Document Anaheim_doc_1aea3943b4

5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-213 5.13 5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES 5.13.1 Methodology The potential for adverse impacts on public services and facilities was evaluated based on information provided by service providers concerning current service levels and the ability of the service providers to accommodate the increased demand created by the proposed project. The public services correspondence can be found in Appendix B of this DEIR. In addition to contacting the various public service agencies serving the City of Anaheim, several project specific studies were completed including: “City of Anaheim Water System Baseline Conditions Opportunities and Constraints” (Appendix “City of Anaheim Sanitary Sewers Baseline Conditions Opportunities and Constraints” (Appendix and “City of Anaheim General Plan Update Water, Wastewater and Drainage Analysis of Preferred Plan” (Appendix In addition, the City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan of December 2000 (Public Utilities Department) and the City of Anaheim Water System Planning Study of November 1999 (Parsons Engineering Science) were reviewed for purposes of determining water impacts. These were used to identify the current water distribution system, the current system deficiencies, and recommended system improvements. 5.13.2 Environmental Setting School Services The Anaheim City School District (ACSD), Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD), Orange Unified School District (OUSD), Centralia School District, Magnolia School District, Savanna School District, Fullerton School District, Fullerton Joint Union School District, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Buena Park School District provide educational services to the City of Anaheim. The school facilities associated with each school district are described below. Anaheim City School District The Anaheim City School District operates 23 elementary schools within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.13- 1 provides a listing of elementary schools, grades serviced, year-round enrollment on May 1, 2003, school capacity during the 2002-2003 school year, and the number of portable classrooms that serve the project area. Over the past few years, an influx of immigration within the ACSD has changed the demographics and service needs of the community. This change has impacted the enrollment growth throughout the District. Consequently, the ACSD has been growing at a rate of 400 to 700 pupils per year. The student growth is primarily due to families doubling-up and new housing within the District. The ACSD’s total enrollment for the 2002-2003 school year in grades K-6 was 22,167 students. Planning for future schools in the District includes There are plans for the construction of three new schools, Ponderosa School, expansion of Revere and Mann Elementary Schools, North Central School, and Harbor Campus and numerous modernization projects with interim student housing at the Harbor Campus., in order to help meet the enrollment growth. In addition, there are plans to expand the campuses of Revere School and Horace Mann School. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-214 • The Planning Center May 2004 TABLE 5.13-1 ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT School Grades Serviced School Capacity in 2002/2003 Year-Round Enrollment on 5/1/03 Difference Number of Portables Barton (non-staggered) K-6 670 795 (125) 10 Edison K-6 833 1,241 (408) 13 Franklin K-6 760 1,007 (247) 12 Gauer K-6 608 759 (151) 5 Guinn (non-staggered) K-6 744 931 (187) 12 Henry K-6 785 1,125 (340) 18 Jefferson K-6 614 704 (90) 12 Jefferson II K-6 762 1,058 (296) 12 Juarez K-6 784 1,064 (280) 13 Key (non-staggered) K-6 833 820 13 21 Lincoln K-6 686 913 (227) 6 Loara (non-staggered) K-6 732 832 (100) 10 Madison K-6 633 804 (171) 6 Mann K-6 785 1,107 (322) 12 Marshall (non-staggered) K-6 834 999 (165) 13 Palm Lane K-6 736 1,089 (353) 8 Price (non-staggered) K-6 751 802 (51) 8 Revere K-6 772 1,110 (338) 7 Roosevelt (non-staggered) K-6 648 716 (68) 2 Ross (non-staggered) K-6 959 1,182 (223) 12 Stoddard K-6 732 991 (259) 7 Sunkist K-6 859 1,208 (349) 13 Westmont (non-staggered) K-6 934 910 24 0 Total 17,454 22,167 (4,713) Current seating capacity within the ACSD is reported to be 17,454 students. Based on 2002-2003 current enrollment rates, the District appears to exceed this seating capacity by 4,713 students. Enrollment versus capacity at the elementary schools demonstrates that the elementary schools within the District are operating at about 127% capacity. However, the District’s plans to construct the three new schools, and the planned expansion of two will alleviate the over-capacity enrollments. Anaheim Union High School District The AUHSD operates six high schools, eight junior high schools and three alternative schools within the City of Anaheim. This District provides grades 7-12 education and adult education for much of the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park and Cypress, portions of the cities of La Palma, Stanton, Garden Grove, Fullerton, Los Alamitos, Orange and certain unincorporated areas of Orange County. This District also operates adult education programs. Table 5.13-2 provides a listing of the junior high schools, year- round enrollment on May 1, 2003, school capacity during the 2002-2003 school year, and the number of portable classrooms that serve the project area. Table 5.13-3 provides a listing of high schools, year- round enrollment on May 1, 2003, school capacity during the 2002-2003 school year, and the number of portable classrooms that serve the project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-215 TABLE 5.13-2 ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS School School Capacity in 2002/2003 Year Round Enrollment on 5/1/03 Difference Number of Portables Ball Junior High School 1,377 1,424 (47) 13 Brookhurst Junior High School 1,323 1,314 9 13 Dale Junior High School 1,296 1,321 (25) 16 Orangeview Junior High School 1,161 1,253 (92) 6 South Junior High School 1,539 1,617 (78) 19 Sycamore Junior High School 1,782 1,810 (28) 41 Total 8,478 8,739 (261) TABLE 5.13-3 ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR HIGH SCHOOLS School School Capacity in 2002/2003 Year Round Enrollment on 5/1/03 Difference Number of Portables Anaheim 2,430 2,336 94 25 Katella 2,295 2,158 137 30 Loara 2,133 2,033 100 23 Magnolia 1,647 1,534 113 16 Savanna 2,106 2,047 59 23 Western 1,755 1,612 143 16 Total 12,366 11,720 646 A new junior high school with a capacity for 1,200 students is planned for the northern portion of central Anaheim. Furthermore, all of the schools that currently serve the project area are scheduled to be expanded in the next six years. The entire enrollment in the AUHSD for the year 2002-2003 was 8,739 students at the Junior High Schools and 11,720 students at the High Schools. Current seating capacity within the Anaheim Union High School District is reported to be 8,478 students, at the junior high school level and 12,366 students at the high school level. Based on 2002/2003 enrollment rates, the District appears to exceed the seating capacity at the junior high schools by 261 students, but is 646 students under capacity for the high schools. As such, enrollment versus capacity at the junior high schools demonstrates that the junior high schools within the District are operating at about 103% of capacity. Enrollment versus capacity at the high schools demonstrates that the high schools within the District are operating at about 95% capacity. The new junior high school and the expansion of existing schools will address the over capacity currently experienced. Orange Unified School District The Orange Unified School District (OUSD) serves portions of the City of Anaheim. OUSD has a total of 42 schools (29 elementary schools, five middle schools, four high schools and four special schools) that serve approximately 28,000 total students with an annual budget totaling $111 million. The District is growing at a rate of approximately 2% per year. OUSD’s projections indicate enrollment could increase to more than 50,000 students within the next 20 years. The District has recently implemented a class size reduction program to achieve a student to teacher ratio of 20:1 in grades K-3 and grade 9 (English ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-216 • The Planning Center May 2004 and Math). This program has had a substantial adverse impact on school facilities throughout the District, including schools that would serve the project, by creating the need for additional classrooms. Prior to the implementation of the class size reduction program, sixty students would require two classrooms. After implementation of the 20:1 program, three classrooms would be required. Future State mandates and/or incentives may result in the District expanding the class size reduction (20:1) program to grades 4 to 6, thereby creating the need for additional classrooms for existing students and students generated by new residential developments. However, this program may be discontinued due to the current staff budget shortfall. From about 1995 to the present, the need for additional facilities to house the students generated by new residential development within the project area has been substantial, most notably in the Canyon Rim Elementary School and the Running Springs Elementary School attendance area which, in addition to causing a need for the construction of these schools, has caused a need for new facilities at El Rancho Middle School and Canyon High School. In 1997, OUSD completed the construction of the Running Springs Elementary School. In addition, the Serrano Heights Residential Development, although located within the City of Orange, has impacted and will continue to impact the student enrollment at Anaheim Hills Elementary School, Imperial Elementary School, El Rancho Middle School and Canyon High School, all schools located within the project area. OUSD has ten school facilities that are located within the City of Anaheim in the Hill and Canyon Area. Table 5.13-4 provides a listing of these schools, year-round enrollment in October 2002, school capacity between 2002 and 2003, and the number of portable classrooms that serve the project area. TABLE 5.13-4 ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT School School Capacity in 2002-2003 Year Round Enrollment in 10/02 Difference Number of Portables Anaheim Hills Elementary School 467 420 47 1 Canyon Rim Elementary School 684 707 (23) 14 Crescent Primary Elementary School 353 357 0 Crescent Intermediate Elementary School 827 392 435 0 Imperial Elementary School 485 406 79 1 Nohl Canyon Elementary School 599 585 14 4 Riverdale Elementary School 462 325 137 6 Running Springs Elementary School 741 781 (40) 8 El Rancho Charter Middle School 1,033 1,019 14 3 Canyon High School 1,967 2,042 (75) 24 Total 7,618 7,039 584 OUSD recently prepared a draft of a facilities master plan that calls for improvements to, and expansion of, existing facilities within the project area. In addition, the draft of the facilities master plan calls for the construction of new facilities within the project area to accommodate the students that will be generated by residential development within the Mountain Park Specific Plan area. The entire enrollment in the OUSD at the schools located within the project area for the year 2002-2003 was 3,973 students at the Elementary Schools, 1,019 students at the Junior High School and 2,042 students at the High School. Current seating capacity at schools located within the project area that are within the OUSD is reported to be 4,618 students at the elementary school level, 1,033 students