Document Anaheim_doc_3a45eb6688

DRAFT THE REVISED PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION PROJECT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 SCH #[PHONE REDACTED] VOLUME I OF II – DRAFT EIR prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services AUGUST 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT THE REVISED PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION PROJECT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 SCH #[PHONE REDACTED] VOLUME I OF II – DRAFT EIR prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 [PHONE REDACTED] Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] E-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] Website: www.planningcenter.com Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services COA-51.0E AUGUST 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page i 1. EXECUTIVE 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL 1.2.1 EIR Format 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT 1-11 1.5.1 No-Project/Existing MLUP 1-11 1.5.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative 1-11 1.5.3 Increased Residential Intensity Alternative 1-11 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 1-12 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 1-12 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER 1-13 2. 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS SEIR 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant 2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse 2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION 3.2 STATEMENT OF 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.3.2 Project Background 3.3.2 Description of the Project 3-10 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS SUBSEQUENT 3-33 4. ENVIRONMENTAL 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2.1 Regional Location 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL 4.3.1 Location and Land 4.3.2 Biological Resources 4.3.3 Climate and Air Quality 4.3.4 Geology and ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page Page ii • The Planning Center August 2010 4.3.5 Hydrology 4.3.6 4.3.7 Scenic Features 4.3.8 Public Services and 4.3.9 General Plan and 4.3.10 Traffic and Transportation 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1-1 5.1.1 Environmental 5.1-1 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.1-2 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts 5.1-9 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.1-11 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.1-11 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before 5.1-11 5.1.7 Mitigation 5.1-12 5.1.8 Level of Significance After 5.1-12 5.2 AIR 5.2-1 5.2.1 Environmental 5.2-1 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.2-15 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts 5.2-17 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.2-27 5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.2-29 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before 5.2-29 5.2.7 Mitigation 5.2-30 5.2.8 Level of Significance After 5.2-36 5.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER 5.3-1 5.3.1 Environmental 5.3-1 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.3-5 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts 5.3-6 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.3-8 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.3-8 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before 5.3-8 5.3.7 Mitigation 5.3-8 5.3.8 Level of Significance After 5.3-9 5.4 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.4-1 5.4.1 Environmental 5.4-1 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.4-5 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts 5.4-5 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.4-16 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.4-17 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before 5.4-17 5.4.7 Mitigation 5.4-17 5.4.8 Level of Significance After 5.4-17 5.5 NOISE 5.5-1 5.5.1 Environmental 5.5-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page iii 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.5-17 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts 5.5-19 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.5-35 5.5.