (10%) $418,100 Construction Management (15%) $627,150 TOTAL $6,062,450 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE (55%) $3,334,348 BREAKDOWN Engineering (55%) $344,933 Construction (55%) $2,989,415 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #2 Katella Ninth Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Katella/Ninth Intersection I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $2,500 1 $2,500 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $10,000 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $15,000 $0 26 Signing and Striping LS $10,000 1 $10,000 27 Traffic Control LS $20,000 $0 Subtototal $12,500 Construction Contingency (15%) $1,875 Engineering (10%) $1,250 Construction Management (15%) $1,875 TOTAL ROADWAY $17,500 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #2 Katella Ninth Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Katella/Ninth Intersection I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost SF $75 $0 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $17,500 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 10.00% $1,750 BREAKDOWN Engineering 10.00% $125 Right-of-Way 10.00% $0 Construction 10.00% $1,625 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #6 Katella West Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Katella/West Intersection I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $1,000 1 $1,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $10,000 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $15,000 $0 26 Signing and Striping LS $5,000 1 $5,000 27 Traffic Control LS $20,000 $0 Subtototal $6,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $900 Engineering (10%) $600 Construction Management (15%) $900 TOTAL ROADWAY $8,400 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #6 Katella West Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Katella/West Intersection I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $8,400 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost SF $75 $0 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $8,400 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 10.00% $840 BREAKDOWN Engineering 10.00% $60 Right-of-Way 10.00% $0 Construction 10.00% $780 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #18 Anaheim Vermont Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim/Vermont Intersection Location #18 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $1,000 1 $1,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $10,000 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $15,000 $0 26 Signing and Striping LS $5,000 1 $5,000 27 Traffic Control LS $20,000 $0 Subtototal $6,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $900 Engineering (10%) $600 Construction Management (15%) $900 TOTAL ROADWAY $8,400 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #18 Anaheim Vermont Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim/Vermont Intersection Location #18 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $8,400 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost SF $75 $0 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $8,400 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 8.00% $672 BREAKDOWN Engineering 8.00% $48 Right-of-Way 8.00% $0 Construction 8.00% $624 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/3 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #19 Anaheim Ball Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim/Ball Intersection Location #19 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $100,000 1 $100,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $20,000 1 $20,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 2,640 $5,280 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 26,400 $13,200 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 1,800 $3,600 6 Excavation CY $20 6,905 $138,100 7 AC/AB SF $6 29,170 $175,020 8 Curb LF $17 4,120 $70,040 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 2,640 $52,800 10 Sidewalk SF $5 26,400 $132,000 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 213,550 $298,970 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 2,640 $52,800 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $60,000 1 $60,000 14 Canopy Tree Median EA $1,750 22 $38,500 15 Canopy Tree Parkway EA $1,750 66 $115,500 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 2,940 $17,640 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 17,740 $53,220 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 17,740 $53,220 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 1 $15,000 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 1 $180,000 23 Communication System LS $135,000 1 $135,000 24 Street Light System LS $135,000 1 $135,000 25 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 1 $40,000 26 Traffic Control LS $100,000 1 $100,000 Subtototal $2,004,890 Construction Contingency (15%) $300,734 Engineering (10%) $200,489 Construction Management (15%) $300,734 TOTAL ROADWAY $2,806,846 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/3 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #19 Anaheim Ball Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim/Ball Intersection Location #19 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,806,846 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#234-18-109 SF $75 240 $18,000 2 AP#234-18-108 SF $75 1,120 $84,000 3 AP#234-18-107 SF $75 1,500 $112,500 4 AP#234-16-129 SF $75 3,520 $264,000 5 AP#234-16-126 SF $75 330 $24,750 6 AP#234-16-104 SF $75 50 $3,750 7 AP#234-16-107 SF $75 540 $40,500 8 AP#234-16-108 SF $75 620 $46,500 9 AP#082-23-316 SF $125 21,240 $2,655,000 10 AP#082-46-125 SF $75 5,400 $405,000 11 AP#234-16-125 SF $75 1,750 $131,250 12 AP#234-15-308 SF $75 3,150 $236,250 13 AP#082-46-135 SF $75 140 $10,500 14 AP#082-46-124 SF $75 1,140 $85,500 15 AP#082-46-YYY SF $75 1,620 $121,500 Subtototal $4,239,000 Contingency (25%) $1,059,750 Total R/W $5,298,750 GRAND TOTALS $8,105,596 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3/3 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #19 Anaheim Ball Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim/Ball Intersection Location #19 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 40.00% $3,242,238 BREAKDOWN Engineering 40.00% $80,196 Right-of-Way 40.00% $2,119,500 Construction 40.00% $1,042,543 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #20 Anaheim Cerritos Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim/Cerritos Intersection Location #20 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $10,000 1 $10,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 1,110 $2,220 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 5,580 $2,790 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 1,700 $3,400 6 Excavation CY $20 2,590 $51,800 7 AC/AB SF $6 13,060 $78,360 8 Curb LF $17 2,450 $41,650 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 1,150 $23,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 8,420 $42,100 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 124,500 $174,300 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 1,150 $23,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $30,000 1 $30,000 14 Canopy Tree Median EA $1,750 11 $19,250 15 Canopy Tree Parkway EA $1,750 23 $40,250 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 2,580 $15,480 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 6,660 $19,980 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 6,660 $19,980 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 1 $15,000 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 1 $180,000 23 Communication System LS $95,000 1 $95,000 24 Street Light System LS $95,000 1 $95,000 25 Signing and Striping LS $30,000 1 $30,000 26 Traffic Control LS $75,000 1 $75,000 Subtototal $1,137,560 Construction Contingency (15%) $170,634 Engineering (10%) $113,756 Construction Management (15%) $170,634 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,592,584 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #20 Anaheim Cerritos Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim/Cerritos Intersection Location #20 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,592,584 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-23-071 SF $75 3,825 $286,875 Subtototal $286,875 Contingency (25%) $71,719 Total R/W $358,594 GRAND TOTALS $1,951,178 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 20.00% $390,236 BREAKDOWN Engineering 20.00% $22,751 Right-of-Way 20.00% $71,719 Construction 20.00% $295,766 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #21 Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim Way Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim Blvd/Anaheim Way Intersection Location #21 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $10,000 1 $10,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $2,500 1 $2,500 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 5,400 $10,800 6 Excavation CY $20 400 $8,000 7 AC/AB SF $6 4,320 $25,920 8 Curb LF $17 420 $7,140 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $5,000 1 $5,000 14 Relocate Palms in Median EA $1,500 10 $15,000 15 Canopy Tree Parkway EA $1,750 $0 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 1,900 $5,700 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 1,900 $5,700 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $15,000 1 $15,000 23 Communication System LS 1 $0 24 Street Light System LS 1 $0 25 Signing and Striping LS $2,500 1 $2,500 26 Traffic Control LS $15,000 1 $15,000 Subtototal $128,260 Construction Contingency (15%) $19,239 Engineering (10%) $12,826 Construction Management (15%) $19,239 TOTAL ROADWAY $179,564 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #21 Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim Way Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Anaheim Blvd/Anaheim Way Intersection Location #21 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $179,564 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $179,564 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 25.00% $44,891 BREAKDOWN Engineering 25.00% $3,207 Right-of-Way 25.00% $0 Construction 25.00% $41,685 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #24 Gene Autry Haster Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Gene Autry/Haster Intersection Location #24 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $10,000 1 $10,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 1,630 $3,260 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 11,090 $5,545 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 1,750 $3,500 6 Excavation CY $20 3,450 $69,000 7 AC/AB SF $6 16,810 $100,860 8 Curb LF $17 1,410 $23,970 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 1,630 $32,600 10 Sidewalk SF $5 11,090 $55,450 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 107,800 $150,920 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 1,630 $32,600 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $30,000 1 $30,000 14 Canopy Tree Median EA $1,750 $0 15 Canopy Tree Parkway EA $1,750 40 $70,000 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 1,650 $9,900 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 1,800 $5,400 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 1,800 $5,400 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 7,200 $21,600 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 7,200 $21,600 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.75 $135,000 23 Communication System LS $50,000 1 $50,000 24 Street Light System LS $75,000 1 $75,000 25 Signing and Striping LS $20,000 1 $20,000 26 Traffic Control LS $50,000 1 $50,000 Subtototal $1,031,605 Construction Contingency (15%) $154,741 Engineering (10%) $103,161 Construction Management (15%) $154,741 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,444,247 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #24 Gene Autry Haster Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Gene Autry/Haster Intersection Location #24 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,444,247 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Mobile Home Park SF $75 5,500 $412,500 2 West Side Haster SF $75 7,500 $562,500 Subtototal $975,000 Contingency (25%) $243,750 Total R/W $1,218,750 GRAND TOTALS $2,662,997 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 10.00% $266,300 BREAKDOWN Engineering 10.00% $10,316 Right-of-Way 10.00% $121,875 Construction 10.00% $134,109 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #31 Lewis Cerritos Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Lewis/Cerritos Intersection Location #31 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $7,500 1 $7,500 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,500 1 $1,500 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 310 $620 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 445 $8,900 7 AC/AB SF $6 3,080 $18,480 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 275 $5,500 10 Sidewalk SF $5 2,750 $13,750 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 275 $5,500 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $5,000 1 $5,000 14 Relocate Palms in Median EA $1,500 $0 15 Canopy Tree Parkway EA $1,750 5 $8,750 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.25 $45,000 23 Communication System LS 1 $0 24 Street Light System LS $10,000 1 $10,000 25 Signing and Striping LS $2,000 1 $2,000 26 Traffic Control LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtototal $142,500 Construction Contingency (15%) $21,375 Engineering (10%) $14,250 Construction Management (15%) $21,375 TOTAL ROADWAY $199,500 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\12 #31 Lewis Cerritos Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 12 Lewis/Cerritos Intersection Location #31 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $199,500 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-16-027 SF $75 1,750 $131,250 Subtototal $131,250 Contingency (25%) $32,813 Total R/W $164,063 GRAND TOTALS $363,563 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 20.00% $72,713 BREAKDOWN Engineering 20.00% $2,850 Right-of-Way 20.00% $32,813 Construction 20.00% $37,050 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #57 Chapman State College Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 State College/Chapman Location #57 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $10,000 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $10,000 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $0 26 Signing and Striping LS $10,000 1 $10,000 27 Traffic Control LS $0 Subtototal $10,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $1,500 Engineering (10%) $1,000 Construction Management (15%) $1,500 TOTAL ROADWAY $14,000 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #57 Chapman State College Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 State College/Chapman Location #57 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $14,000 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 S/W Corner SF $75 $0 2 SF $75 $0 3 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $14,000 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 19.00% $2,660 BREAKDOWN Engineering 19.00% $190 Right-of-Way 19.00% $0 Construction 19.00% $2,470 