at the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-217 junior high school level and 1,967 students at the high school level. Based on 2002/2003 enrollment rates, the District appears to be 645 students under capacity for the elementary schools, 14 students under capacity at the junior high school level and 75 students over capacity at the high school level. Enrollment versus capacity at the elementary schools demonstrates that the elementary schools within the District are operating at about 86% capacity, the junior high school is operating at about 99% capacity and the high school is operating at about 104% capacity. The Savanna School District The Savanna School District operates three elementary schools within the City of Anaheim and one within the City of Buena Park. Table 5.13-5 provides a listing of elementary schools, enrollment on November 3, 2003, and the number of portable classrooms operated by the Savanna School District. The Savanna School District has been experiencing a decline in attendance levels and it projects that this decline will continue for the next two to three years. According to the Savanna School District, the level of education service need has decreased, as enrollment has declined over the last three years. TABLE 5.13-5 SAVANNA SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name and Address Enrollment on 11/3/03 Number of Portables Cerritos Elementary School 3731 Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim 471 5 Hanson Elementary School 1300 S. Knott Avenue, Anaheim 705 12 Holder Elementary School 9550 Holder Street, Buena Park 583 15 Twila Reid Elementary School 720 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim 690 14 Total 2,449 The Magnolia School District The Magnolia School District operates nine elementary schools within the City of Anaheim and one within the City of Stanton. Table 5.13-6 provides a listing of elementary schools, enrollment on November 15, 2003, and the number of portable classrooms operated by the Magnolia School District. Although four of the schools within the Magnolia School District- Juliette Low School, Mattie Lou Maxwell School, Robert M. Pyles School, and Esther L. Walter School- are over capacity, the District projects a slight 0.5- 1.0% decline in the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-218 • The Planning Center May 2004 TABLE 5.13-6 MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name Enrollment on 11/15/03 Number of Portables Lord Baden-Powell School 718 22 Walt Disney School 715 13 Juliette Low School 757 (capacity is 525) 10 Dr. Peter Marshall School (Stanton) 625 6 Mattie Lou Maxwell School 787 (capacity is 632) 9 Robert M. Pyles School 1037 (capacity is 761) 15 Dr. Jonas Salk School 816 6 Dr. Albert Schweitzer School 698 12 Esther L. Walter School 804 (capacity is 544) 14 Total 6,957 The Centralia School District The Centralia School District, serving portions of the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, and La Palma, operates two elementary schools within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.13-7 provides a listing of these elementary schools and their enrollment numbers in June 2003. The entire enrollment in Centralia elementary schools located within the project area for the year 2002-2003 was 1,527 students. TABLE 5.13-7 CENTRALIA SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name Enrollment in June, 2003 Centralia Elementary School 744 Danbrook Elementary School 783 Total 1,527 Fullerton School District The Fullerton School District does not operate any elementary or junior high schools within the City of Anaheim. However, the District has four elementary schools and one junior high school that are located within approximately one mile of the City of Anaheim boundaries and serve nearby Anaheim residents. Table 5.13-8 provides a listing of these elementary and junior high schools and enrollment numbers for the 2001-2002 school year. The entire enrollment in the Fullerton School District in schools located within approximately 1 mile of the project area according to the latest available figures (2001-2002) was 3,082 students at the elementary school level and 1,047 students at the junior high school level. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-219 TABLE 5.13-8 FULLERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name Enrollment for 2001- 2002 school year Orangethorpe Elementary School 984 Maple Elementary School 572 Richman Elementary School 954 Woodcrest Elementary School 572 Nicolas Junior High School 1,047 Total 4,129 Fullerton Joint Union High School District The Fullerton Joint Union High School District does not operate any high schools within the City of Anaheim and it serves the elementary districts of Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra and Lowell Joint. However, the District has three high schools that are located within approximately one mile of the City of Anaheim boundaries and serve nearby Anaheim residents. Table 5.13-9 provides a listing of these high schools and enrollment numbers for the 2002-2003 school year. TABLE 5.13-9 FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name Enrollment for 2002- 2003 school year Buena Park High School 1,958 La Sierra High School 3,264 Fullerton Union High School 2,016 Total 7,238 Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District The Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District operates three elementary schools and one high school within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.13-10 provides a listing of these elementary and high schools and enrollment numbers for the 2002-2003 school year. The entire enrollment in the Placentia-Yorba Linda School District for schools that serve the proposed project area for the 2002-2003 academic year was 2,837 students at the elementary school level and 2,950 students at the high school level. Garden Grove Unified School District The Garden Grove Unified School District does not operate any schools within the City of Anaheim. However, the District has five elementary schools, four junior high schools, and four high schools that serve students from the City of Anaheim. Table 5.13-11 provides a listing of these schools and enrollment numbers for the 2002-2003 school year. The entire enrollment in the Garden Grove School District in schools serving students from the City of Anaheim for the 2002-2003 school year was 3,054 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-220 • The Planning Center May 2004 students at the elementary school level, 2,707 students at the junior high school level, and 5,816 students at the high school level. TABLE 5.13-10 PLACENTIA-YORBA LINDA SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name Enrollment for 2002- 2003 school year Glenview Elementary School 725 Rio Vista Elementary School 1,510 Woodsboro Elementary School 602 Esperanza High School 2,950 Total 5,787 TABLE 5.13-11 GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name Enrollment for 2002- 2003 school year Bryant Elementary School 744 Faylene Elementary School 635 Garden Park Elementary School 224 Parkview Elementary School 668 Warren Elementary School 783 Bell Intermediate School 766 Lake Intermediate School 597 Ralston Intermediate School 561 Walton Intermediate School 783 Garden Grove High School 1,955 Hare Continuation High School 310 Pacifica High School 1,793 Rancho Alamitos High School 1,758 Total 11,577 Buena Park School District The Buena Park School District does not operate any schools within the City of Anaheim. However, the District has three elementary schools and one junior high school that are located within approximately one mile of the City of Anaheim boundaries and serve nearby Anaheim residents. Table 5.13-12 provides a listing of these schools and enrollment numbers for the 2000-2001 school year. The entire enrollment in the Buena Park School District in schools located within approximately one mile of the project area according to the latest available figures (2000-2001) was 2,179 students at the elementary school level, and 1,085 students at the junior high school level. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-221 TABLE 5.13-12 BUENA PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT School Name Enrollment for 2000- 2001 school year Corey Elementary School 678 Pendleton Elementary School 661 Whitaker Elementary School 840 Buena Park Junior High School 1,085 Total 3,264 North Orange County Community College In January 2003, the North Orange County Community College District opened a new campus, located in the former Martin Luther Hospital building at 1830 West Romneya. Among the courses offered at the campus are programs from The School of Continuing Education, such as hazardous materials handling, environmental compliance, geographic information systems, and computer training, as well as English- as-a-Second Language (ESL), parenting, high school diploma completion, and home decorative arts. In addition, programs specifically for older adults, disabled students, and children will be offered. The District’s Culinary Arts program will also be located on the Anaheim Campus, providing both training and food service to students and staff on campus. Library Services The Anaheim library system consists of a Central Library, four branches, The Mother Colony House, The former Carnegie Library, and a Bookmobile. Central Library The Central Library, located at 500 W. Broadway, is the largest library in the Anaheim system and contains the most comprehensive collections of fiction and nonfiction books and maintains collections in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean. Central Library’s service area is central/downtown Anaheim, and it serves approximately 90,000 local people and approximately 330,000 people in the entire City of Anaheim library system area. The 65,000 square foot Central Library houses a collection of approximately 209,579 volumes. Haskett Library Haskett Library, located at 2650 W. Broadway, serves the west end of West Anaheim and serves approximately 65,305 people. The 7,484 square foot library houses a collection of approximately 42,631 volumes. Euclid Library Euclid Library, located at 1340 S. Euclid, serves the resort area and southeast West Anaheim, serving approximately 73,161 people. The 10,273 square foot library houses a collection of approximately 57,370 volumes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-222 • The Planning Center May 2004 Sunkist Library Sunkist Library, located at 901 S. Sunkist, serves the East Anaheim area, serving approximately 46,431 people. The 10,573 square foot library houses a collection of approximately 57,370 volumes. Canyon Hills The Canyon Hills library, located at 400 Scout Trail in Anaheim Hills, serves the Canyon Hills area, serving 55,428 people. The 18,000 square foot library houses a collection of approximately 109,977 volumes. The Mother Colony House The Mother Colony House, located at 414 North West Street, is the oldest museum in Orange County. The house, built in 1857 as part of the original Colony of German settlers, has been preserved as a monument to Anaheim's past. Tours are given on Wednesday mornings by appointment. The Anaheim Museum The Anaheim Museum, 241 S. Anaheim Blvd., is housed in an original Carnegie Library built in 1908. The Museum, operated by Anaheim Museum Inc, in collaboration with the Library Division, operates this facility, provides tours to schoolchildren, sponsors exhibits, and supports historic An Bookmobile The Bookmobile serves low-income neighborhoods and has a total collection of approximately 13,175 volumes. The vehicle carries 5,000 volumes at any one time. Water Services With the exception of several small areas bordering the City Limits, the