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.5-37 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before 5.5-38 5.5.7 Mitigation 5.5-38 5.5.8 Level of Significance After 5.5-41 5.6 POPULATION AND 5.6-1 5.6.1 Environmental 5.6-1 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.6-12 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts 5.6-13 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.6-15 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.6-15 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before 5.6-15 5.6.7 Mitigation 5.6-16 5.6.8 Level of Significance After 5.6-16 5.7 PUBLIC SERVICES 5.7-1 5.7.1 Fire Protection 5.7-1 5.7.2 Police 5.7-7 5.7.3 School Services 5.7-12 5.7.4 Other Public Facilities 5.7-19 5.8 5.8-1 5.8.1 Environmental 5.8-1 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.8-6 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts 5.8-6 5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.8-12 5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.8-12 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before 5.8-12 5.8.7 Mitigation 5.8-12 5.8.8 Level of Significance After 5.8-13 5.9 TRANSPORTATION AND 5.9-1 5.9.1 Environmental 5.9-15 5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.9-38 5.9.3 Environmental Impacts 5.9-38 5.9.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.9-107 5.9.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.9-108 5.9.6 Level of Significance Before 5.9-110 5.9.7 Mitigation 5.9-110 5.9.8 Level of Significance After 5.9-120 5.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.10-1 5.10.1 Environmental 5.10-1 5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.10-21 5.10.3 Environmental Impacts 5.10-22 5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.10-37 5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.10-37 5.10.6 Level of Significance Before 5.10-38 5.10.7 Mitigation 5.10-38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page Page iv • The Planning Center August 2010 5.10.8 Level of Significance After 5.10-47 5.11 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.11-1 5.11.1 Environmental 5.11-1 5.11.2 Thresholds of Significance 5.11-12 5.11.3 Environmental Impacts 5.11-13 5.11.4 Cumulative Impacts 5.11-22 5.11.5 Existing Regulations and Standard 5.11-22 5.11.6 Level of Significance Before 5.11-22 5.11.7 Mitigation 5.11-23 5.11.8 Level of Significance After 5.11-31 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Purpose and 7.1.2 Project 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS 7.2.1 Alternative Development 7.2.2 Southern California Gas Company Microwave Tower Relocation Alternative....7-4 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS 7.4 NO PROJECT/EXISTING MLUP 7.4.1 7.4.2 Air 7.4.3 Hydrology and Water 7.4.4 Land Use and Planning 7.4.5 7.4.6 Population and Housing 7.4.7 Public Services 7.4.8 7.4.9 Transportation and Traffic 7.4.10 Utilities and Service 7.4.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7.4.12 7.5 REDUCED INTENSITY 7.5.1 7.5.2 Air 7-10 7.5.3 Hydrology and Water 7-10 7.5.4 Land Use and Planning 7-10 7.5.5 7-11 7.5.6 Population and Housing 7-11 7.5.7 Public Services 7-11 7.5.8 7-11 7.5.9 Transportation and Traffic 7-12 7.5.10 Utilities and Service 7-12 7.5.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7-12 7.5.12 7-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page v 7.6 INCREASED RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 7-13 7.6.1 7-13 7.6.2 Air 7-13 7.6.3 Hydrology and Water 7-13 7.6.4 Land Use and Planning 7-14 7.6.5 7-14 7.6.6 Population and Housing 7-14 7.6.7 Public Services 7-14 7.6.8 7-14 7.6.9 Transportation and Traffic 7-15 7.6.10 Utilities and Service 7-15 7.6.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7-15 7.6.12 7-15 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 7-16 8. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE 8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY 9. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT............9-1 10. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 11. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 12. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS PREPARING 13. 13.1 13-1 13.2 WEBSITES 13-4 13.3 MODELS 13-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section Page Page vi • The Planning Center August 2010 APPENDICES* A Notice of Preparation and Initial Study B Comments on Notice of Preparation C Air Quality Modeling Output D Noise Modeling Output E Public Services Correspondence F Traffic Study G Water Supply Assessment H Sewer Study Technical Memorandum I Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan I.1 Redline I.2 Clean Copy J Infrastructure/Facility Improvements K HCD’s Approval Letter for the City’s Housing Element * The appendices are bound as Volume II and are presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover. ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Figures Figure Page SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page vii Figure 3-1 Regional Figure 3-2 Local Vicinity Figure 3-3 Aerial Figure 3-4 Platinum Triangle General Plan Land Use 3-11 Figure 3-5 PTMU Overlay Zone Mixed Use Districts 3-13 Figure 3-6 Existing Planned Roadway Network 3-17 Figure 3-7 Proposed Planned Roadway Network 3-19 Figure 3-8 Existing Bicycle Facilities 3-21 Figure 3-9 Proposed Bicycle Facilities 3-23 Figure 3-10 Existing Green 3-25 Figure 3-11 Proposed Green 3-27 Figure 3-12 State College Boulevard 3-31 Figure 3-13 New Fire Station No. 12 and Water Well Location 3-35 Figure 5.1-1 Site 5.1-3 Figure 5.1-2 Site 5.1-5 Figure 5.1-3 Site 5.1-7 Figure 5.2-1 Long-Term Annual Trend in Percent Basin-Days Exceedances of Federal Standards for O3, PM10, and 5.2-11 Figure 5.2-2 Maximum Pollutant Concentrations of NO2, CO, O3, and PM10 as Percent of Federal 5.2-13 Figure 5.2-3 CARB 500-Foot Recommended Buffer Distance from Freeways 5.2-25 Figure 5.4-1 Existing Zoning 5.4-3 Figure 5.5-1 Noise Monitoring 5.5-11 Figure 5.7-1 Fire and Police 5.7-3 Figure 5.7-2 ACSD School 5.7-13 Figure 5.7-3 AUHSD School Locations & Libraries 5.7-15 Figure 5.8-1 Location of Parks within the City of 5.8-3 Figure 5.8-2 Existing Green 5.8-7 Figure 5.8-3 Proposed Green 5.8-9 Figure 5.9-1 Traffic Analysis Zone in the Platinum Triangle 5.9-3 Figure 5.9-2 Transit Trip Reduction 5.9-7 Figure 5.9-3 Existing (2008) Peak Hour Intersection 5.9-11 Figure 5.9-4 No Project (2030) Peak Hour Intersection LOS 5.9-41 Figure 5.9-5 With Project (2030) Peak Hour Intersection 5.9-49 Figure 5.9-6 Recommended Mitigation Measures 5.9-55 Figure 5.10-1 Sewer Model Boundaries and Recommended 5.10-3 Figure 5.10-2 City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Service Area 5.10-7 Figure 5.10-3 City of Anaheim Major Water 5.10-9 Figure 5.10-4 Proposed Sewer 5.10-25 ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Tables Table Page Page viii • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 1-1 Proposed Platinum Triangle Development Intensities Table 1-2 Existing and Proposed General Plan Density Provisions (Table LU-4) Table 1-3 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After 1-15 Table 2-1 NOP Table 3-1 Proposed Platinum Triangle Development Intensities 3-10 Table 3-2 Existing and Proposed General Plan Density Provisions (Table LU-4) 3-15 Table 3-3 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development 3-29 Table 4-1 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS Table 4-2 General Plan Buildout Potential for Purposes of Cumulative Impact Analysis 4-10 Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 5.2-6 Table 5.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants 5.2-8 Table 5.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin 5.2-10 Table 5.2-4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds 5.2-16 Table 5.2-5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds – AAQS 5.2-16 Table 5.2-6 Sample Project-Related Daily Construction Emissions 5.2-18 Table 5.2-7 Project-Related Operational Phase Emissions 5.2-19 Table 5.2-8 CO Concentrations at Congested Intersections in the Project 5.2-21 Table 5.2-9 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses 5.2-23 Table 5.2-10 Comparison of Trips and Vehicle Miles 5.2-24 Table 5.3-1 Projected Normal Year Groundwater Pumping 5.3-7 Table 5.4-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies 5.4-7 Table 5.4-2 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development 5.4-11 Table 5.4-3 Consistency with Compass/Growth Visioning Principles 5.4-13 Table 5.4-4 Consistency With Regional Transportation 5.4-15 Table 5.5-1 Change in Sound Pressure 5.5-2 Table 5.5-2 Typical Noise Levels from Noise 5.5-3 Table 5.5-3 Normally Compatible Community Sound Levels for New 5.5-5 Table 5.5-4 Community Noise and Land Use 5.5-7 Table 5.5-5 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria – Human 5.5-9 Table 5.5-6 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria – Structural Damage 5.5-9 Table 5.5-7 Noise