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #80 Main Collins Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 Main/Collins Intersection Location #80 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $15,000 1 $15,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $3,000 1 $3,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 820 $1,640 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 6,560 $3,280 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 1,125 $22,500 7 AC/AB SF $6 9,600 $57,600 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 820 $16,400 10 Sidewalk SF $5 6,560 $32,800 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 820 $16,400 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $5,000 1 $5,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.5 $90,000 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $40,000 1 $40,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $12,500 1 $12,500 27 Traffic Control LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Subtototal $336,120 Construction Contingency (15%) $50,418 Engineering (10%) $33,612 Construction Management (15%) $50,418 TOTAL ROADWAY $470,568 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #80 Main Collins Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 Main/Collins Intersection Location #80 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $470,568 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 S/W Corner SF $75 3,520 $264,000 2 S/E Corner SF $75 3,520 $264,000 3 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $528,000 Contingency (25%) $132,000 Total R/W $660,000 GRAND TOTALS $1,130,568 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 8.00% $90,445 BREAKDOWN Engineering 8.00% $2,689 Right-of-Way 8.00% $52,800 Construction 8.00% $34,956 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #87 Katella Glassell Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 Katella/Glassell Intersection Location #87 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $10,000 1 $10,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $2,000 1 $2,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 600 $1,200 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 4,800 $2,400 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 710 $14,200 7 AC/AB SF $6 5,400 $32,400 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 600 $12,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 4,800 $24,000 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 600 $12,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $6,000 1 $6,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.25 $45,000 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $20,000 1 $20,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $10,000 1 $10,000 27 Traffic Control LS $15,000 1 $15,000 Subtototal $206,200 Construction Contingency (15%) $30,930 Engineering (10%) $20,620 Construction Management (15%) $30,930 TOTAL ROADWAY $288,680 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #87 Katella Glassell Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 Katella/Glassell Intersection Location #87 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $288,680 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 West Side Glassell SF $75 4,800 $360,000 2 SF $75 $0 3 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $360,000 Contingency (25%) $90,000 Total R/W $450,000 GRAND TOTALS $738,680 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 12.00% $88,642 BREAKDOWN Engineering 12.00% $2,474 Right-of-Way 12.00% $54,000 Construction 12.00% $32,167 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #89 Glassell Walnut Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 Glassell/Walnut Intersection Location #89 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $7,500 1 $7,500 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,500 1 $1,500 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 360 $720 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 2,880 $1,440 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 400 $8,000 7 AC/AB SF $6 2,520 $15,120 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 360 $7,200 10 Sidewalk SF $5 2,160 $10,800 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 360 $7,200 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $5,000 1 $5,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.25 $45,000 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $15,000 1 $15,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $10,000 1 $10,000 27 Traffic Control LS $15,000 1 $15,000 Subtototal $149,480 Construction Contingency (15%) $22,422 Engineering (10%) $14,948 Construction Management (15%) $22,422 TOTAL ROADWAY $209,272 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #89 Glassell Walnut Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 Glassell/Walnut Intersection Location #89 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $209,272 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 S/W Corner SF $75 1,080 $81,000 2 S/E Corner SF $75 1,080 $81,000 3 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $162,000 Contingency (25%) $40,500 Total R/W $202,500 GRAND TOTALS $411,772 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 2.00% $8,235 BREAKDOWN Engineering 2.00% $299 Right-of-Way 2.00% $4,050 Construction 2.00% $3,886 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #98 SR 22 Ramp Metropolitan Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 SR 22 W/B Ramps/Metropolitan Location #98 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $7,500 1 $7,500 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,500 1 $1,500 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 150 $3,000 7 AC/AB SF $6 2,000 $12,000 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 200 $4,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $5,000 1 $5,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.25 $45,000 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS $15,000 1 $15,000 26 Signing and Striping LS $10,000 1 $10,000 27 Traffic Control LS $25,000 1 $25,000 Subtototal $128,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $19,200 Engineering (10%) $12,800 Construction Management (15%) $19,200 TOTAL ROADWAY $179,200 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #98 SR 22 Ramp Metropolitan Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 SR 22 W/B Ramps/Metropolitan Location #98 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $179,200 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 SF $75 $0 2 SF $75 $0 3 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $179,200 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 7.00% $12,544 BREAKDOWN Engineering 7.00% $896 Right-of-Way 7.00% $0 Construction 7.00% $11,648 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #102 City Drive Garden Grove Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 City Drive/Garden Grove Intersection Location #102 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS 1 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $100 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 21 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 22 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $225,000 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 24 Communication System LS $0 25 Street Light System LS 1 $0 26 Signing and Striping LS $20,000 1 $20,000 27 Traffic Control LS 1 $0 Subtototal $20,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $3,000 Engineering (10%) $2,000 Construction Management (15%) $3,000 TOTAL ROADWAY $28,000 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\13 #102 City Drive Garden Grove Intersection 06012010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Project 13 City Drive/Garden Grove Intersection Location #102 I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL WATER $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $28,000 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 SF $75 $0 2 SF $75 $0 3 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $28,000 PLATINUM TRIANGLE PROJECT SHARE 10.00% $2,800 BREAKDOWN Engineering 10.00% $200 Right-of-Way 10.00% $0 Construction 10.00% $2,600 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\14A Cerritos 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Cerritos Avenue from 550' w/o State College to 600' e/o State College PROJECT 14A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $10,000 1 $10,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 1,870 $3,740 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 6,250 $3,125 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 4,930 $98,600 7 AC/AB SF $6 21,230 $127,380 8 Curb LF $17 2,020 $34,340 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 1,870 $37,400 10 Sidewalk SF $5 13,090 $65,450 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 61,900 $86,660 12 Roadway Fill CY $15 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $30,000 1 $30,000 14 Off site Improvements LF $20 1,870 $37,400 15 Canopy Trees (Median) EA $1,750 18 $31,500 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 1,320 $7,920 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 11,000 $33,000 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 11,000 $33,000 19 Canopy Trees (parkway) EA $1,750 62 $108,500 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 10,285 $30,855 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 10,285 $30,855 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 23 Communication System LS $50,000 1 $50,000 24 Street Light System LS $100,000 1 $100,000 25 Signing and Striping LS $15,000 1 $15,000 26 Traffic Control LS $40,000 1 $40,000 Subtototal $1,064,725 Construction Contingency (15%) $159,709 Engineering (10%) $106,473 Construction Management (15%) $159,709 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,490,615 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\14A Cerritos 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Cerritos Avenue from 550' w/o State College to 600' e/o State College PROJECT 14A I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 48" RCP LF $260 $0 5 57" RCP LF $285 $0 6 66" RCP LF $340 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $350,000 1 $350,000 Subtototal $350,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $35,000 Engineering $17,500 Construction Management (15%) $52,500 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $455,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Subtototal $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (10%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,945,615 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-250-64 SF $75 855 $64,125 2 SBE#148-30-56A SF $75 2,960 $222,000 3 AP#082-160-40 SF $75 290 $21,750 4 AP#082-160-19 SF $75 1,950 $146,250 5 AP#083-210-21 SF $75 5,940 $445,500 6 SE Corner SF $75 5,940 $445,500 Subtototal $1,345,125 Contingency (25%) $336,281 Total R/W $1,681,406 GRAND TOTALS $3,627,021 $123,973 $1,681,406 $1,821,643 $3,627,021 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Platinum Triangle PROJECT COSTS UNFUNDED IMPROVEMENTS ---PAGE BREAK--- PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST SUMMARY UNFUNDED IMPROVEMENTS Project Construction R/W TOTAL desig. Street Limits Roadway Sewer Storm Drain Electrical Water Other Total Total COST Notes 1a Katella 600' e/o Lewis to 350' e/o State College 1b Katella 350' e/o State College to w/o SR 57 1c Katella e/o SR 57 to East City Limit 1d Katella Anaheim Blvd. to 600' e/o Lewis Subtotal Katella $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2a State College Orangewood to 300' s/o Katella 2b State College 300' s/o Katella to Cerritos (grade sep.) 2c State College 1,000 s/o Orangewood to Orangewood Subtotal State College $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3a Orangewood Anaheim Way to w/o State College 3b Orangewood e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River 3c Orangewood Santa Ana River Bridge Subtotal Orangewood $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4a Gene Autry I-5 to State College 4b Gene Autry West of I-5 Subtotal Gene Autry $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Anaheim Way 700' n/o Katella to Orangewood Subtotal Anaheim Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6a Lewis Gene Autry to n/o Katella 6b Lewis n/o Katella to Cerritos $2,518,264 $0 $659,400 $910,000 $0 $0 $4,087,664 $791,719 $4,879,383 Subtotal Lewis $2,518,264 $0 $659,400 $910,000 $0 $0 $4,087,664 $791,719 $4,879,383 7a Douglass SR-57 to Katella 7b Douglass Katella to 750' n/o Katella 7c Douglass 750' n/o Katella to Cerritos $1,520,575 $325,000 $1,845,575 $1,476,563 $3,322,138 Subtotal Douglass $1,520,575 $0 $0 $325,000 $0 $0 $1,845,575 $1,476,563 $3,322,138 8 New Water Well Subtotal New Well $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9 New Fire Station Subtotal New Fire Station $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10A Major Storm Drain (Funded) 10B Major Storm Drain (Unfunded) $0 $0 $7,835,100 $0 $0 $0 $7,835,100 $1,218,750 $9,053,850 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $0 $0 $7,835,100 $0 $0 $0 $7,835,100 $1,218,750 $9,053,850 11 S/B SR 57 Improvements Subtotal SR 57 Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #2 - Katella/Ninth Intersection #6 - Katella/West Intersection #18 - Anaheim/Vermont Intersection #19 - Anaheim Ball Intersection #20 - Anaheim Cerritos Intersection #21 - Anaheim Blvd/Anaheim Way Int. #24 - Gene Autry/Haster Intersection #31 - Lewis/Cerritos Intersection Subtotal Anaheim Intersections $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #57 - Chapman/State College Intersection #80 - Main/Collins Intersection #87 - Glassell/Katella Intersection #89 - Glassell/Walnut Intersection #98 - SR 22 w/b ramps/Metropolitan #102 - City Drive/Garden Grove Intersection Subtotal Orange Intersections $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14A Cerritos 550' w/o to 600' e/o State College 14B Cerritos 600' e/o State College to Douglass $3,078,074 $0 $0 $4,192,500 $0 $0 $7,270,574 $5,103,750 $12,374,324 Subtotal Cerritos $3,078,074 $0 $0 $4,192,500 $0 $0 $7,270,574 $5,103,750 $12,374,324 15 Sunkist Howell to Cerritos $923,762 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $923,762 $0 $923,762 Subtotal Sunkist $923,762 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $923,762 $0 $923,762 TOTALS $8,040,675 $0 $8,494,500 $5,427,500 $0 $0 $21,962,675 $8,590,782 $30,553,457 12 Anaheim Intersections 13 Orange Intersections ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\06B Lewis 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Lewis Street from 700' n/o Katella to Cerritos PROJECT 6B Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $100,000 1 $100,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $20,000 1 $20,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 2,550 $5,100 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 11,200 $5,600 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 5,440 $108,800 7 AC/AB SF $6 24,780 $148,680 8 Curb LF $17 3,520 $59,840 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 2,550 $51,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 12,750 $63,750 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 128,400 $179,760 