Anaheim Public Utilities Department provides water service throughout the City. As of November 2003, the system includes approximately 744 miles of water mains, 61,500 active water meters and over 7,800 fire hydrants, as shown on Figure 5.13-1. The system facilities also include eight water connections to the MWD, 27 active wells, one 920 million gallon (MG) reservoir for untreated water, one 15 MG per day water treatment plant, 12 reservoirs with a total capacity of more than 29 MG for treated water, seven chlorination facilities, and nine booster pump stations. Approximately 340 acres within the City are either served by the City of Buena Park, the City of Orange, or Yorba Linda Water District. In addition, there is an unincorporated county “island” surrounded by the City of Anaheim. Southern California Water Company serves this area, which encompasses approximately 32 acres. The City of Anaheim also provides water service to nearly 468 acres outside of the City Limits. Over 455 acres of this total consists of the unincorporated county area in West Anaheim generally bounded by Broadway, Katella Avenue, Brookhurst Street, and Gilbert Street on the north, south, east, and west, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-224 • The Planning Center May 2004 This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-225 Baseline Conditions The City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: groundwater produced from City-owned wells and imported water from the MWD. MWD obtains its water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project in northern California. The City normally pumps most (up to 75%) of its drinking water from local groundwater basins, purchases the remainder from MWD. The Lenain Filtration Plant filters incoming Colorado River water, providing up to 15 mg of drinking water per day for Anaheim residents. In addition to these sources, the City maintains 17 interconnections with adjacent water purveyors that are available for emergency service. Of the City’s MWD allotment, some areis treated by the City’s Lenain Treatment Plant and some areis provided as treated water (treated by MWD at their Diemer Treatment Plant). Of the 25%, it's about 50-50 from these two sources. The Santa Ana River, Orange County’s major river, flows through Anaheim and plays a vital role in recharging the groundwater basin. Several retention basins formed by levees along the river help to replenish the water table. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has the responsibility for managing and conserving the groundwater basin and it uses approximately 750 acres of the Santa Ana Riverbed between Katella Avenue and Imperial Highway for ponding imported water from the Metropolitan Water District and natural flows of the river. In recent years, the Orange County Water District has typically set the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) at 75%. However, for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 it is set at 66%. Due to the cost differential of groundwater and imported water, the City typically pumps groundwater equal to the BPP and purchases the remaining water from MWD. In Fiscal Year 2001/2002, Anaheim pumped 62,516 acre-feet of groundwater and purchased 17,237 acre-feet from MWD. The City’s water system serves areas ranging in elevation from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level. In order to provide appropriate operating pressures for such a wide range of elevations, the water system is divided into 18 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 has a static HGL elevation of 1,320 feet above sea level. The City’s water distribution system is generally divided into two main geographic areas; the “Flatland Area” 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, and is almost entirely served by groundwater (with MWD imported water supplemented, as necessary). The Hill and Canyon Area is approximately 11,000 acres, situated generally south and east of the Santa Ana River, and is served primarily by imported water from MWD. Projected supplies for the City are summarized in Table 5.13-13. TABLE 5.13-13 CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES (AFY) Water Supply Sources 1999-2000 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 Anaheim Produced Groundwater 52,915 63,500 70,000 72,000 72,300 Imported Water from MWD 27,153 21,200 23,300 24,000 24,100 Total 80,068 84,700 93,300 96,000 96,400 Source: December 2000 City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan. Notes: The above 1999-2000 data reflect actual numbers The forecasted data assumes a City water supply breakdown of 75% City produced groundwater, and 25% MWD import water Forecasted total supplies are rounded to the nearest hundred ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-226 • The Planning Center May 2004 Based on a review of the Water System Planning Study prepared by Parsons Engineering Science (1999) and of the Urban Water Management Plan (2000), no widespread deficiencies in the City’s water supply and distribution system exist based on the existing conditions. Sewer Services Sewage is collected by City collector facilities and conveyed to trunk sewers owned and maintained by the Orange County Sanitation District. There are small portions of the City that receive local sewer service from adjacent agencies, including City of Stanton Water District and the City of Garden Grove Sanitary District. The existing sanitary sewer system is shown on Figure 5.13-2. Two Orange County wastewater treatment plants serve the project site. They are Plant 1, located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley, and Plant 2 located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach. Plant 1 has a current capacity of 144 million gallons per day (mgd) and Plant 2 has a current capacity of 108 mgd. These capacities are expected to expand to 204 mgd for Plant 1 and 144 mgd for Plant 2. Areas where existing sewer master planning studies have been prepared or are underway are discussed in the following sections. In the areas with older sewer studies, updated studies are currently underway and revised deficiencies could be discovered due to changed land use or other conditions. Therefore, it should be noted that the deficiencies discussed below and depicted on the following maps are not meant to be all-inclusive and are by no means up to date as of the writing of this document. West Anaheim Area This area consists of all portions of the City of Anaheim west of the sewer boundaries of the Central City/ Basin 8 and South Central Areas. The area includes all City territory west of Euclid Street and small portions of the Cities of Fullerton and Garden Grove and small portions of unincorporated Orange County. The area consists of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The population of the area is stable and major shifts in land use are not anticipated in the existing General Plan. A Combined West Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers was completed in 2001 and found that the sanitary sewer system in the area studied is generally satisfactory for current conditions. The Platinum Triangle The Platinum Triangle is located east of the South Central Area and bordered on the east by the Santa Ana River. The northern boundary is approximately at Ball Road and the southern boundary is the I-5 Freeway. The area was studied in the 1998/1999 timeframe through numerous studies in conjunction with the reconstruction of Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Some deficiencies were noted in these studies as shown on Figure 5.13-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-228 • The Planning Center May 2004 This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-229 Northeast Industrial Area This area was the subject of the Anaheim Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 93-1. The boundaries of the wastewater service area nearly coincide with the boundaries of the Plan Area. More specifically, this area is located south of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, north of the Santa Ana River and east of Imperial Highway. The land use at the time of a study completed in 1998 for the area (Northeast Industrial Area Sewer Deficiency Study) was a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial activities. The specific plan guided the development of the area and modified the General Plan to accommodate an increase in commercial uses. There were two minor deficiencies in this area as noted in the baseline condition report and these have both been corrected. Old Town/Basin 8 This area lies east of the West Anaheim area and is located east of Euclid Street, north of Vermont Avenue and west of State College Boulevard. This area represents the most historic portion of the City, known as the Colony. Much of the sewer system was constructed nearly 50 years ago based on significantly different land use parameters. As a combination of capacity limitations and operation and maintenance requirements of a system at or beyond its life expectancy, 68,200 linear feet of sanitary sewer was deficient at the time the Old Town/Basin 8 Deficiency Study was completed in 1993. South Central Area The South Central Area is the portion of the City south of Vermont Avenue, east of Euclid Street and 9th Street, west of State College Boulevard, and at the South City Limits. This area includes Disneyland and the associated district of hotels, shops, restaurants, and similar enterprises, known as tThe Anaheim Resort. Area. The South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study was completed in 1993 and updated in 1996 found that approximately 24,100 lineal feet of collector sewers were identified as deficient for either capacity or operational reasons. A significant portion of the deficiencies have since been corrected with the recent I- 5 Freeway widening and Disneyland renovations. Undesignated Areas Additional areas of the City, principally on the eastern side of State College Boulevard and north ob of Ball Road and the area east of the Santa Ana River, were not included in any of the five studies. Since the development in the area east of the Santa Ana River is within the last 35 years, it is reasonable to assume that a majority of the area has sufficient sewer system capacity available in the existing condition. However, it would be expected that some existing sewer system deficiencies could exist in these areas and sewer master planning studies are currently underway the City to determine the extent of the existing deficiencies. Solid Waste Taormina Industries, doing business as Anaheim Disposal, provides solid waste collection and disposal for the City of Anaheim. After the waste is collected, it is processed through Taormina Industries’ Regional Material Resource Recovery Facility. The Facility contains an 800-foot-long automated and manual sorter/conveyor system that separates more than 70 types of recyclables. The Facility processes an average of 3,200 tons of material each day. Once the materials have passed through the sorter/ ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-230 • The Planning Center May 2004 conveyer system, they are bundled and transferred for immediate shipment to domestic and international markets. Non-recyclable waste that remains is moved to the on-site 40,000-square foot solid waste transfer operation for final processing and consolidation before delivery to Southern California landfills. Household toxic waste is disposed of at the North Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility operated by the County of Orange and located at 1071 N. Blue Gum Street in Anaheim, which is also the site of the Taormina Industry headquarters. Landfills It is necessary to distinguish between refuse disposal capacity and flow rate or daily tonnage when discussing solid waste capacity for Orange County. Refuse disposal capacity refers to the available air space capacity at the landfill. Daily capacity refers to the maximum amount of daily tonnage that may be disposed. These capacities are established in the landfill permit. Orange County owns and operates three active landfills. These are Olinda Alpha Landfill near Brea, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill near Irvine, and the Prima Deschecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. In order to ensure that the maximum permitted daily tonnage at a particular landfill is not exceeded, refuse trucks may have to transport material to one or the other. In accordance with Goal 7.1 of the Public Facilities element and its policies, the solid waste generated within the City will be collected and transported in a cost-effective manner that protects the public health and safety. It has been estimated by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, that the City of Anaheim residents produce between 400,000 and 500,000 tons of waste each year. The City of Anaheim is under contract to Orange County to commit all of its waste to the County landfill system until the year 2007. The majority of this waste is taken to the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, which is located in the City of Brea. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the project and would likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project area. This landfill has a daily tonnage maximum of no more than 8,000 tons per day. As of June 30, 2003, the remaining total air space capacity at the landfill was 44.7 million cubic yards. The Olinda Landfill has a permitted life to 2023, but is currently scheduled to close by agreement with the City of Brea in the year 2013. The City of Anaheim also uses the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, which is scheduled to close in approximately 2022. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a daily permitted tonnage of no more than 8,500 tons per day. The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least 15 years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the county’s jurisdiction. Orange County’s CIWMP, approved in 1996, contains future solid waste disposal demand based on the County population projections previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Orange County landfill system has capacity in excess of 15 years. As such, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the proposed project is available for the foreseeable future. Recycling In accordance with State law, the City of Anaheim has achieved steady gains in its diversion rate of solid waste from landfills, though conservation, recycling, and composting. The City’s diversion rate increased from 44% in 1995 to 50% in 2000. The City is required to maintain this diversion rate of 50%. In order to facilitate the diversion of waste from landfills, the City of Anaheim participates in over 20 programs. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-231 The City of Anaheim’s recycling program-Recycle Anaheim- consists of an automated trash collection program along with a broader recycling and yard waste collection system. In collaboration with its private contractor, the City provides an automated curbside recycling program for solid waste disposal, which uses the three can automated collection system of “trash,” “co-mingled recyclable materials” and “yard waste.” All commercial “bulk collection” from multi-unit residential and commercial premises collected in 3-yard bins is processed at the Regional Material Recovery Facility in Anaheim for landfill diversion. The City also operates a regional Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) located in The Canyon. The center, designated by the Integrated Waste Management Board, provides assistance, including information and low interest loans, to companies that use recycled goods to manufacture finished products. The center serves 70 regional cities and over 700,000 customers. Electricity The Anaheim Public Utilities Department’s Electrical Division currently provides electricity to Anaheim’s citizens and business industry. The distribution system consists of approximately 1,500 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines, over 500 miles of which are underground. In order to facilitate the safe and efficient transfer of electricity to residences and businesses, ten distribution substations are located throughout the City. Anaheim Public Utilities provides its current customer base with more than 577,000 kilowatts (kW) and 2.7 billion kilowatt-hours annually. Anaheim Public Utilities supplied 3,597,244 Megawatt-hours (MWh) in 2002. Of this amount, 2,913,650 MWh were generated by Anaheim-controlled resources and 683,594 MWh were purchased from outside sources. Anaheim obtains its electric supply from its resources located in or near Anaheim and across the western United States. To round out its electric supply, the City of Anaheim participates in seasonal power exchanges as well as additional market purchases where necessary. Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company provides gas service in the City of Anaheim and has facilities throughout the City. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of Public Utilities Commission and Federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. The Gas Company has expressed that it has facilities in the area of the proposed project and that gas services to the project could be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations in the City. Telephone Services Telephone service is provided to the project area by SBC. Facilities are located throughout the City. Cable Television Adelphia provides cable television service to the City of Anaheim. The infrastructure capacity for cable television is also expected to expand with new development. Public channels available in the City include CBS, NBC, WB, ABC, FOX, UPN, PBS, TBN and an Independent Channel operated by KDOC in Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-232 • The Planning Center May 2004 5.13.3 Thresholds of Significance The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts on public services and utilities are taken from City-approved Thresholds of Significance based on the City’s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on public services if it would 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. The project would typically result in a significant impact on utilities and service systems if it would: • exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; • 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; • 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; • have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or requires new or expanded entitlements; • result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; • not comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. • The following threshold was identified in the initial study as a potentially significant impact: • Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. This potential impact was previously addressed in Section 5.7, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” 5.13.4 Analysis of Environmental Impacts IMPACT: 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 School Services Impact Analysis: Implementation of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update would allow for the construction of approximately 27,374 additional residential units and an additional 52,858 residents through the City’s build out. This increased population will result in increased student generation. As shown on Table 5.13-14, the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update would result in an additional 5,345 elementary school students, 1,620 junior high students, and 2,884 high school students. The majority of these students would be generated in The Platinum Triangle and The ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-233 Colony and Downtown Area in the proposed mixed-use zones, within the Anaheim City School District and the Anaheim Union High School District. A substantial number of students will also be generated by the Mountain Park development, within the Orange Unified School District. TABLE 5.13-14 PROJECTED STUDENT GENERATION THROUGH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT Elementary Students K-6 Jr. High Students (7-8) High School Students (9-12) Land Use Dwelling Units Generation Rate Students Generation Rate Students Generation Rate Students Single Family Residential 9,656 .406 3,290 .144 1,390 .240 2,317 Multi-Family Residential 17,718 .116 2,055 .013 230 .032 567 Total 27,374 5,345 1,620 2,884 Notes: 1. Elementary school generation factor for single-family; Anaheim City School District. 2. Jr. High and High School generation factors for single family; Anaheim Union High School District. 3. All student generation factors for multi-family in urban mixed-use areas; Orange Unified School District. Current seating capacity within the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) is reported to be 17,457 students. Based on 2002 to 2003 current enrollment rates, the District appears to exceed this seating capacity by 4,713 students. Enrollment versus capacity at the elementary schools demonstrates that the elementary schools within the District are operating at about 127% capacity. However, the District’s plans to construct three new schools, Ponderosa School, North Central and Harbor Campus, in addition to its plans to expand the campuses of Revere School and Horace Mann School should help meet the projected enrollment growth. Guinn, Sunkist, and Juarez elementary school serve The Anaheim Platinum Triangle. The District currently has plans to construct Ponderosa School, but would need to construct or acquire facilities to accommodate additional students generated from The Platinum Triangle and the mixed-use zones in the Colony and Downtown areas. Current seating capacity within the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) is reported to be 8,478 students at the junior high school level and 12,366 students at the high school level. Based on 2002- 2003 current enrollment rates, the District appears to exceed the seating capacity at the junior high schools by 261 students, but is 646 students under capacity for the high schools. As such, enrollment versus capacity at the junior high schools demonstrates that the junior high schools within the District are operating at about 103% of capacity. Enrollment versus capacity at the high schools demonstrates that the high schools within the District are operating at about 95% capacity. However, a new junior high school with a capacity for 1,200 students is planned for the northern portion of central Anaheim and all of the schools that currently serve the project area are scheduled to be expanded in the next six years. This should help the District meet the projected enrollment growth. Katella High School and South Junior High School serve The Platinum Triangle area. AUHSD has indicated that it did not anticipate that any additional expansion of the District’s facilities, beyond those already contemplated, would be required as a result of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Current seating capacity at schools located within the project area that are within the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) is reported to be 4,618 students at the elementary school level, 1,033 students at the junior high school level and 1,967 students at the high school level. Based on 2002 to 2003 current enrollment rates, the District appears to be 645 