12 Roadway Fill CY $15 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $60,000 1 $60,000 14 Off site Improvements LF $20 2,550 $51,000 15 Fan Palms (Median) EA $2,700 25 $67,500 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 2,730 $16,380 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 10,500 $31,500 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 10,500 $31,500 19 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 85 $229,500 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 11,475 $34,425 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 11,475 $34,425 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.5 $90,000 23 Communication System LS $100,000 1 $100,000 24 Street Light System LS $200,000 1 $200,000 25 Signing and Striping LS $30,000 1 $30,000 26 Traffic Control LS $80,000 1 $80,000 Subtototal $1,798,760 Construction Contingency (15%) $269,814 Engineering (10%) $179,876 Construction Management (15%) $269,814 TOTAL ROADWAY $2,518,264 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\06B Lewis 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Lewis Street from 700' n/o Katella to Cerritos PROJECT 6B Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 48" RCP LF $260 $0 5 57" RCP LF $285 $0 6 66" RCP LF $340 400 $136,000 7 72" RCP LF $400 650 $260,000 8 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 9 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 10 Drainage System Modifications LS $50,000 1 $50,000 Subtototal $471,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $70,650 Engineering (10%) $47,100 Construction Management (15%) $70,650 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $659,400 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $700,000 1 $700,000 Subtototal $700,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $70,000 Engineering $35,000 Construction Management (15%) $105,000 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $910,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Subtototal $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (10%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $4,087,664 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 750 $56,250 2 AP#082-260-77 SF $75 400 $30,000 3 AP#082-241-13 SF $75 330 $24,750 4 AP#082-241-12 SF $75 1,860 $139,500 5 E. Side s/o Tracks SF $75 730 $54,750 6 AP#082-241-03 SF $75 4,375 $328,125 Subtototal $633,375 Contingency (25%) $158,344 Total R/W $791,719 GRAND TOTALS $4,879,383 $261,976 $791,719 $3,825,688 $4,879,383 Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\07C Douglass 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE DOUGLASS ROAD from 750' n/o Katella to Cerritos PROJECT 7C Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $50,000 1 $50,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $10,000 1 $10,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 2,150 $4,300 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 10,750 $5,375 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 5,090 $101,800 7 AC/AB SF $6 13,650 $81,900 8 Curb LF $17 1,900 $32,300 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 2,150 $43,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 10,750 $53,750 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 53,750 $75,250 12 Roadway Fill CY $15 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $30,000 1 $30,000 14 Off site Improvements LF $20 2,150 $43,000 15 Fan Palms (Median) EA $2,700 15 $40,500 16 Median Groundcover SF $3 6,300 $18,900 17 Median Irrigation SF $3 6,300 $18,900 18 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 62 $167,400 19 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 13,875 $41,625 20 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 13,875 $41,625 21 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 22 Communication System LS $55,000 1 $55,000 23 Street Light System LS $110,000 1 $110,000 24 Signing and Striping LS $16,500 1 $16,500 25 Traffic Control LS $45,000 1 $45,000 Subtototal $1,086,125 Construction Contingency (15%) $162,919 Engineering (10%) $108,613 Construction Management (15%) $162,919 TOTAL ROADWAY $1,520,575 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\07C Douglass 07142010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE DOUGLASS ROAD from 750' n/o Katella to Cerritos PROJECT 7C Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 48" RCP LF $260 $0 5 57" RCP LF $285 $0 6 66" RCP LF $340 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $250,000 1 $250,000 Subtototal $250,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $25,000 Engineering $12,500 Construction Management (15%) $37,500 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $325,000 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Subtototal $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (10%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,845,575 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#253-521-32 SF $75 4,480 $336,000 2 AP#253-521-30 SF $75 3,400 $255,000 3 AP#253-591-01 SF $75 7,720 $579,000 4 Caltrans R/W SF $75 150 $11,250 Subtototal $1,181,250 Contingency (25%) $295,313 Total R/W $1,476,563 GRAND TOTALS $3,322,138 $121,113 $1,476,563 $1,724,463 $3,322,138 Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\10B Major Storm Drain Unfunded 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE MAJOR STORM DRAIN PROJECT 10B Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $4 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 0 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS 0 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 0 $0 15 Median Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 0 $0 16 Parkway Landscape/Irrigation SF $8 0 $0 17 Traffic Signal Modification EA $150,000 0 $0 18 Street Light System LS $0 19 Signing and Striping LS $0 20 Traffic Control LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 8" Sewer LF $400 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $4,000 0 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $200,000 1 $200,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 0 $0 3 36" RCP LF $200 900 $180,000 4 42" RCP LF $230 800 $184,000 5 48" RCP LF $250 1,850 $462,500 6 60' RCP LF $300 1,100 $330,000 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 0 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 4,200 $3,990,000 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $250,000 1 $250,000 Subtototal $5,596,500 Construction Contingency (15%) $839,475 Engineering (10%) $559,650 Construction Management (15%) $839,475 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $7,835,100 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\10B Major Storm Drain Unfunded 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE MAJOR STORM DRAIN PROJECT 10B Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.STATION IMPROVEMENTS 1 New Station Construction/Equipment LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (12%) $0 TOTAL STATION $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $7,835,100 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Easement n/o Metrolink LS $25 20,000 $500,000 2 Easement e/o Lewis LS $25 19,000 $475,000 Subtototal $975,000 Contingency (25%) $243,750 Total R/W $1,218,750 GRAND TOTALS $9,053,850 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\14B Cerritos 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Cerritos Avenue from 600' e/o State College to Douglass PROJECT 14B Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $100,000 1 $100,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $20,000 1 $20,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 3,290 $6,580 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 8,836 $176,720 7 AC/AB SF $6 56,410 $338,460 8 Curb LF $17 4,240 $72,080 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 3,090 $61,800 10 Sidewalk SF $5 19,390 $96,950 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 183,360 $256,704 12 Roadway Fill CY $15 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $60,000 1 $60,000 14 Off site Improvements LF $20 3,090 $61,800 15 Canopy Trees (Median) EA $1,750 40 $70,000 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 1,680 $10,080 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 18,450 $55,350 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 18,450 $55,350 19 Canopy Trees (parkway) EA $1,750 92 $161,000 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 15,125 $45,375 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 15,125 $45,375 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.5 $90,000 23 Communication System LS $135,000 1 $135,000 24 Street Light System LS $135,000 1 $135,000 25 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 1 $40,000 26 Traffic Control LS $105,000 1 $105,000 Subtototal $2,198,624 Construction Contingency (15%) $329,794 Engineering (10%) $219,862 Construction Management (15%) $329,794 TOTAL ROADWAY $3,078,074 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\14B Cerritos 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Cerritos Avenue from 600' e/o State College to Douglass PROJECT 14B Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 48" RCP LF $260 $0 5 57" RCP LF $285 $0 6 66" RCP LF $340 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $3,225,000 1 $3,225,000 Subtototal $3,225,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $322,500 Engineering $161,250 Construction Management (15%) $483,750 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $4,192,500 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Subtototal $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (10%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $7,270,574 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 SCE Site SF $75 4,080 $306,000 2 SCE Site SF $75 1,840 $138,000 3 AP#253-061-12 SF $75 8,970 $672,750 4 AP#253-061-20 SF $75 11,200 $840,000 5 AP#253-581-02 SF $75 4,480 $336,000 6 AP#253-581-03 SF $75 2,800 $210,000 7 AP#253-581-06 SF $75 7,280 $546,000 8 AP#253-581-15 SF $75 6,440 $483,000 9 AP#253-592-11 SF $75 5,750 $431,250 10 AP3253-592-12 SF $75 1,600 $120,000 Subtototal $4,083,000 Contingency (25%) $1,020,750 Total R/W $5,103,750 GRAND TOTALS $12,374,324 $381,112 $5,103,750 $6,889,461 $12,374,324 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\15 Sunkist 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Sunkist from Howell to Cerritos PROJECT 15 Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing/Demo LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 55 $1,100 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 20,720 $103,600 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 12 Roadway Fill CY $15 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $15,000 1 $15,000 14 Off site Improvements LF $20 2,960 $59,200 15 Canopy Trees (Median) EA $1,750 $0 16 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 17 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 18 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 19 Canopy Trees (parkway) EA $1,750 99 $173,250 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 16,280 $48,840 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 16,280 $48,840 22 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 23 Communication System LS 1 $0 24 Street Light System LS $150,000 1 $150,000 25 Signing and Striping LS 1 $0 26 Traffic Control LS $30,000 1 $30,000 Subtototal $659,830 Construction Contingency (15%) $98,975 Engineering (10%) $65,983 Construction Management (15%) $98,975 TOTAL ROADWAY $923,762 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\15 Sunkist 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE Sunkist from Howell to Cerritos PROJECT 15 Unfunded Project I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Total C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 4 48" RCP LF $260 $0 5 57" RCP LF $285 $0 6 66" RCP LF $340 $0 7 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 8 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 9 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 Engineering (10%) $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS 1 $0 Subtototal $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS 1 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 Subtototal $0 Engineering $0 Construction Management (10%) $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $923,762 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 SF $75 $0 2 SF $75 $0 3 SF $75 $0 4 SF $75 $0 Subtototal $0 Contingency (25%) $0 Total R/W $0 GRAND TOTALS $923,762 $65,983 $0 $857,779 $923,762 Total Breakdown Design R/W Acquisition Construction Total ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Anaheim Platinum Triangle PROJECT COSTS DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTS ---PAGE BREAK--- PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT SUMMARY Stadium Lofts Construction Completed by ROF (4/22/08) CFD Developer Reimbursements Platinum Triangle Project Project Windstar Platinum CFD Lennar Hanover KB Avalon West Millenium BRE Stadium Total desig. Street Limits Budget Stadium Lofts Subtotal Budget A Town Gateway Ctr Towers Dev. Reimb. Total E $439,480 $58,037 $381,443 $74,386 $18,794 $33,145 $126,325 $507,768 1a Katella 600' e/o Lewis to 350' e/o State College R $3,008,858 $3,008,858 $16,875 $208,125 $225,000 $3,233,858 C $6,625,240 $754,481 $5,870,759 $967,018 $244,322 $430,879 $1,642,219 $7,512,978 E $445,503 $445,503 $2,198 $2,198 $447,701 1b Katella 350' e/o State College to w/o SR 57 R $1,488,281 $1,488,281 $0 $1,488,281 C $6,406,534 $6,406,534 $28,574 $28,574 $6,435,108 E $281,653 $281,653 $0 $281,653 1c Katella e/o SR 57 to East City Limit R $974,063 $974,063 $0 $974,063 C $3,961,485 $3,961,485 $0 $3,961,485 E $731,278 $731,278 $0 $731,278 1d Katella Anaheim Blvd. to 600' e/o Lewis R $7,373,906 $7,373,906 $0 $7,373,906 C $9,962,611 $9,962,611 $0 $9,962,611 Subtotal Katella $41,698,892 $812,518 $40,886,374 $1,041,404 $279,991 $0 $672,149 $0 $0 $0 $30,772 $2,024,316 $42,910,690 E $363,248 $363,248 $35,951 $35,951 $399,199 2a State College Orangewood to 300' s/o Katella R $2,501,250 $2,501,250 $118,125 $118,125 $2,619,375 C $4,512,797 $4,512,797 $467,357 $467,357 $4,980,154 E $1,556,310 $48,653 $1,507,657 $0 $1,507,657 2b State College 300' s/o Katella to Cerritos (grade sep.) R $9,630,063 $9,630,063 $0 $9,630,063 C $21,075,924 $632,482 $20,443,442 $0 $20,443,442 E $136,507 $136,507 $11,418 $11,418 $147,925 2c State College 1000' s/o Orangewood to Orangewood R $365,625 $365,625 $365,625 $365,625 $731,250 C $1,576,788 $1,576,788 $148,428 $148,428 $1,725,216 Subtotal State College $41,718,512 $681,135 $41,037,377 $0 $118,125 $503,308 $0 $0 $0 $525,471 $0 $1,146,904 $42,184,281 E $136,310 $136,310 $41,104 $41,104 $177,414 3a Orangewood Anaheim Way to w/o State College R $463,125 $463,125 $0 $463,125 C $5,276,095 $5,276,095 $534,352 $534,352 $5,810,447 E $709,103 $709,103 $0 $709,103 3b Orangewood e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River R $5,446,406 $5,446,406 $0 $5,446,406 C $12,420,913 $12,420,913 $0 $12,420,913 E $514,103 $514,103 $0 $514,103 3c Orangewood Santa Ana River Bridge R $87,656 $87,656 $0 $87,656 C $6,683,336 $6,683,336 $0 $6,683,336 Subtotal Orangewood $31,737,047 $0 $31,737,047 $0 $0 $575,456 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $575,456 $32,312,503 E $376,376 $376,376 $139,430 $139,430 $515,806 4a Gene Autry I-5 to State College R $1,672,313 $1,672,313 $0 $1,672,313 C $6,362,883 $6,362,883 $1,812,590 $1,812,590 $8,175,473 E $0 $0 $0 $0 4b Gene Autry West of I-5 R $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 C $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000 Subtotal Gene Autry $18,411,572 $0 $18,411,572 $1,952,020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,952,020 $20,363,592 E $432,273 $432,273 $0 $432,273 5 Anaheim Way 700' n/o Katella to Orangewood R $0 $0 $0 $0 C $7,059,543 $7,059,543 $0 $7,059,543 Subtotal Anaheim Way $7,491,816 $0 $7,491,816 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,491,816 E $630,443 $630,443 $0 $630,443 6A Lewis Gene Autry to n/o Katella R $24,898,706 $24,898,706 $0 $24,898,706 C $8,663,220 $8,663,220 $0 $8,663,220 Subtotal Lewis $34,192,369 $0 $34,192,369 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,192,369 E $187,001 $187,001 $0 $187,001 7A Douglass SR-57 to Katella R $0 $0 $0 $0 C $2,951,119 $2,951,119 $0 $2,951,119 E $63,829 $63,829 $0 $63,829 7B Douglass Katella to 750' n/o Katella R $1,060,781 $1,060,781 $0 $1,060,781 C $904,772 $904,772 $0 $904,772 Subtotal Douglass $5,167,502 $0 $5,167,502 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,167,502 E $346,692 $346,692 $0 $346,692 8 New Water Well (location tbd) R $0 $0 $0 $0 C $3,225,859 $3,225,859 $0 $3,225,859 Subtotal New Well $3,572,551 $0 $3,572,551 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,572,551 E $556,677 $556,677 $0 $556,677 9 New Fire Station R $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 C $8,780,389 $8,780,389 $0 $8,780,389 Subtotal New Fire Station $10,337,066 $0 $10,337,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,337,066 E $699,000 $699,000 $0 $699,000 10A Major Storm Drain R $2,187,500 $2,187,500 $0 $2,187,500 C $9,087,000 $9,087,000 $0 $9,087,000 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $11,973,500 $0 $11,973,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,973,500 E $344,933 $344,933 $0 $344,933 11 SR 57 Improvements R $0 $0 $0 $0 C $2,989,415 $2,989,415 $0 $2,989,415 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $3,334,348 $0 $3,334,348 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,334,348 E $119,553 $119,553 $0 $119,553 12 City of Anaheim Intersections R $2,345,907 $2,345,907 $0 $2,345,907 C $1,554,180 $1,554,180 $0 $1,554,180 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $4,019,640 $0 $4,019,640 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,019,640 E $6,748 $6,748 $0 $6,748 13 City of Orange Intersections R $110,850 $110,850 $0 $110,850 C $87,728 $87,728 $0 $87,728 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $205,326 $0 $205,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $205,326 E $123,967 $123,967 $0 $123,967 14A Cerritos 550' w/o to 600'e/o State College R $1,681,406 $1,681,406 $0 $1,681,406 C $1,821,643 $1,821,643 $0 $1,821,643 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $3,627,016 $0 $3,627,016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,627,016 0 E $9,200,987 $106,690 $9,094,297 $213,816 $18,794 $77,055 $33,145 $0 $0 $11,418 $2,198 $356,426 $9,450,723 SUBTOTALS R $68,296,696 $0 $68,296,696 $0 $135,000 $0 $208,125 $0 $0 $365,625 $0 $708,750 $69,005,446 C $139,989,474 $1,386,963 $138,602,511 $2,779,608 $244,322 $1,001,709 $430,879 $0 $0 $148,428 $28,574 $4,633,520 $143,236,031 TOTALS $217,487,157 $1,493,653 $215,993,504 $2,993,424 $398,116 $1,078,764 $672,149 $0 $0 $525,471 $30,772 $5,698,696 $221,692,200 Page 1/1 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Developer Reimbursement Summary as of ROF 4222008 Revised 07202010.xlsx ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Windstar\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Lofts - Windstar PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $12,500 1 $12,500 1 $12,500 0 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000 0 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 530 $1,060 530 $1,060 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 140 $70 140 $70 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 970 $19,400 970 $19,400 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 9,050 $54,300 9,050 $54,300 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 450 $9,000 450 $9,000 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 3,490 $17,450 3,490 $17,450 0 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 500 $10,000 500 $10,000 0 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $10,000 1 $10,000 1 $10,000 0 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 14 $63,000 14 $63,000 0 $0 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 3,150 $9,450 3,150 $9,450 0 $0 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 3,150 $9,450 3,150 $9,450 0 $0 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.25 $45,000 0.25 $45,000 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $12,500 1 $12,500 1 $12,500 0 $0 26 Street Light System LS $11,250 1 $11,250 1 $11,250 0 $0 27 Signing and Striping LS $2,500 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 0 $0 28 Traffic Control LS $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000 0 $0 Subtototal $296,930 $296,930 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $44,540 $44,540 $0 Engineering (10%) $29,693 $29,693 $0 Construction Management (15%) $44,540 $44,540 $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $415,702 $415,702 $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 3 $1,320 3 $1,320 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 519 $249,120 519 $249,120 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $4,000 7 $28,000 7 $28,000 0 $0 Subtototal $283,440 $283,440 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $42,516 $42,516 $0 Engineering (10%) $28,344 $28,344 $0 Construction Management (15%) $42,516 $42,516 $0 TOTAL SEWER $396,816 $396,816 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Windstar\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Lofts - Windstar PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $812,518 $812,518 $0 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 UPRR SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#082-241-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 16 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 17 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 18 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 19 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 20 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 21 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 22 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 23 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 25 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 26 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Hanover (Element Point) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Avalon (2100 @ PT) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Contingency (25%) $0 $0 $0 Total R/W $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTALS $812,518 $812,518 $0 Breakdown Design $58,037 R/W $0 Const. $754,481 Total $812,518 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Windstar\Project 2B Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Lofts - Windstar PROJECT 2B Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 1 $20,000 1 $20,000 0 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $2,500 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 0 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 75 $150 75 $150 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 750 $375 750 $375 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 60 $1,200 60 $1,200 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 1,100 $6,600 1,100 $6,600 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 60 $1,200 60 $1,200 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 675 $3,375 675 $3,375 0 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS 1 $0 1 $0 0 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $75 5,965 $447,375 5,965 $447,375 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $12,500 $0 $0 0 $0 26 Street Light System LS $11,250 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Signing and Striping LS $2,500 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Traffic Control LS $3,750 1 $3,750 1 $3,750 0 $0 Subtototal $486,525 $486,525 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $72,979 $72,979 $0 Engineering (10%) $48,653 $48,653 $0 Construction Management (15%) $72,979 $72,979 $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $681,135 $681,135 $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $4,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Windstar\Project 2B Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Lofts - Windstar PROJECT 2B Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $681,135 $681,135 $0 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 UPRR SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#082-241-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 16 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 17 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 18 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 19 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 20 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 21 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 22 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 23 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 25 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 26 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Hanover (Element Point) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Avalon (2100 @ PT) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Contingency (25%) $0 $0 $0 Total R/W $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTALS $681,135 $681,135 $0 Breakdown Design $48,653 R/W $0 Const. $632,483 Total $681,135 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Lennar\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College A Town Metro - Lennar PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $100,000 1 $100,000 $0 1 $100,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $20,000 1 $20,000 $0 1 $20,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 2,105 $4,210 $0 2,105 $4,210 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 21,050 $10,525 $0 21,050 $10,525 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 8,842 $176,840 $0 8,842 $176,840 7 AC/AB SF $6 92,650 $555,900 $0 92,650 $555,900 8 Curb LF $17 3,090 $52,530 $0 3,090 $52,530 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 2,085 $41,700 $0 2,085 $41,700 10 Sidewalk SF $5 13,309 $66,545 $0 13,309 $66,545 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 70,400 $98,560 $0 70,400 $98,560 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 2,085 $41,700 $0 2,085 $41,700 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $60,000 1 $60,000 $0 1 $60,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 33 $148,500 $0 33 $148,500 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 51 $229,500 $0 51 $229,500 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 22,150 $66,450 $0 22,150 $66,450 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 22,150 $66,450 $0 22,150 $66,450 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 13,000 $39,000 $0 13,000 $39,000 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 13,000 $39,000 $0 13,000 $39,000 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 1 $15,000 $0 1 $15,000 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 0.18 $38,700 $0 0.18 $38,700 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.25 $45,000 $0 0.25 $45,000 25 Communication System LS $335,000 0.18 $60,300 $0 0.18 $60,300 26 Street Light System LS $420,000 0.18 $75,600 $0 0.18 $75,600 27 Signing and Striping LS $65,000 0.18 $11,700 $0 0.18 $11,700 28 Traffic Control LS $170,000 0.18 $30,600 $0 0.18 $30,600 Subtototal $2,094,310 $0 $2,094,310 Construction Contingency (15%) $314,147 $0 $314,147 Engineering (10%) $209,431 $0 $209,431 Construction Management (15%) $314,147 $0 $314,147 TOTAL ROADWAY $2,932,034 $0 $2,932,034 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 473 $217,580 473 $217,580 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 961 $461,280 961 $461,280 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 8 $40,000 8 $40,000 0 $0 Subtototal $743,860 $743,860 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $111,579 $111,579 $0 Engineering (10%) $74,386 $74,386 $0 Construction Management (15%) $111,579 $111,579 $0 TOTAL SEWER $1,041,404 $1,041,404 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Lennar\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College A Town Metro - Lennar PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,973,438 $1,041,404 $2,932,034 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 UPRR SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#082-241-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 16 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 17 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 18 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 19 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 20 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 21 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 22 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 23 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 10,260 $769,500 $0 10,260 $769,500 25 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 26 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Hanover (Element Point) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Avalon (2100 @ PT) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $769,500 $0 $769,500 Contingency (25%) $192,375 $0 $192,375 Total R/W $961,875 $0 $961,875 GRAND TOTALS $4,935,313 $1,041,404 $3,893,909 Breakdown Design $74,386 R/W $0 Const. $967,018 Total $1,041,404 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Lennar\Project 4A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College A Town Metro - Lennar PROJECT 4A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 1 $20,000 $0 1 $20,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $4,000 1 $4,000 $0 1 $4,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 660 $1,320 $0 660 $1,320 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 $0 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 1,167 $23,340 $0 1,167 $23,340 7 AC/AB SF $6 8,605 $51,630 $0 8,605 $51,630 8 Curb LF $17 630 $10,710 $0 630 $10,710 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 650 $13,000 $0 650 $13,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 4,875 $24,375 $0 4,875 $24,375 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 19,800 $27,720 $0 19,800 $27,720 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 650 $13,000 $0 650 $13,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $12,000 1 $12,000 $0 1 $12,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 4 $7,000 $0 4 $7,000 16 Canopy Tree (Parkway) EA $1,750 8 $14,000 $0 8 $14,000 17 Fan Palm (Parkway) EA $2,700 8 $21,600 $0 8 $21,600 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 1,800 $5,400 $0 1,800 $5,400 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 1,800 $5,400 $0 1,800 $5,400 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 4,225 $12,675 $0 4,225 $12,675 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 4,225 $12,675 $0 4,225 $12,675 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Communication System LS $275,000 0.25 $68,750 $0 0.25 $68,750 25 Street Light System LS $150,000 0.25 $37,500 $0 0.25 $37,500 26 Signing and Striping LS $25,000 0.25 $6,250 $0 0.25 $6,250 27 Traffic Control LS $60,000 0.25 $15,000 $0 0.25 $15,000 Subtototal $407,345 $0 $407,345 Construction Contingency (15%) $61,102 $0 $61,102 Engineering (10%) $40,735 $0 $40,735 Construction Management (15%) $61,102 $0 $61,102 TOTAL ROADWAY $570,283 $0 $570,283 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 391 $172,040 391 $172,040 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 2,331 $1,072,260 2,331 $1,072,260 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 22 $110,000 22 $110,000 0 $0 Subtototal $1,394,300 $1,394,300 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $209,145 $209,145 $0 Engineering (10%) $139,430 $139,430 $0 Construction Management (15%) $209,145 $209,145 $0 TOTAL SEWER $1,952,020 $1,952,020 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Total Eligible Reimbursement Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Lennar\Project 4A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College A Town Metro - Lennar PROJECT 4A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Total Eligible Reimbursement Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,522,303 $1,952,020 $570,283 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#083-260-29 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 AP#083-290-84 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#083-290-94 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#232-121-21 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 Gene Autry Experience (AMB) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 A Town Metro (Lennar) SF $75 3,635 $272,625 $0 3,635 $272,625 Subtototal $272,625 $0 $272,625 Contingency (25%) $68,156 $0 $68,156 Total R/W $340,781 $0 $340,781 GRAND TOTALS $2,863,084 $1,952,020 $911,064 Breakdown Design $139,430 R/W $0 Const. $1,812,590 Total $1,952,020 Total Eligible Reimbursement Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Hanover\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Element Point - Hanover PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $2,000 1 $2,000 $0 1 $2,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $400 1 $400 $0 1 $400 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 100 $200 $0 100 $200 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 1,000 $500 $0 1,000 $500 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 260 $5,200 $0 260 $5,200 7 AC/AB SF $6 2,050 $12,300 $0 2,050 $12,300 8 Curb LF $17 $0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 100 $2,000 $0 100 $2,000 10 Sidewalk SF $5 1,050 $5,250 $0 1,050 $5,250 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 0 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 100 $2,000 $0 100 $2,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $1,200 1 $1,200 $0 1 $1,200 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 2 $9,000 $0 2 $9,000 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 650 $1,950 $0 650 $1,950 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 650 $1,950 $0 650 $1,950 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 0.01 $2,150 $0 0.01 $2,150 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $335,000 0.01 $3,350 $0 0.01 $3,350 26 Street Light System LS $420,000 0.01 $4,200 $0 0.01 $4,200 27 Signing and Striping LS $65,000 0.01 $650 $0 0.01 $650 28 Traffic Control LS $170,000 0.01 $1,700 $0 0.01 $1,700 Subtototal $56,000 $0 $56,000 Construction Contingency (15%) $8,400 $0 $8,400 Engineering (10%) $5,600 $0 $5,600 Construction Management (15%) $8,400 $0 $8,400 TOTAL ROADWAY $78,400 $0 $78,400 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $7,500 1 $7,500 1 $7,500 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 376 $165,440 376 $165,440 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 3 $15,000 3 $15,000 0 $0 Subtototal $187,940 $187,940 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $28,191 $28,191 $0 Engineering (10%) $18,794 $18,794 $0 Construction Management (15%) $28,191 $28,191 $0 TOTAL SEWER $263,116 $263,116 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Hanover\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Element Point - Hanover PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $341,516 $263,116 $78,400 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 UPRR SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#082-241-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 16 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 17 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 18 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 19 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 20 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 21 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 22 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 23 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 25 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 26 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Hanover (Element Point) SF $75 180 $13,500 180 $13,500 0 $0 28 Avalon (2100 @ PT) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $13,500 $13,500 $0 Contingency (25%) $3,375 $3,375 $0 Total R/W $16,875 $16,875 $0 GRAND TOTALS $358,391 $279,991 $78,400 Breakdown Design $18,794 R/W $16,875 Const. $244,322 Total $279,991 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Hanover\Project 2A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Element Point - Hanover PROJECT 2A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $5,000 1 $5,000 $0 1 $5,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,000 1 $1,000 $0 1 $1,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 280 $560 $0 280 $560 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 2,500 $1,250 $0 2,500 $1,250 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 415 $8,300 $0 415 $8,300 7 AC/AB SF $6 1,670 $10,020 $0 1,670 $10,020 8 Curb LF $17 $0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 280 $5,600 $0 280 $5,600 10 Sidewalk SF $5 1,500 $7,500 $0 1,500 $7,500 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 0 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 280 $5,600 $0 280 $5,600 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $3,000 1 $3,000 $0 1 $3,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Canopy Trees (parkway) EA $1,750 6 $10,500 $0 6 $10,500 16 Fan Palms (parkway) EA $2,700 6 $16,200 $0 6 $16,200 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 1,375 $4,125 $0 1,375 $4,125 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 1,375 $4,125 $0 1,375 $4,125 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Communication System LS $125,000 0.05 $6,250 $0 0.05 $6,250 25 Street Light System LS $250,000 0.05 $12,500 $0 0.05 $12,500 26 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 0.05 $2,000 $0 0.05 $2,000 27 Traffic Control LS $100,000 0.05 $5,000 $0 0.05 $5,000 Subtototal $108,530 $0 $108,530 Construction Contingency (15%) $16,280 $0 $16,280 Engineering (10%) $10,853 $0 $10,853 Construction Management (15%) $16,280 $0 $16,280 TOTAL ROADWAY $151,942 $0 $151,942 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $7,500 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Hanover\Project 2A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Element Point - Hanover PROJECT 2A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $151,942 $0 $151,942 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#083-270-75 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 AP#232-081-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 Gene Autry Experience (New Urban) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 A Town (Lennar) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#232-011-50 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Element Point (Hanover) SF $75 1,260 $94,500 1,260 $94,500 0 $0 7 AP#083-260-29 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $94,500 $94,500 $0 Contingency (25%) $23,625 $23,625 $0 Total R/W $118,125 $118,125 $0 GRAND TOTALS $270,067 $118,125 $151,942 Breakdown Design $0 R/W $118,125 Const. $0 Total $118,125 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\KB\Project 2A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Gateway Centre Condos - KB Homes PROJECT 2A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $10,000 1 $10,000 1 $10,000 0 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $2,000 1 $2,000 1 $2,000 0 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 280 $560 280 $560 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 3,640 $1,820 3,640 $1,820 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 1,200 $2,400 1,200 $2,400 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 860 $17,200 860 $17,200 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 3,950 $23,700 3,950 $23,700 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 215 $3,655 215 $3,655 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 280 $5,600 280 $5,600 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 1,890 $9,450 1,890 $9,450 0 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 270 $5,400 270 $5,400 0 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 0 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Canopy Tree (Parkway) EA $1,750 6 $10,500 $0 6 $10,500 17 Fan Palm (Parkway) EA $2,700 6 $16,200 6 $16,200 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 1,560 $4,680 1,560 $4,680 0 $0 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 1,560 $4,680 1,560 $4,680 0 $0 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Communication System LS $125,000 0.08 $10,000 0.08 $10,000 0 $0 25 Street Light System LS $250,000 0.08 $20,000 0.08 $20,000 0 $0 26 Signing and Striping LS $40,000 0.08 $3,200 0.08 $3,200 0 $0 27 Traffic Control LS $100,000 0.08 $8,000 0.08 $8,000 0 $0 Subtototal $165,045 $154,545 $10,500 Construction Contingency (15%) $24,757 $23,182 $1,575 Engineering (10%) $16,505 $15,455 $1,050 Construction Management (15%) $24,757 $23,182 $1,575 TOTAL ROADWAY $231,063 $216,363 $14,700 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $40,000 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 48" RCP LF $260 596 $154,960 596 $154,960 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $25,000 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 0 $0 Subtototal $204,960 $204,960 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $30,744 $30,744 $0 Engineering (10%) $20,496 $20,496 $0 Construction Management (15%) $30,744 $30,744 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $286,944 $286,944 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\KB\Project 2A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Gateway Centre Condos - KB Homes PROJECT 2A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $518,007 $503,307 $14,700 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-021-10 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 AP#083-270-75 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#232-081-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 Gene Autry Experience (New Urban) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 A Town (Lennar) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#232-011-50 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#032-021-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#083-260-29 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Contingency (25%) $0 $0 $0 Total R/W $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTALS $518,007 $503,307 $14,700 Breakdown Design $35,951 R/W $0 Const. $467,357 Total $503,307 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\KB\Project 3A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Gateway Centre Condos - KB Homes PROJECT 3A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 1 $0 1 $0 0 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $0 1 $0 0 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 $0 $0 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 $0 $0 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 $0 $0 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 $0 $0 0 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 $0 $0 0 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $6,000 $0 $0 0 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Canopy Tree (Parkway) EA $1,750 $0 $0 0 $0 17 Fan Palm (Parkway) EA $2,700 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 #REF! Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 #REF! Communication System LS $125,000 $0 $0 0 $0 #REF! Street Light System LS $250,000 $0 $0 0 $0 #REF! Signing and Striping LS $40,000 $0 $0 0 $0 #REF! Traffic Control LS $100,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $0 $0 $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $40,000 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $75,000 1 $75,000 1 $75,000 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 48" RCP LF $260 1,004 $261,040 1,004 $261,040 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $75,000 1 $75,000 1 $75,000 0 $0 Subtototal $411,040 $411,040 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $61,656 $61,656 $0 Engineering (10%) $41,104 $41,104 $0 Construction Management (15%) $61,656 $61,656 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $575,456 $575,456 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\KB\Project 3A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Gateway Centre Condos - KB Homes PROJECT 3A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $575,456 $575,456 $0 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-081-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 AP#232-081-06 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Contingency (25%) $0 $0 $0 Total R/W $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTALS $575,456 $575,456 $0 Breakdown Design $41,104 R/W $0 Const. $534,352 Total $575,456 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Avalon Bay\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Avalon Anaheim Stadium - Avalon Bay PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $12,500 1 $12,500 0.60 $7,500 0 $5,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $2,500 1 $2,500 0.60 $1,500 0 $1,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 285 $570 285 $570 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 2,850 $1,425 2,850 $1,425 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 805 $16,100 805 $16,100 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 3,720 $22,320 3,720 $22,320 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 285 $4,845 $0 285 $4,845 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 310 $6,200 310 $6,200 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 1,860 $9,300 $0 1,860 $9,300 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 