students under capacity for the elementary schools, 14 students under capacity at the junior high school level and exceeds the seating capacity at the high school by 75 students. Enrollment versus capacity at the elementary schools demonstrates that the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-234 • The Planning Center May 2004 elementary schools within the District are operating at about 86% capacity, the junior high school is operating at about 99% capacity and the high school is operating at about 104% capacity. The proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update would allow for the development of 2,500 residential dwelling units within the Mountain Park Specific Plan area. This would result in the generation of 631 students at the K-6 grade level, 118 students at the grades 7 to 8 level and 224 students at the grades 9 to 12 level. Potential impacts to the OUSD created by new development within the Mountain Park Specific Plan area would be mitigated through a combination of dedication of a new school site and developer fees. The proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update does not propose significant land use changes within areas served by the Centralia, Fullerton, Fullerton Joint Union, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified, Garden Grove Unified, and Buena Park School Districts. In addition, these areas are predominantly built out and will not encounter significant growth in their student populations. As a result, no significant impacts to these districts are anticipated. Senate Bill 50 (SB 50, also known as Proposition 1A, codified in Government Code Section 65995) was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. SB 50 provides three ways to determine funding levels for school districts. The default method allows school districts to levy development fees to support school construction necessitated by that development and receive a 50% match from State bond money. While the City acknowledges that future growth will result in increased need for school facilities, the City is precluded per SB 50 to consider this a significant impact for the purposes for CEQA. The payment of development fees will offset the costs to each District of providing educational facilities to these students. In addition, the General Plan Goals and Policies listed below will further reduce potential impacts. Relevant Goals and Policies Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision of educational facilities include: • Continue to assist school districts in their long-range planning for school facilities. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 11.1, Policy Existing Codes and Regulations • Mitigation of school impacts will be achieved by payment of school fees established by SB 50 (Government Code Section 65995). Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. Although school impacts are adequately mitigated by payment of SB 50 school fees, the following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the proposed project to assist the school districts in identifying potential school sites. 5.13-1 The City will work cooperatively with school districts to identify sites for new schools and school expansions in West and Central Anaheim and The Platinum Triangle area. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-235 Library Services The City of Anaheim Library Services Division maintains a Strategic Plan to guide the future development of the City’s Libraries. The Strategic Plan includes a vision statement and a list of strategies that identifies the needs and functions of the library system. As of June, 2003, the square foot per capita for library facilities in the City of Anaheim is 0.31, which is below the mid level service standard of .5 square feet per capita. Implementation of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update will result in an additional 52,858 residents to the City of Anaheim. As a result, an additional 26,429 square feet of library space would be required to meet the City’s mid level service standard of 0.5 square feet per capita at buildout. One of the major goals of the Strategic Plan is to provide and maintain adequate facilities. Pursuant to a comprehensive Library Facilities Master Plan, commenced in 2000, numerous expansion, replacement, refurbishment, and new construction projects are planned and underway to increase capacity of the Anaheim library system. These include the following funded capital projects, through 2005, that will increase the library facility to 0.47 per capita: • West Anaheim Branch Library-24,000 square feet; • East Anaheim Hills Branch Library-10,000 square feet; • Downtown Local History Annex-10,000 square feet; and, • Renovation of Central Library-22,500 square feet of more usable public space. The majority of the funding for these projects is from the City’s General Fund. Other sources of funding include donations, rental income, Federal grant (Community Development Block Grants) and State grants (Public Library Foundation and Library Services Technology Act). Funding for capital projects include State Grant (Library Construction Bond Grant), developer fees, Federal grant (Community Development Block Grants, or CDBG) and City bankruptcy funds. In addition, two projects, unfunded to date, are planned in order to add space to Sunkist and Euclid Branch Libraries. These two projects would provide a 0.5 square foot per capita and include the following: • Euclid Branch Library-5,000 square feet; and, • Sunkist Branch Library-5,000 square feet. Any increase in the population or employee population of the City of Anaheim is anticipated to have an impact on Library Services. However, the projected growth of the City has been included in the Library Facilities’ Master Plan and would meet the need for library building space. Since the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update would reduce the City’s population at buildout as compared to the existing General Plan, no update to the Facilities Master Plan would be required. However, the increase in demand for library materials, circulation, computer access, and remote access to resources would likely impact the library operation budget. Relevant Goals and Policies Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision of library facilities include: • Enhance library facilities to improve inventory, services, accessibility, and public image. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 12.1, Policy • Encourage the use of technology both in library operations and resources to promote efficiency, accessibility, and innovation. (Public Services and Facilities Element, Goal 12.1, Policy 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-236 • The Planning Center May 2004 Existing Codes and Regulations • No existing codes or regulations related to library services apply to the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. IMPACT: WOULD THE PROJECT EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Impact Analysis: The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board administers the NPDES permit requirements within the project area. Under the NPDES permit issued on January 18, 2002, to the County of Orange, all development and significant redevelopment are obligated to implement structural and non-structural non-point source pollution control measures known as Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit urban pollutants reaching the Waters of the United States to the maximum extent practical. The regulations require facilities that discharge storm water to obtain a NPDES permit. In addition, the NPDES storm water management program also calls for the implementation of BMPs to the “maximum extent practicable…” in dealing with non-point sources of pollution. BMPs consist of activities, practices and/or procedures that reduce non-point sources of pollution such as: urban runoff, including automotive by-products, trash, food wastes, landscape and agricultural runoff, including pesticides and fertilizers, and runoff from construction sites. Both point sources, such as direct drainage sources, and non-point sources of water pollution, such as urban runoff, are usually discharged via separate stormdrains to “waters of the United States” and are therefore regulated under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The City of Anaheim must therefore comply with Federal water quality, waste discharge, and total maximum daily load standards defined in the CWA. In addition, any projects or construction activities performed within a Caltrans right of way must conform to Encroachment Permitting requirements. Implementation of the General Plan and Zoning Code Update would potentially impact the quantity of runoff and other pollutant loadings to receiving waters. However, the City of Anaheim is served by a comprehensive sanitary sewer system and no wastewater would be discharged impacting surface water or groundwater resources. Therefore, no exceedances of wastewater treatment requirements are anticipated. Relevant Goals and Policies • There are no Relevant Goals and Policies related to wastewater treatment requirements. Existing Codes and Regulations • No existing codes or regulations related to wastewater treatment requirements apply to the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-237 Level of Significance After Mitigation: No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. IMPACT: WOULD THE PROJECT 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; HAVE INSUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PROJECT FROM EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS AND RESOURCES, OR ARE NEW OR EXPANDED ENTITLEMENTS NEEDED Water Services Impact Analysis: The City of Anaheim used existing general plan and zoning documents to establish existing demand conditions and compared them to the estimate future demands based on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Although the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update increases the amount of residential units and office square footage within the City, there is a corresponding decrease in commercial, industrial, and institutional square footage. However, several geographic areas within the City will experience localized increases in water demands due to the proposed changes in land use. Water Supply In order to compare demand projections between the Recommended Land Use Alternative and the existing General Plan, water use factors for the different categories were developed. The factors for the existing General Plan came from the 1999 Water System Planning Study prepared by Parsons. Table 5.13-15 shows the total water demand projection for build out of the existing General Plan versus the proposed General Plan. As shown on Table 5.13-15 the average demand under the existing General Plan would be 122,768 acre-feet per year (AFY) or approximately 110 million gallons per day (mgd). As shown, the total average water demand projection for build out of the Recommended Land Use Alternative is 112,043 AFY or about 100 mgd. In Fiscal Year 2001/2002, Anaheim pumped 62,516 acre- feet of groundwater and purchased 17,237 acre-feet from MWD, for a total of 79,753 acre feet. In order to serve the City at buildout, an additional 32,290 acre feet per year would be required. The current Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Anaheim has identified additional sources of water through 2020 to accommodate projected growth. Since the total City-wide demand projections are almost 10% less for the Recommended Land Use Alternative than the existing General Plan at build out, the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update is consistent with the City of Anaheim’s current water demand projections. The City of Anaheim is scheduled to update their Urban Water Management Plan in 2005. The next update will reflect the land use changes adopted as part of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. The City of Anaheim’s water conservation efforts would help to ensure that its existing water supplies, available from existing entitlements and resources, are utilized efficiently. The City is a leader in water conservation, groundwater protection, and water efficiency programs. The many commercial and residential water efficiency programs that the City offers are linked to the City homepage where customers can ask questions or sign up for Anaheim’s many Advantage Services programs. The City has an award-winning annual Water Awareness Campaign, which is designed to reach out to the entire community. In addition, the City maintains a number of educational and incentives programs and drought-tolerant examples that are aimed at promoting water conservation. These programs include water conservation partnership programs with public schools, the Home Gardener’s Water Conservation ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-238 • The Planning Center May 2004 Program, the rebate program that rewards customers for replacing old fixtures with water efficient ones, and the Waterwise Demonstration Garden. TABLE 5.13-15 EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN WATER CONSUMPTION AT BUILDOUT Land Use Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan) Daily Demand (MGD) Yearly Demand (AFY) Daily Demand (MGD) Yearly Demand (AFY) Residential 69.8 78,171 63.2 70,746 Commercial 17.5 19,564 14.8 16,612 Industrial 9.7 10,915 8.2 9,129 Mixed-Use 1.8 2,014 4.5 5,045 Open Space/Recreation 5.6 6,291 4.3 4,861 Public/Quasi-Public Facilities 2.9 3,220 2.8 3,063 Other 2.3 2,592 2.3 2,587 Total 109.6 122,767 100.1 112,043 Source: “City of Anaheim General Plan Update Water, Wastewater and Drainage Analysis of Recommended Alternative,” PSOMAS, September 2003. MGD – Million Gallons per Day. AFY – Acre Feet per Year. Water supply improvements will be required to meet the projected increases in water demands in the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle includes the area bounded by Ball Road Southern California Edison Easement on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, and by the I-5 Freeway on the south. This area was previously studied in 1996 as part of the Anaheim Sports Center EIR No. 320 and in 1998 in conjunction with the Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan EIR No. 321. A new groundwater well and several new pipelines were installed as mitigation measures for EIR Nos. 320 and 321. These improvements were incorporated into the Stadium Business Center Water Facilities Fee Program (Rule 15D of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations per Resolution No. 99R-142, effective September 22, 1999). Since average day water demands in the Platinum Triangle will be approximately 5.0 million gallons per day greater than previously evaluated in EIR Nos. 320 and 321, another groundwater well will need to be constructed in the area and added to the Stadium Business Center Water Facilities Fee Program to support the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Updates. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area along Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue will also require additional water supply improvements. This area includes nearly 3,000 proposed new hotel rooms that were not included in the existing General Plan, in Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311, or The Anaheim Resort EIR No. 313. The projected increase in average day water demands associated with the new hotel rooms will be about 0.5 million gallons per day. Several water facility improvements, including a new well and several pipelines, were installed as mitigation measures for EIR Nos. 311 and 313 and subsequently incorporated into The Anaheim Resort Water Facilities Fee Program (Rule 15E of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations per Resolution No. 95R-140, effective September 15, 1995). The Anaheim Resort Water Facilities Fee Program will be updated to account for the increase in demands resulting from the expansion. Other land use changes proposed as part of the General Plan and Zoning Code Update including Amendment No. 2 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan, are not expected to result in significant changes to existing water supply beyond what has already been planned. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-239 Water Delivery With respect to the water delivery system, fire flow requirements would be an area of concern since this typically determines the size of the water distribution network in a local area. Potential impacts could result in The Platinum Triangle and The Colony and Downtown Area where mixed-use designations are proposed. However, the proposed mixed-use areas are located in areas with existing land uses that have fairly high fire flow demand (i.e. commercial, office or industrial). The conversion of strip commercial to residential uses mid-block and more concentrated commercial development at the major intersections would also be an area where fire flow requirements could increase at these major intersections. However, the major streets generally have larger water distribution mains and fire flow would typically be strongest at these locations due to the ability to obtain flow from all four directions of the intersection. When project specific information is available, required fire flow rates will need to be determined and the future project property owner/developer will be responsible for making the necessary improvements to the water distribution system to achieve the required fire flow rates without reducing existing service levels. One specific area where pipeline improvements will be required to meet fire flow requirements will be in The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area. As discussed in the previous section, this area includes nearly 3,000 proposed new hotel rooms that were not included in the existing General Plan, in Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311, or The Anaheim Resort EIR No. 313. This area is supplied from the north with a 10-inch pipeline in Harbor Boulevard south of Orangewood Avenue and is looped back to Orangewood Avenue via a 10-inch line running east in Chapman Avenue and only an 8-inch system running north through the residential area to the east of Harbor Boulevard. Therefore, in conjunction with development of these hotels, a new parallel 12- or 16-inch line will need to be extended down Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Chapman Avenue and additional looping may be necessary to strengthen the distribution system in this area. All pipeline improvements necessary to accommodate The Anaheim Resort Area Expansion will be added to The Anaheim Resort Water Facilities Fee Program. SB 610 and SB 221 Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures which seek to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. Both statutes also require this detailed information be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. Both measures recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval of projects. Under SB 610, water assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code Section 10912 subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 is intended as a ‘fail safe’ mechanism to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before construction begins. According to the “Draft Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001” by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), preparation of a General Plan Update does not ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-240 • The Planning Center May 2004 trigger a requirement for preparation of a SB 610 or SB 221 water supply analysis. However, a foundational document for compliance with both SB 610 and SB 221 is the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Both of these statutes repeatedly identify the UWMP as a planning document that, if properly prepared, can be used by a water supplier to meet the standards set forth in both statutes. Thorough and complete UWMPs will allow water suppliers to use UWMPs as a reference to prepare the specific documents required by these two statutes. Cities, counties, water districts, property owners, and developers will all be able to utilize this document when planning for and proposing new projects. UWMPs serve as important source documents for cities and counties as they update their General Plan. Conversely General Plans are source documents as water suppliers update their UWMPs. These planning documents are linked and their accuracy and usefulness are interdependent. It is crucial that cities /counties and water suppliers work closely when developing and updating these planning documents. As described above, the City of Anaheim has an adopted UWMP based on the land uses allowed in the City’s existing General Plan. As shown on Table 5.13-15, the total City-wide demand projections are almost 10% less for the Recommended Land Use Alternative than the existing General Plan at build out. Therefore, the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update is consistent with the City of Anaheim’s current water demand projections. However, in order to assist future projects in preparing required water supply analyses pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221, the City of Anaheim will update their UWMP next year in 2005, which will address the land use changes associated with the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Relevant Goals and Policies Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision and conservation of water service include: • Continue to provide municipal water service that meets or exceeds State and Federal health standards and monitor water quality according to established criteria, with respect to health standards. (Public Services and Facilities Element, Goal 4.1, Policy 2) • Provide for the efficient and economic distribution of adequate water supply and pressure to all residential, commercial, industrial, and public areas served by the Public Utilities Department. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 4.1, Policy 1) • Examine and utilize the use of alternative water supplies, such as grey water and reclaimed water, where appropriate and feasible. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 4.1, Policy 3) • Continue to sponsor and provide water conservation and education programs. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 4.1, Policy 4) • Continue to inspect, maintain and enhance City facilities relative to their water use. (Green Element Goal 56.1, Policy 1) • Continue inter-departmental coordination of water use and conservation policies to improve City- facility water use. (Green Element Goal 56.1, Policy 2) • Specify and install water-conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings in public facilities such as parks, community centers, and government buildings. (Green Element Goal 56.1, Policy 3) • Continue and expand Anaheim’s water rebate program. (Green Element Goal 56.1, Policy 4) Existing Codes and Regulations • Future projects (as defined in Water Code Section 10912 shall prepare a water supply assessment in accordance with SB 610 and a water supply verification in accordance with SB 221 to demonstrate that an adequate water supply is available to serve the project. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-241 Mitigation Measures: 5.13-13 Prior to issuance of building permits, future projects shall demonstrate compliance with the following water conservation measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: • Install a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation systems and automatic systems that include moisture sensors. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in the irrigation system. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) • Use of water-conservation landscape plant materials, wherever feasible. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) • Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) • Use of cooling tower and waterway recirculation systems. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) • Use of water efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures). 5.13-24 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, future projects in The Platinum Triangle shall comply with the adopted Stadium Business Center Water Facilities Fee Program (Rule 15D of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations per Resolution No. 99R-142, effective September 22, 1999). 5.13-35 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, future projects within The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area (along Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue to the south City Limit) shall comply with the adopted Anaheim Resort Area Water Facilities Fee Program (Rule 15E of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations per Resolution No. 95R-140, effective September 15, 1995). Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Sewer Services Impact Analysis: Wastewater generation factors were developed for the land use categories in the Recommended Land Use Alternative for comparison against the existing General Plan. Factors for the existing General Plan came primarily from the 2002 Combined West Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers by CH2MHill. For the Recommended Land Use Alternative, similar factors were used. Table 5.13-16 details the total citywide sewage flow projection for build out of the existing General Plan as compared to the proposed General Plan. As shown, buildout under the existing General Plan would generate approximately 68 mgd. By comparison, the sewage flow projection for the Recommended Land Use Alternative totals approximately 72 mgd. This approximate 6% increase in citywide sewage flow, while an increase, would be spread out over many tributary basins. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-242 • The Planning Center May 2004 TABLE 5.13-16 EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN WASTEWATER GENERATION AT BUILDOUT Land Use Existing General Plan Daily Flow (MGD) Proposed General Plan) Daily Flow (MGD) Residential 47.5 43.3 Commercial 6.9 14.8 Industrial 10.2 8.5 Mixed-Use 1.8 4.0 Open Space/Recreation 0.0 0.0 Public/Quasi-Public Facilities 1.2 1.2 Other 0.0 0.0 Total 67.6 71.8 Source: “City of Anaheim General Plan Update Water, Wastewater and Drainage Analysis of Recommended Alternative,” PSOMAS, September 2003. MGD – Million Gallons per Day. The major increases in flows are accounted for in the Commercial, Industrial and Mixed-Use Area categories. Flow factors for Industrial and Commercial land uses vary significantly from project to project and no data on actual flow generation rates from Mixed-Use projects exists. As more project specific information is available on these proposed projects, sewer analyses should be conducted by the project proponent to determine if flow projections would be higher than those used in the City’s sewer master planning, and then if so, if this increase would cause any impacts to sewer facilities. An analysis was accomplished of sample areas where the conversion of strip commercial to residential uses mid-block and more concentrated commercial development at the major intersections is included in the Recommended Land Use Alternative. Based on the flow factors used in City master planning, it was determined that these areas would generate less sewage than the existing General Plan. One specific area of concern would be the area primarily along Harbor Boulevard south of Orangewood Avenue, within The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area. As discussed above in the Water Section, this area includes approximately 3,000 new hotel rooms that were not included in the existing General Plan. This area would drain down Harbor Boulevard to Chapman Avenue and then outside of the City Limits in a westerly direction through the City of Garden Grove. Due to the increased flow from the proposed hotel rooms, a replacement sewer 15” to 24” in diameter (depending upon slope and utility conflicts) may be required along Wilken Way, Harbor Boulevard, and Chapman Avenue all the way to the existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer in Ninth Street (over one mile). If adequate capacity is not available in that trunk, this sewer may have to be extended westerly another half mile to the existing OCSD trunk in Euclid Avenue. Another area of potential impact is within The Platinum Triangle, within the proposed mixed-use overlay zone. The comparison to existing master planning comes from research and analysis of existing master plan reports for the “2nd Revision to South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study,” “Stadium Area Sewer Deficiency Study East of State College Boulevard (SASDS-East),” the ”Remaining Central City Areas Sewer Deficiency Study,” “Pointe Anaheim Sewer Study” and the “Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (West of State College Boulevard) Supplement to the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study Second Revision.” The above sewer studies cover the existing and build-out sewer needs and required ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-243 mitigation measures. Any project that will deviate upwards from these studies will be required to study and mitigate its sewer impacts. As shown on previous Figure 5.13-2 there are a number of existing sewer deficiencies within The Platinum Triangle. An analysis of the potential impacts to sewer facilities within The Platinum Triangle as a result of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update was prepared by PSOMAS in March 2003. Based on this analysis, the following improvements will be necessary to adequately serve the proposed land uses associated with the General Plan and Zoning Code Update: Gateway District: For the area west of State College Boulevard it appears that any intensification of development would likely require the construction of a new connection to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer in either State College Boulevard or Orangewood Avenue and a sewer study for this area will be required to size the sewer line and mitigate any impacts. These connections typically require a new manhole on the OCSD trunk, a short piece of City main and then a City manhole where the private developer sewer can connect and cost on the order of $75,000 per connection. Gene Autry District: No additional deficiencies due to the proposed land use changes would occur within the Gene Autry District. However, as a condition of approval for the Pointe Anaheim Project, the construction of a reverse flow line sewering toward State College Boulevard is required in Gene Autry Way. Therefore, a site specific sewer analysis will be required to determine any additional capacity issues. This study will address if the reverse flow sewer line in Gene Autry Way can be increased in size by one diameter or a new main can be constructed sewering the area easterly to the OCSD trunk in State College Boulevard. Katella Avenue District: Capacity in this existing Katella Avenue sewer is limited and per the “Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (West of State College Boulevard) Supplement to the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study Second Revision” the City has set up a special fee overlay district to finance a new reverse flow line in Katella Avenue from approximately Lewis Street to State College Boulevard to divert additional flows from this area easterly to the OCSD trunk in State College Boulevard. Based on the analyses behind this fee overlay district, FARs up to 1.0 could be allowed assuming this new reverse flow sewer is constructed. The northernmost triangular area north of Wright Circle will be required to complete a sewer study to determine if there is adequate capacity in the Katella Avenue Reverse flow line to be able to connect or be required to size and build a separate sewer line easterly to the OCSD’s trunk sewer in State College Boulevard. Arrowhead Pond District: The Arrowhead Pond District is serviced by the existing line in Douglass Road whichRoad, which runs southerly to Katella Avenue. This sewer has no additional capacity beyond current flows. Any proposed development in this area will be required to conduct a sewer study to determine peak discharges, capacity issues, and appropriate mitigation measures. It should be noted that a peak event flow of almost 1.4 million gallons per day could be expected from the arena. Therefore, depending on where the additional development is located within the Arrowhead Pond District, it would have to correct this deficient sewer by paralleling or replacing it or construct a separate line within the Pond parking lot down to the OCSD trunk sewer in Katella Avenue and make a new connection as described above. Stadium District: The Stadium West area sewers to a line in the parking lot that drains to the OCSD trunk in State College Boulevard. The Stadium East area and the Amtrak Station in the Sportstown area sewers to an existing line in the parking lot that drains to the SARI line. Depending on the site-specific location of future development in the Stadium District and the availability of capacity in these existing lines, the development could connect to these existing sewers or construct new sewers to OCSD trunk sewers in State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue or the SARI line. It should be noted that the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-244 • The Planning Center May 2004 sewage flow projections do not include event flows from the Stadium itself and these should be accounted for in any master planning related to use of these existing lines. Therefore, if any proposed development increases sewer flows, a sewer study and appropriate mitigation measures will be required. Relevant Goals and Policies Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision of sanitary sewer services include: • Require new development to conduct a sanitary sewer study to be reviewed and approvedEnsure that appropriate sewer system mitigation measures are identified and implemented in conjunction with new development based on the recommendations of prior sewer studies and/or future sewer studies that may be required by the City Engineer and mitigate its impacts if it will increase sewer flows programmed in the appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 5.1, Policy 1) Existing Codes and Regulations • No existing codes or regulations related to sewer services apply to the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: 5.13-46 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient sewer facilities. If the City Engineer determines that the above condition exists, the property owner/developer shall conduct a sanitary sewer study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the applicable sewer deficiency study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the project area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-245 IMPACT: WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A DETERMINATION BY THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROVIDER THAT SERVES OR MAY SERVE THE PROJECT THAT IT HAS INADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED DEMAND IN ADDITION TO THE PROVIDER’S EXISTING COMMITMENTS Impact Analysis: Sewage is collected by City collector facilities and conveyed to trunk sewers owned and maintained by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). There are small portions of the City that receive local sewer service from adjacent agencies, including City of Stanton Water District and the City of Garden Grove Sanitary District. Two Orange County wastewater facilities serve the project site. They are Plant 1, located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley, and Plant 2 located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach. Plant 1 has an existing capacity of 144 million gallons per day (mgd) and Plant 2 has an existing capacity of 108 mgd. These capacities are expected to expand to 204 mgd for Plant 1 and 144 mgd for Plant 2. The population projections associated with the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update are consistent with, and actually less than the projections associated with the existing General Plan. Since the projected wastewater demand would be reduced under the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update, the project is consistent with the current OCSD Strategic Plans. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated provided OCSD continues to expand District facilities in accordance with their adopted Strategic Plans. In addition, projected mixed-use and commercial increases result in City-wide sewage generation projections higher than current General Plan, at build out. However, continued downward trends in sewage generation per capita and for commercial and industrial use due to conservation could potentially offset this minor increase between now and build out. Relevant Goals and Policies • There are no Relevant Goals and Policies related to regional wastewater treatment facilities. Existing Codes and Regulations • No existing codes or regulations related to regional wastewater treatment facilities requirements apply to the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. IMPACT: WOULD THE PROJECT NOT BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL WITH SUFFICIENT PERMITTED CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT’S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS Impact Analysis: The City of Anaheim’s residents and businesses produce nearly one-half million tons of waste each year. In order to properly manage this waste, Anaheim must remain committed to waste reduction, diversion, and recycling. This is especially important in the face of the upcoming closure of the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, currently Anaheim’s primary resource for solid waste disposal. The Olinda Alpha Landfill has an estimated closure date of December 31, 2013.3 After closure, refuse within the County would be diverted to the Frank R. Bowerman landfill near Irvine, and the Prima Deschecha landfill in San Juan Capistrano. 3 County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department, www.oclandfills.com. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-246 • The Planning Center May 2004 As Orange County's population continues to grow so will its waste. The County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) is responsible for ensuring that County waste is disposed of in a way that protects public health, safety and the environment. Long-range strategic planning is necessary to ensure that waste generated by the County is safely disposed of and that the County's future disposal needs are met. In order to adequately plan for adequate waste disposal capacity, the IWMD has adopted the “RELOOC” program. RELOOC, an acronym for "Regional Landfill Options for Orange County," is a 40-year strategic plan being prepared by the IWMD to evaluate options for trash disposal for Orange County citizens. The goals of the RELOOC program are to: To have a feasible, balanced and flexible 40-year strategic plan approved and ready for implementation by 2004 that addresses Orange County's solid waste disposal and capacity needs. • To protect Orange County's public health, safety and environment. • To sustain the economic viability of the Orange County's solid waste disposal system by ensuring consistent and reliable fee/rates and adequate revenue to maintain efficient, cost effective, high quality operations. • To provide a fair, objective, open, planning process that is: presented in non-technical, easily understood terms; responsive to and involves stakeholders and the public; and results in public understanding. The population projections associated with the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update are consistent with, and actually less than the projections associated with the existing General Plan. Since the projected solid waste generation would be reduced under the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update as compared to the existing General Plan, the project is consistent with IWMD projections and the RELOOC program. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated provided IWMD continues to expand landfill capacity consistent with adopted County growth projections. The City will continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with AB 939. Also, implementation of the General Plan Goals and Policies outlined below, would also help mitigate impacts on solid waste and would guide future provision of solid waste disposal services within the City. Relevant Goals and Policies Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision of solid waste services include: • Ensure that solid waste generated within the City is collected and transported in a cost-effective manner that protects the public health and safety. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 7.1, Policy 1) • Reduce the volume of material sent to solid waste sites in accordance with State law by continuing source reduction and recycling programs and by ensuring the participation of all residents and businesses. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 7.1, Policy 2) • Continue educational outreach programs for Anaheim’s households, businesses, and schools on the need for recycling solid waste. (Green Element Goal 167.1, Policy 1) • Provide adequate solid waste collection and recycling for commercial areas and construction activities. (Green Element Goal 167.1, Policy 2) Existing Codes and Regulations • The City will continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with AB 939. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-247 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. IMPACT: WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE Impact Analysis: The City of Anaheim complies with all Federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. State law requires that after 2000, the City of Anaheim divert at least 50% of solid waste from landfills through conservation, recycling, and composting. In 2000, the City diverted 50% of its solid waste. This is achieved through City participation in over 20 programs, such as residential curbside recycling, to facilitate the diversion of waste from landfills. The City has also adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) to develop programs to address household hazardous waste State Law. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Relevant Goals and Policies • See Relevant Goals and Policies listed above under “Would Not Be Served By A Landfill With Sufficient Permitted Capacity To Accommodate The Project’s Solid Waste Disposal Needs.” Existing Codes and Regulations • See Existing Codes and Regulations listed above under “Would Not Be Served By A Landfill With Sufficient Permitted Capacity To Accommodate The Project’s Solid Waste Disposal Needs.” Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts on public services and utilities are taken from City-approved Thresholds of Significance based on the City’s Initial Study and the model Initial Study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would typically result in a significant impact on public services if it would 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. The project would typically result in a significant impact on utilities and service systems if it would: • exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; • 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; • 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; ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-248 • The Planning Center May 2004 • have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed; • result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; • not comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. IMPACT: WOULD 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 Impact Analysis: A number of private companies provide natural gas, telecommunications, and cable television services to the project areas. Southern California Gas Company, which provides gas service in the project area, has indicated that it has facilities throughout the City of Anaheim and that gas services to the project could be provided from existing gas mains. SBC provides telephone service in the project area and Adelphia provides cable television service. The infrastructure for these utilities is expected to expand with new development and provision of these services to the project area is not anticipated to require substantial alterations. The fact that the City of Anaheim owns and operates its own electric utility, enables the City to maintain the ability to generate and purchase electricity in the most efficient, cost effective, and environmentally sound manner. Through implementation of the Goals and Policies identified below, no significant impacts related to the provision of electricity, natural gas, telephone, or cable services are anticipated. Relevant Goals and Policies Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision of electricity services include: • Coordinate with Southern California Edison and other suppliers regarding electricity supply and distribution to provide a continual source of reliable and efficient energy. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 3.1, Policy 1) • Ensure that adequate electricity capacity exists for planned development. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 3.1, Policy 2) • Encourage the development and use of renewable energy resources. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 3.1, Policy 3) • Continue to maintain and update energy conservation programs and information provided on the City’s website. (Green Element Goal 156.1, Policy 1) • Encourage the increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping and landscape structures to shade buildings). (Green Element Goal 156.2, Policy 1) • Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City. (Green Element Goal 156.2, Policy 2) Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision of natural gas services include: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR City of Anaheim • Page 5-249 • Coordinate with private utilities to provide Anaheim residents with high-speed, high-capacity information systems and adequate natural gas infrastructure. (Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 8.1, Policy 1) Existing Codes and Regulations • No existing codes or regulations related to the provision of electricity, natural gas, telephone, or cable services apply to the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. 5.13.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to public services and facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis Page 5-250 • The Planning Center May 2004 This page intentionally left blank