24,750 $34,650 $0 24,750 $34,650 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 310 $6,200 $0 310 $6,200 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $7,500 1 $7,500 1.00 $7,500 0 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 8 $36,000 $0 8 $36,000 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 560 $3,360 $0 560 $3,360 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 1,592 $4,776 $0 1,592 $4,776 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 1,592 $4,776 $0 1,592 $4,776 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 0.05 $10,750 $0 0.05 $10,750 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 0.25 $45,000 0.25 $45,000 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $335,000 0.05 $16,750 0.05 $16,750 0 $0 26 Street Light System LS $420,000 0.05 $21,000 $0 0.05 $21,000 27 Signing and Striping LS $65,000 0.05 $3,250 $0 0.05 $3,250 28 Traffic Control LS $170,000 0.05 $8,500 0.05 $8,500 0 $0 Subtototal $278,272 $133,365 $144,907 Construction Contingency (15%) $41,741 $20,005 $21,736 Engineering (10%) $27,827 $13,337 $14,491 Construction Management (15%) $41,741 $20,005 $21,736 TOTAL ROADWAY $389,581 $186,711 $202,870 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $10,000 1 $10,000 1 $10,000 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 382 $168,080 382 $168,080 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 4 $20,000 4 $20,000 0 $0 Subtototal $198,080 $198,080 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $29,712 $29,712 $0 Engineering (10%) $19,808 $19,808 $0 Construction Management (15%) $29,712 $29,712 $0 TOTAL SEWER $277,312 $277,312 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Avalon Bay\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Avalon Anaheim Stadium - Avalon Bay PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $666,893 $464,023 $202,870 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 UPRR SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#082-241-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 16 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 17 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 18 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 19 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 20 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 21 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 22 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 23 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 25 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 26 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Hanover (Element Point) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Avalon (2100 @ PT) SF $75 2,220 $166,500 2,220 $166,500 0 $0 Subtototal $166,500 $166,500 $0 Contingency (25%) $41,625 $41,625 $0 Total R/W $208,125 $208,125 $0 GRAND TOTALS $875,018 $672,148 $202,870 Breakdown Design $33,145 R/W $208,125 Const. $430,879 Total $672,148 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\West Millenium\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Platinum Triangle Condos - West Millenium PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $7,500 1 $7,500 $0 1 $7,500 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,500 1 $1,500 $0 1 $1,500 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 230 $460 $0 230 $460 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 2,300 $1,150 $0 2,300 $1,150 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 380 $7,600 $0 380 $7,600 7 AC/AB SF $6 3,700 $22,200 $0 3,700 $22,200 8 Curb LF $17 0 $0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 230 $4,600 $0 230 $4,600 10 Sidewalk SF $5 2,400 $12,000 $0 2,400 $12,000 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 0 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 230 $4,600 $0 230 $4,600 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $4,500 1 $4,500 $0 1 $4,500 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 5 $22,500 $0 5 $22,500 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 1,080 $3,240 $0 1,080 $3,240 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 1,080 $3,240 $0 1,080 $3,240 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 1 $15,000 $0 1 $15,000 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 0.04 $8,600 $0 0.04 $8,600 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $335,000 0.04 $13,400 $0 0.04 $13,400 26 Street Light System LS $420,000 0.04 $16,800 $0 0.04 $16,800 27 Signing and Striping LS $65,000 0.04 $2,600 $0 0.04 $2,600 28 Traffic Control LS $170,000 0.04 $6,800 $0 0.04 $6,800 Subtototal $158,290 $0 $158,290 Construction Contingency (15%) $23,744 $0 $23,744 Engineering (10%) $15,829 $0 $15,829 Construction Management (15%) $23,744 $0 $23,744 TOTAL ROADWAY $221,606 $0 $221,606 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\West Millenium\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Platinum Triangle Condos - West Millenium PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $221,606 $0 $221,606 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 UPRR SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#082-241-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 16 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 17 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 18 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 19 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 20 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 21 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 22 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 23 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 25 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 4,260 $319,500 $0 4,260 $319,500 26 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Hanover (Element Point) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Avalon (2100 @ PT) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $319,500 $0 $319,500 Contingency (25%) $79,875 $0 $79,875 Total R/W $399,375 $0 $399,375 GRAND TOTALS $620,981 $0 $620,981 Breakdown Design $0 R/W $0 Const. $0 Total $0 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\BRE\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Park - BRE PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $20,000 1 $20,000 $0 1 $20,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $4,000 1 $4,000 $0 1 $4,000 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 995 $1,990 $0 995 $1,990 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 9,950 $4,975 $0 9,950 $4,975 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 0 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 1,660 $33,200 $0 1,660 $33,200 7 AC/AB SF $6 15,920 $95,520 $0 15,920 $95,520 8 Curb LF $17 0 $0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 995 $19,900 $0 995 $19,900 10 Sidewalk SF $5 5,970 $29,850 $0 5,970 $29,850 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 0 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 995 $19,900 $0 995 $19,900 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $12,000 1 $12,000 $0 1 $12,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 25 $112,500 $0 25 $112,500 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 6,470 $19,410 $0 6,470 $19,410 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 6,470 $19,410 $0 6,470 $19,410 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 0.07 $15,050 $0 0.07 $15,050 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $335,000 0.07 $23,450 $0 0.07 $23,450 26 Street Light System LS $420,000 0.07 $29,400 $0 0.07 $29,400 27 Signing and Striping LS $65,000 0.07 $4,550 $0 0.07 $4,550 28 Traffic Control LS $170,000 0.07 $11,900 $0 0.07 $11,900 Subtototal $477,005 $0 $477,005 Construction Contingency (15%) $71,551 $0 $71,551 Engineering (10%) $47,701 $0 $47,701 Construction Management (15%) $71,551 $0 $71,551 TOTAL ROADWAY $667,807 $0 $667,807 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\BRE\Project 1A Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Park - BRE PROJECT 1A Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $667,807 $0 $667,807 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#082-241-15 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 UPRR SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#082-241-11 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#082-241-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#082-260-57 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#082-260-67 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 AP#082-260-68 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 8 AP#082-260-69 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 9 AP#083-250-64 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 10 AP#083-250-45 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 11 AP#083-751-03 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 12 AP#083-751-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 13 AP#083-751-13 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 14 AP#083-751-14 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 15 AP#083-751-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 16 AP#082-260-54 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 17 AP#232-021-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 18 AP#232-021-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 19 AP#083-260-70 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 20 AP#083-250-39 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 21 AP#253-531-16 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 22 AP#253-531-17 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 23 AP#082-241-18 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Lennar (A Town Metro) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 25 West Millenium (PT Condominiums) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 26 BRE (Stadium Park) SF $75 7,080 $531,000 $0 7,080 $531,000 27 Hanover (Element Point) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Avalon (2100 @ PT) SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $531,000 $0 $531,000 Contingency (25%) $132,750 $0 $132,750 Total R/W $663,750 $0 $663,750 GRAND TOTALS $1,331,557 $0 $1,331,557 Breakdown Design $0 R/W $0 Const. $0 Total $0 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation 2C Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Gateway - PROJECT 2C Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $10,000 1 $10,000 1 $10,000 0 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $2,000 1 $2,000 1 $2,000 0 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 500 $1,000 500 $1,000 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 5,000 $2,500 5,000 $2,500 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 740 $14,800 740 $14,800 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 2,000 $12,000 2,000 $12,000 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 500 $10,000 500 $10,000 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 3,500 $17,500 $0 3,500 $17,500 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 500 $10,000 $0 500 $10,000 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $6,000 1 $6,000 $0 1 $6,000 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Canopy Tree (median) EA $1,750 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Canopy Tree (Parkway) EA $1,750 13 $22,750 $0 13 $22,750 17 Fan Palm (Parkway) EA $2,700 14 $37,800 $0 14 $37,800 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 3,000 $9,000 $0 3,000 $9,000 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 3,000 $9,000 $0 3,000 $9,000 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Communication System LS $20,000 0.75 $15,000 0.75 $15,000 0 $0 25 Street Light System LS $40,000 0.75 $30,000 0.75 $30,000 0 $0 26 Signing and Striping LS $7,500 0.25 $1,875 0.25 $1,875 0 $0 27 Traffic Control LS $30,000 0.50 $15,000 0.50 $15,000 0 $0 Subtototal $226,225 $114,175 $112,050 Construction Contingency (15%) $33,934 $17,126 $16,808 Engineering (10%) $22,623 $11,418 $11,205 Construction Management (15%) $33,934 $17,126 $16,808 TOTAL ROADWAY $316,715 $159,845 $156,870 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $40,000 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 $0 $0 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 48" RCP LF $260 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $25,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation 2C Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Gateway - PROJECT 2C Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Total Eligible Reimbursement E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $316,715 $159,845 $156,870 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 Gateway SF $75 3,900 $292,500 3,900 $292,500 0 $0 Subtototal $292,500 $292,500 $0 Contingency (25%) $73,125 $73,125 $0 Total R/W $365,625 $365,625 $0 GRAND TOTALS $682,340 $525,470 $156,870 Breakdown Design $11,418 R/W $365,625 Const. $148,428 Total $525,470 Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining Total Eligible Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Stadium Towers\Project 1B Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Towers PROJECT 1B Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost A.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $3,500 1 $3,500 1 $3,500 0 $0 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,500 1 $1,500 1 $1,500 0 $0 3 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter LF $2 45 $90 45 $90 0 $0 4 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF $0.50 500 $250 500 $250 0 $0 5 Remove Existing Raised Median SF $2.00 $0 $0 0 $0 6 Excavation CY $20 210 $4,200 210 $4,200 0 $0 7 AC/AB SF $6 140 $840 140 $840 0 $0 8 Curb LF $17 $0 $0 0 $0 9 Curb and Gutter LF $20 40 $800 40 $800 0 $0 10 Sidewalk SF $5 500 $2,500 500 $2,500 0 $0 11 Roadway Grind & Overlay SF $1.40 $0 $0 0 $0 12 Off Site Improvements LF $20 80 $1,600 80 $1,600 0 $0 13 Utility Modifications/Adjustments LS $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000 0 $0 14 Retaining Wall SF $40 $0 $0 0 $0 15 Date Palms (median) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 16 Date Palms (parkway) EA $4,500 $0 $0 0 $0 17 Median Hardscape SF $6 $0 $0 0 $0 18 Median Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 19 Median Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 20 Parkway Groundcover SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 21 Parkway Irrigation SF $3 $0 $0 0 $0 22 Bus Shelter w/street Furniture EA $15,000 $0 $0 0 $0 23 Palm Tree Uplighting LS $215,000 $0 $0 0 $0 24 Traffic Signal Modification EA $180,000 $0 $0 0 $0 25 Communication System LS $335,000 $0 $0 0 $0 26 Street Light System LS $420,000 $0 $0 0 $0 27 Signing and Striping LS $65,000 $0 $0 0 $0 28 Traffic Control LS $170,000 0.01 $1,700 0.01 $1,700 0 $0 Subtototal $21,980 $21,980 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $3,297 $3,297 $0 Engineering (10%) $2,198 $2,198 $0 Construction Management (15%) $3,297 $3,297 $0 TOTAL ROADWAY $30,772 $30,772 $0 B.SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS $25,000 $0 $0 0 $0 2 8" Sewer LF $400 $0 $0 0 $0 3 12" Sewer LF $420 $0 $0 0 $0 4 15" Sewer LF $440 $0 $0 0 $0 5 18" Sewer LF $460 $0 $0 0 $0 6 21"Sewer LF $480 $0 $0 0 $0 7 24" Sewer LF $500 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Sewer Manhole EA $5,000 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL SEWER $0 $0 $0 C.STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization LS 2 18" RCP LF $140 $0 $0 0 $0 3 24"RCP LF $160 $0 $0 0 $0 4 30"RCP LF $175 $0 $0 0 $0 5 36" RCP LF $200 $0 $0 0 $0 6 8' x 8' RCB LF $800 $0 $0 0 $0 7 10' X 10' RCB LF $950 $0 $0 0 $0 8 Drainage System Modifications LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL STORM DRAIN $0 $0 $0 D.ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 Undergrounding Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (10%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $0 $0 $0 Total Eligible Reimbursement Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2/2 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Stadium Towers\Project 1B Reimbursement Cost Summary 06152010.xlsx PLATINUM TRIANGLE KATELLA AVENUE from Anaheim Blvd. to 700' e/o State College Stadium Towers PROJECT 1B Developer Reimbursement Costs I.CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Total Eligible Reimbursement Balance Remaining Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) E.WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Water Line Improvements LS $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Construction Contingency (15%) $0 $0 $0 Engineering (10%) $0 $0 $0 Construction Management (15%) $0 $0 $0 TOTAL WATER $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $30,772 $30,772 $0 II. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 AP#232-011-47 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 2 AP#232-011-02 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 3 AP#253-622-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 4 AP#253-532-12 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 5 AP#253-532-04 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 6 AP#253-623-01 SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 7 SCRRA R/W SF $75 $0 $0 0 $0 Subtototal $0 $0 $0 Contingency (25%) $0 $0 $0 Total R/W $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTALS $30,772 $30,772 $0 Breakdown Design $2,198 R/W $0 Const. $28,574 Total $30,772 Total Eligible Reimbursement Work Completed @ ROF (4/22/08) Balance Remaining ---PAGE BREAK--- ID Task Name Duration 1 1 - KATELLA AVENUE 1366 days 2 1A - 600' E/O LEWIS TO 700' E/O STATE COLLEGE 642 days 3 Administration 4 emo 4 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 5 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 6 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 7 Final PS&E 12 emo 8 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 9 Construction 12 emo 10 1B - 700' E/O STATE COLLEGE TO W/O SR-57 965 days 11 Administration 4 emo 12 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 13 Final PS&E 9 emo 14 FHWA Review & Approval (Hwy of National Significance) 18 emo 15 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 16 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 17 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 18 Construction 9 emo 19 1C - E/O SR-57 TO EAST CITY LIMIT 836 days 20 Administration 4 emo 21 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 22 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 23 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 24 Final PS&E 12 emo 25 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 26 Construction 9 emo 27 1D - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD TO 600' E/O LEWIS 1252 days 28 Administration 4 emo 29 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 30 Final PS&E 12 emo 31 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 32 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 33 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 34 Construction 12 emo 35 2 - STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD 2195 days 36 2A - ORANGEWOOD TO 200' S/O KATELLA 1029 days 37 Administration 6 emo 38 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 39 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 40 Final PS&E 12 emo 41 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 42 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 43 Construction 12 emo 1 - KATELLA AVENUE - 600' E/O LEWIS TO 700' E/O STATE COLLEGE Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 1B - 700' E/O STATE COLLEGE TO W/O SR-57 Administration Preliminary Engineering Final PS&E FHWA Review & Approval (Hwy of National Significance) Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Bid / Award / NTP Construction 1C - E/O SR-57 TO EAST CITY LIMIT Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 1D - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD TO 600' E/O LEWIS Administration Preliminary Engineering Final PS&E Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Bid / Award / NTP Construction 2 - STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD 2A - ORANGEWOOD TO 200' S/O KATELLA Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Final PS&E Right of Way Acquisition Bid / Award / NTP Construction Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquistion Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Task Split Milestone Summary Progress CITY OF ANAHEIM PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS BACKBONE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE Revised 07/20/2010 \\kcg-server\KCG\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Schedule\Schedule rev13.mpp Mon 7/26/10 11:41 AM Page 1 / 5 Fiscal Year = July 1 - June 30 emo = Elapsed (Calendar) Months ---PAGE BREAK--- ID Task Name Duration 44 2B - 200' S/O KATELLA TO N/O CERRITOS (grade sep.) 2130 days 45 RR Agreeements / PUC Approval 24 emo 46 Administration 4 emo 47 Preliminary Engineering 6 emo 48 Final PS&E 15 emo 49 Right of Way Engineering 6 emo 50 Right of Way Acquisition 18 emo 51 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 52 Construction 30 emo 53 2C - 1,000' S/O ORANGEWOOD TO ORANGEWOOD 793 days 54 Administration 4 emo 55 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 56 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 57 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 58 Final PS&E 12 emo 59 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 60 Construction 9 emo 61 3 - ORANGEWOOD AVENUE 2052 days 62 3A - ANAHEIM WAY TO STATE COLLEGE 856 days 63 Administration 4 emo 64 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 65 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 66 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 67 Final PS&E 12 emo 68 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 69 Construction 12 emo 70 3B - STATE COLLEGE TO W/O SANTA ANA RIVER 1122 days 71 Administration 4 emo 72 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 73 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 74 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 75 Final PS&E 12 emo 76 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 77 Construction 12 emo 78 3C - SANTA ANA RIVER BRIDGE WIDENING 1817 days 79 Administration 4 emo 80 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 81 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 82 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 83 Final PS&E 12 emo 84 Permitting 12 emo 85 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 86 Construction 12 emo 2B - 200' S/O KATELLA TO N/O CERRITOS (grade sep.) RR Agreeements / PUC Approval Administration Preliminary Engineering Final PS&E Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Bid / Award / NTP Construction 2C - 1,000' S/O ORANGEWOOD TO ORANGEWOOD Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 3 - ORANGEWOOD AVENUE 3A - ANAHEIM WAY TO STATE COLLEGE Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 3B - STATE COLLEGE TO W/O SANTA ANA RIVER Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 3C - SANTA ANA RIVER BRIDGE WIDENING Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Permitting Bid / Award / NTP Construction Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquistion Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Task Split Milestone Summary Progress CITY OF ANAHEIM PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS BACKBONE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE Revised 07/20/2010 \\kcg-server\KCG\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Schedule\Schedule rev13.mpp Mon 7/26/10 11:41 AM Page 2 / 5 Fiscal Year = July 1 - June 30 emo = Elapsed (Calendar) Months ---PAGE BREAK--- ID Task Name Duration 87 4 - GENE AUTRY WAY 1102 days 88 4A - E/O I-5 TO STATE COLLEGE 730 days 89 Administration 4 emo 90 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 91 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 92 Final PS&E 12 emo 93 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 94 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 95 Construction 9 emo 96 4B - E/O I-5 TO HASTER 450 days 97 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 98 Construction 18 emo 99 5 - ANAHEIM WAY 600 days 100 5 - 700' N/O KATELLA TO ORANGEWOOD 600 days 101 Administration 4 emo 102 Final PS&E 6 emo 103 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 104 Construction 12 emo 105 6 - LEWIS STREET 792 days 106 6A - GENE AUTRY TO N/O KATELLA 792 days 107 Administration 4 emo 108 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 109 Right of Way Acquisition 18 emo 110 Final PS&E 12 emo 111 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 112 Construction 12 emo 113 6B - N/O KATELLA TO CERRITOS (UNFUNDED) 0 days 114 Administration 0 days 115 Preliminary Engineering 0 days 116 Right of Way Engineering 0 days 117 Right of Way Acquisition 0 days 118 Final PS&E 0 days 119 Bid / Award / NTP 0 days 120 Construction 0 days 121 7 - DOUGLASS ROAD 2471 days 122 7A - SR 57 TO KATELLA (REIMBURSEMENT TO ARTIC) 578 days 123 Final PS&E 12 emo 124 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 125 Construction 9 emo 4 - GENE AUTRY WAY 4A - E/O I-5 TO STATE COLLEGE Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Final PS&E Right of Way Acquisition Bid / Award / NTP Construction 4B - E/O I-5 TO HASTER Bid / Award / NTP Construction 5 - ANAHEIM WAY 5 - 700' N/O KATELLA TO ORANGEWOOD Administration Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 6 - LEWIS STREET 6A - GENE AUTRY TO N/O KATELLA Administration Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 7 - DOUGLASS ROAD 57 TO KATELLA (REIMBURSEMENT TO ARTIC) Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquistion Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Task Split Milestone Summary Progress CITY OF ANAHEIM PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS BACKBONE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE Revised 07/20/2010 \\kcg-server\KCG\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Schedule\Schedule rev13.mpp Mon 7/26/10 11:41 AM Page 3 / 5 Fiscal Year = July 1 - June 30 emo = Elapsed (Calendar) Months ---PAGE BREAK--- ID Task Name Duration 126 7B - KATELLA TO 750' N/O KATELLA 579 days 127 Administration 4 emo 128 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 129 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 130 Right of Way Acquisition 9 emo 131 Final PS&E 9 emo 132 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 133 Construction 9 emo 134 7C - 1,000' N/O KATELLA TO CERRITOS (UNFUNDED) 0 days 135 Administration 0 days 136 Preliminary Engineering 0 days 137 Right of Way Engineering 0 days 138 Right of Way Acquisition 0 days 139 Final PS&E 0 days 140 Bid / Award / NTP 0 days 141 Construction 0 days 142 8 - NEW WATER WELL 1162 days 143 Identify Site 12 emo 144 Administration 4 emo 145 Preliminary Engineering 6 emo 146 Final PS&E 12 emo 147 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 148 Construction 12 emo 149 9 - NEW FIRE STATION 986 days 150 Administration 4 emo 151 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 152 Final PS&E 12 emo 153 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 154 Bid / Award / NTP 3 emo 155 Construction 12 emo 156 10 - MAJOR STORM DRAIN 858 days 157 10A - MAJOR STORM DRAIN (FUNDED) 858 days 158 Administration 4 emo 159 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 160 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 161 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 162 Final PS&E 12 emo 163 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 164 Construction 12 emo 165 10B - MAJOR STORM DRAIN (UNFUNDED) 0 days 166 Administration 0 days 167 Preliminary Engineering 0 days 168 Right of Way Engineering 0 days 169 Right of Way Acquisition 0 days 170 Final PS&E 0 days 171 Bid / Award / NTP 0 days 172 Construction 0 days 7B - KATELLA TO 750' N/O KATELLA Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 8 - NEW WATER WELL Identify Site Administration Preliminary Engineering Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 9 - NEW FIRE STATION Administration Preliminary Engineering Final PS&E Right of Way Acquisition Bid / Award / NTP Construction 10 - MAJOR STORM DRAIN 10A - MAJOR STORM DRAIN (FUNDED) Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquistion Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Task Split Milestone Summary Progress CITY OF ANAHEIM PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS BACKBONE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE Revised 07/20/2010 \\kcg-server\KCG\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Schedule\Schedule rev13.mpp Mon 7/26/10 11:41 AM Page 4 / 5 Fiscal Year = July 1 - June 30 emo = Elapsed (Calendar) Months ---PAGE BREAK--- ID Task Name Duration 173 11 - SR 57 IMPROVEMENTS 793 days 174 Administration 4 emo 175 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 176 Final PS&E 12 emo 177 Permitting 6 emo 178 Bid / Award / NTP 6 emo 179 Construction 12 emo 180 12 - CITY OF ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS 814 days 181 Administration 4 emo 182 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 183 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 184 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 185 Final PS&E 12 emo 186 Bid / Award / NTP 4 emo 187 Construction 12 emo 188 13 - CITY OF ORANGE INTERSECTIONS 814 days 189 Administration 4 emo 190 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 191 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 192 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 193 Final PS&E 12 emo 194 Bid / Award / NTP 4 emo 195 Construction 12 emo 196 14 - CERRITOS AVENUE 814 days 197 14A - 600' W/O STATE COLLEGE TO 600' E/O STATE COLLEGE 814 days 198 Administration 4 emo 199 Preliminary Engineering 3 emo 200 Right of Way Engineering 3 emo 201 Right of Way Acquisition 12 emo 202 Final PS&E 12 emo 203 Bid / Award / NTP 4 emo 204 Construction 12 emo 205 14B - 600' E/O STATE COLLEGE TO DOUGLASS (UNFUNDED) 0 days 206 Administration 0 days 207 Preliminary Engineering 0 days 208 Right of Way Engineering 0 days 209 Right of Way Acquisition 0 days 210 Final PS&E 0 days 211 Bid / Award / NTP 0 days 212 Construction 0 days 213 15 - SUNKIST 0 days 214 15 - HOWELL TO CERRITOS (UNFUNDED) 0 days 215 Administration 0 days 216 Preliminary Engineering 0 days 217 Right of Way Engineering 0 days 218 Right of Way Acquisition 0 days 219 Final PS&E 0 days 220 Bid / Award / NTP 0 days 221 Construction 0 days 11 - SR 57 IMPROVEMENTS Administration Preliminary Engineering Final PS&E Permitting Bid / Award / NTP Construction 12 - CITY OF ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 13 - CITY OF ORANGE INTERSECTIONS Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction 14 - CERRITOS AVENUE 14A - 600' W/O STATE COLLEGE TO 600' E/O STATE COLLEGE Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquisition Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Administration Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Engineering Right of Way Acquistion Final PS&E Bid / Award / NTP Construction Task Split Milestone Summary Progress CITY OF ANAHEIM PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS BACKBONE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE Revised 07/20/2010 \\kcg-server\KCG\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Schedule\Schedule rev13.mpp Mon 7/26/10 11:41 AM Page 5 / 5 Fiscal Year = July 1 - June 30 emo = Elapsed (Calendar) Months ---PAGE BREAK--- Longitude: -117.[PHONE REDACTED] Latitude: 33.[PHONE REDACTED] Name: Anaheim Stadium Altitude: 0.0000 Longitude: -117.[PHONE REDACTED] Latitude: 33.[PHONE REDACTED] Name: Platinum Triangl Altitude: 0.0000 CMS CMS 13’ 12’ CMS CMS CMS CMS CMS 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 43’ 43’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 12’ 11’ 11’ 13’ 54’ 32’ 66’ 32’ 54’ 32’ 32’ 56’ 51’ 45’ 64’ 66’ 76’ 45’ 64’ 45’ 45’ 53’ 53’ PLATINUM TRIANGLE BOUNDARY CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN 1D 1C 7B 2B 4A 3B 3A 6A 5 3C *1B *HIGHWAY OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 2A 2C 9 4B 8 1D 7A 11 PREPARED BY: REVISION: JULY 2010 SCALE: 1" = 400’ l:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Design Alt2\Sheets\zConstructionPhasing.dgn 9:59:37 AM 7/26/2010 USER: Platinum PDF.plt textsub.tbl 400.0000 ft / IN. SCALE: EG CONSTRUCTION PHASING SUMMARY DESCRIPTION PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT # 5 6A LEWIS STREET GENE AUTRY WAY KATELLA AVENUE SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE DOUGLASS ROAD ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SR-57 HOWELL AVENUE SUNKIST STREET CERRITOS AVENUE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD METROLINK METROLINK I-5 SANTA ANA RIVER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD S DUPONT DRIVE S DUPONT DRIVE RAMPART STREET TOWNE CENTER PLACE S TOWNE CENTER PLACE STADIUM WAY SR-57 SANTA ANA RIVER S MANCHESTER AVENUE S SANTA CRUZ STREET E STANFORD COURT WALNUT STREET ANAHEIM WAY HASTER STREET 14A 14A 12 13 ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS ORANGE INTERSECTIONS 7A 7B 7C 8 9 10A 10B 11 12 13 14A 14B 15 DOUGLASS ROAD – SR-57 to Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – Katella to 750’ n/o Katella DOUGLASS ROAD – 1,000’ n/o Katella to Cerritos NEW WATER WELL NEW FIRE STATION MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Funded) MAJOR STORM DRAIN (Unfunded) S/B SR-57 IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS CITY OF ORANGE INTERSECTIONS CERRITOS AVENUE – 550’ w/o State College to 600’ e/o State College CERRITOS AVENUE – 600’ e/o State College to Douglass SUNKIST STREET – Howell to Cerritos KATELLA AVENUE – 600’ e/o Lewis to 350’ e/o State College KATELLA AVENUE – 350’ e/o State College to w/o SR-57 KATELLA AVENUE – e/o SR-57 to East City Limit KATELLA AVENUE – Anaheim Boulevard to 600’ e/o Lewis STATE COLLEGE BLVD – Orangewood to 300’ s/o Katella STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 300’ s/o Katella to Cerritos (UPRR Grade Separation) STATE COLLEGE BLVD – 1,000’ s/o Orangewood to Orangewood ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Anahiem Way to w/o State College ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River ORANGEWOOD AVENUE – Santa Ana River Bridge Widening GENE AUTRY WAY – I-5 to State College GENE AUTRY WAY – w/o I-5 ANAHEIM WAY – 700’ n/o Katella to Orangewood LEWIS STREET – Gene Autry to n/o Katella LEWIS STREET – n/o Katella to Cerritos 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 1A STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION 2012 2015 2013 2015 2016 2020 2016 2020 2017 2020 2014 2012 2018 2020 tbd-unfunded 2012 2019 tbd-unfunded 2017 2018 2019 tbd-unfunded 2020 2020 2020 2020 tbd-unfunded tbd-unfunded 10A 10A ---PAGE BREAK--- PLATINUM TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE CASH FLOW SUMMARY Project Total City Developer Total desig. Street Limits Budget Reimbursements Reimbursements 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $ E $507,768 $126,325 $381,443 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $507,768 1a Katella 600' e/o Lewis to 350' e/o State College R $3,233,858 $225,000 $3,008,858 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,233,858 C $7,512,978 $1,642,219 $0 $6,046,882 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,689,101 E $447,701 $2,198 $0 $0 $472,634 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $474,832 1b Katella 350' e/o State College to w/o SR 57 R $1,488,281 $0 $0 $0 $789,459 $813,142 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,602,601 C $6,435,108 $28,574 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,210,610 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,239,184 E $281,653 $0 $281,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,653 1c Katella e/o SR 57 to East City Limit R $974,063 $0 $0 $1,003,285 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,003,285 C $3,961,485 $0 $0 $1,020,082 $3,152,055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,172,137 E $731,278 $0 $731,278 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $731,278 1d Katella Anaheim Blvd. to 600' e/o Lewis R $7,373,906 $0 $0 $0 $6,258,382 $1,611,533 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,869,915 C $9,962,611 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,531,848 $4,485,203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,017,051 Subtotal Katella $42,910,690 $2,024,316 $4,403,232 $8,070,249 $10,672,529 $8,956,524 $11,695,813 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,822,663 E $399,199 $35,951 $0 $0 $385,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $421,321 2a State College Orangewood to 300' s/o Katella R $2,619,375 $118,125 $0 $0 $0 $2,733,183 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,851,308 C $4,980,154 $467,357 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,539,596 $2,615,784 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,622,738 E $1,507,657 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $848,441 $873,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,722,334 2b State College 300' s/o Katella to Cerritos (grade sep.) R $9,630,063 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,581,941 $5,749,399 $0 $0 $0 $11,331,341 C $20,443,442 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,514,286 $11,653,713 $12,003,325 $26,171,324 E $147,925 $11,418 $0 $0 $0 $89,499 $61,456 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $162,373 2c State College 1000' s/o Orangewood to Orangewood R $731,250 $365,625 $0 $0 $0 $199,764 $205,757 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $771,146 C $1,725,216 $148,428 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,827,929 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,976,357 Subtotal State College $42,184,281 $1,146,904 $0 $0 $385,370 $3,022,446 $3,655,250 $10,899,549 $5,749,399 $2,514,286 $11,653,713 $12,003,325 $51,030,242 E $177,414 $41,104 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,586 $69,069 $0 $210,760 3a Orangewood Anaheim Way to w/o State College R $463,125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $284,793 $293,336 $0 $578,129 C $5,810,447 $534,352 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,884,107 $7,418,459 E $709,103 $0 $0 $0 $75,229 $697,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $772,599 3b Orangewood e/o State College to w/o Santa Ana River R $5,446,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,129,978 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,129,978 C $12,420,913 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,199,621 $7,415,610 $0 $0 $0 $14,615,231 E $514,103 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,387 $569,054 $0 $0 $630,440 3c Orangewood Santa Ana River Bridge R $87,656 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,806 $0 $0 $107,806 C $6,683,336 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,233,125 $4,360,119 $8,593,244 Subtotal Orangewood $32,312,503 $575,456 $0 $0 $75,229 $697,370 $6,129,978 $7,199,621 $7,476,996 $1,062,239 $4,595,531 $11,244,226 $39,056,646 E $515,806 $139,430 $0 $0 $399,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $538,727 4a Gene Autry I-5 to State College R $1,672,313 $0 $0 $0 $1,774,157 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,774,157 C $8,175,473 $1,812,590 $0 $0 $0 $6,952,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,765,484 E $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4b Gene Autry West of I-5 R $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 C $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000 Subtotal Gene Autry $20,363,592 $1,952,020 $10,000,000 $0 $2,173,454 $6,952,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,078,368 E $432,273 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $501,123 $0 $0 $0 $0 $501,123 5 Anaheim Way 700' n/o Katella to Orangewood R $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C $7,059,543 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,214,732 $4,341,174 $0 $0 $8,555,905 Subtotal Anaheim Way $7,491,816 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $501,123 $4,214,732 $4,341,174 $0 $0 $9,057,028 E $630,443 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $310,146 $479,176 $0 $789,322 6A Lewis Gene Autry to n/o Katella R $24,898,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,311,134 $15,770,468 $0 $31,081,602 C $8,663,220 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,303,537 $11,303,537 Subtotal Lewis $34,192,369 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,621,280 $16,249,644 $11,303,537 $43,174,461 E $187,001 $0 $0 $0 $198,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $198,389 7A Douglass *SR-57 to Katella R $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C $2,951,119 $0 $0 $0 $3,130,842 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,130,842 E $63,829 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,975 $64,656 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,631 7B Douglass Katella to 750' n/o Katella R $1,060,781 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C $904,772 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $734,215 $324,104 $0 $0 $0 $1,058,319 Subtotal Douglass $2,029,382 $0 $0 $0 $3,329,232 $6,975 $64,656 $734,215 $324,104 $0 $0 $0 $4,459,181 E $346,692 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,884 $351,184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $389,068 8 New Water Well (location tbd) R $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C $3,225,859 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,617,758 $1,155,553 $0 $0 $0 $3,773,312 Subtotal New Well $3,572,551 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,884 $351,184 $2,617,758 $1,155,553 $0 $0 $0 $4,162,380 E $556,677 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,890 $64,534 $0 $0 $0 $0 $628,425 9 New Fire Station R $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,159,274 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,159,274 C $8,780,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,242,122 $5,399,385 $0 $0 $10,641,507 Subtotal New Fire Station $10,337,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,890 $1,223,808 $5,242,122 $5,399,385 $0 $0 $12,429,206 E $699,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $81,033 $751,178 $0 $0 $0 $832,212 10A Major Storm Drain R $2,187,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,611,989 $0 $0 $0 $2,611,989 C $9,087,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,587,932 $5,755,570 $0 $11,343,502 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $11,973,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $81,033 $3,363,168 $5,587,932 $5,755,570 $0 $14,787,703 E $344,933 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,187 $381,802 $0 $0 $422,988 11 SR 57 Improvements R $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C $2,989,415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,650,831 $1,170,153 $3,820,984 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $3,334,348 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,187 $381,802 $2,650,831 $1,170,153 $4,243,972 E $119,553 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,518 $75,723 $0 $149,241 12 City of Anaheim Intersections R $2,345,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,442,585 $1,485,862 $0 $2,928,447 C $1,554,180 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $196,879 $1,825,067 $2,021,946 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $4,019,640 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,516,102 $1,758,464 $1,825,067 $5,099,634 E $6,748 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,150 $4,274 $0 $8,424 13 City of Orange Intersections R $110,850 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,166 $70,211 $0 $138,376 C $87,728 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,113 $103,019 $114,132 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $205,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,315 $85,598 $103,019 $260,932 E $123,967 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,232 $78,519 $0 $154,751 14A Cerritos 550' w/o to 600'e/o State College R $1,681,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,033,959 $1,064,977 $0 $2,098,936 C $1,821,643 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $230,760 $2,139,148 $2,369,908 Subtotal Major Storm Drain $3,627,016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,110,191 $1,374,257 $2,139,148 $4,623,595 #REF! E $9,450,723 $356,426 $1,394,374 $0 $1,530,919 $831,728 $1,889,627 $1,520,584 $853,752 $1,515,487 $706,761 $0 $10,599,659 SUBTOTALS R $69,005,446 $708,750 $5,008,858 $1,003,285 $8,821,997 $5,357,623 $6,335,735 $6,741,215 $8,361,389 $18,248,442 $18,684,855 $0 $79,272,149 C $143,236,031 $4,633,520 $8,000,000 $7,066,964 $6,282,897 $13,484,742 $14,235,409 $14,995,309 $18,352,120 $17,842,777 $24,731,992 $39,788,474 $169,414,204 TOTALS $221,692,200 $2,000,000 $5,698,696 $14,403,232 $8,070,249 $16,635,813 $19,674,094 $22,460,772 $23,257,108 $27,567,261 $37,606,705 $44,123,608 $39,788,474 $261,286,011 Cumulative Total $46,807,990 $66,482,084 $88,942,856 $112,199,963 $139,767,224 $177,373,930 $221,497,537 $261,286,011 Notes: $1,020,082 for 1C represents a 25% construction match for pursuit of grant funds * denotes potential budget for reimbursement to ARTIC project Phase 1 Bonding $30,172,177 Page 1/1 L:\100-Anaheim\001-PlatinumTriangle\Final PT Implementation Plan\Cash Flow Summary Revised 07202010.xlsx ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Appendix K HCD’s Approval Letter for the City’s Housing Element ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---