Measurements along Local 5.5-10 Table 5.5-8 Existing Traffic Noise 5.5-13 Table 5.5-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases 5.5-19 Table 5.5-10 Vibration Source Levels for Construction 5.5-30 Table 5.5-11 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels 5.5-33 Table 5.6-1 OCP-2006 Projections for Orange County and the City of Anaheim, 2003–2035 5.6-2 Table 5.6-2 Housing Units – City of 5.6-3 Table 5.6-3 Approved and Pending Housing 5.6-5 Table 5.6-4 City of Anaheim Regional Housing Needs Assessment Targets, 2006– 5.6-9 Table 5.6-5 Affordable Housing 5.6-11 Table 5.6-6 Estimated Population, Housing, and Employment Generation for the Platinum 5.6-13 ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Tables Table Page SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page ix Table 5.6-7 2003–2035 Growth Forecast 5.6-14 Table 5.6-8 Projected 5.6-14 Table 5.7-1 Fire Protection Facilities 5.7-1 Table 5.7-2 Public Safety Impact Fees for Fire and Safety The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone 5.7-5 Table 5.7-3 Police Protection Facilities 5.7-8 Table 5.7-4 Public Safety Impact Fees for Police The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone 5.7-9 Table 5.7-5 Police Staffing Needs for the Platinum 5.7-10 Table 5.7-6 CSD & AUHSD Student Generation 5.7-17 Table 5.7-7 Library Service Table 5.8-1 Mini-Park Facilities in the City of Anaheim 5.8-1 Table 5.8-2 Neighborhood Parks in the City of 5.8-2 Table 5.8-3 Community Parks in the City of 5.8-5 Table 5.8-4 Special Use Park Facilities in the City of 5.8-5 Table 5.9-1 Internal Trip Capture Rates 5.9-5 Table 5.9-2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds 5.9-10 Table 5.9-3 Arterial Segment Daily Capacity 5.9-13 Table 5.9-4 Caltrans Intersection LOS 5.9-13 Table 5.9-5 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp HCM LOS 5.9-14 Table 5.9-6 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM LOS 5.9-15 Table 5.9-7 Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS 5.9-15 Table 5.9-8 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS 5.9-18 Table 5.9-9 Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour 5.9-20 Table 5.9-10 Existing Ramp Termini Intersection 5.9-21 Table 5.9-11 Existing Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing 5.9-23 Table 5.9-12 Existing Freeway Ramp HCM 5.9-27 Table 5.9-13 Existing Freeway Mainline HCM 5.9-33 Table 5.9-14 Existing Freeway Weaving AM and PM Peak Hours HCM 5.9-36 Table 5.9-15 2030 No Project Deficient Arterial Segment Daily 5.9-43 Table 5.9-16 2030 No Project Arterial Segment PM Peak Hour LOS 5.9-44 Table 5.9-17 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection 5.9-47 Table 5.9-18 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection LOS With 5.9-51 Table 5.9-19 Potential Intersection Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange 5.9-53 Table 5.9-20 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS 5.9-59 Table 5.9-21 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 5.9-65 Table 5.9-22 With Project Arterial Segment LOS 5.9-69 Table 5.9-23 Recommended Arterial Segment Mitigation 5.9-70 Table 5.9-24 2030 With Project Arterial Segment LOS (City of 5.9-71 Table 5.9-25 Potential Arterial Segment Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities......... 5.9-72 Table 5.9-26 2030 No Project Ramp Termini Intersection LOS 5.9-73 Table 5.9-27 2030 No Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS 5.9-75 Table 5.9-28 2030 No Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS 5.9-81 Table 5.9-29 2030 Project Related Freeway Ramp Termini 5.9-87 Table 5.9-30 Project Related Freeway Ramp Termini 5.9-88 Table 5.9-31 Recommended Freeway Ramp Termini 5.9-88 Table 5.9-32 City of Orange Freeway Ramp Termini Mitigation 5.9-89 ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Tables Table Page Page x • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-33 2030 With Project Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Length 5.9-91 Table 5.9-34 2030 With Project Freeway Ramp HCM 5.9-95 Table 5.9-35 2030 With Project Freeway Mainline HCM 5.9-99 Table 5.9-36 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving AM and PM Peak Hour HCM 5.9-102 Table 5.9-37 Recommended Mitigation Measures 5.9-121 Table 5.10-1 Permitted Platinum Triangle Development Intensity 5.10-5 Table 5.10-2 Historic Groundwater Pumping by Well (AF) 5.10-12 Table 5.10-3 Estimated Pumping by Well to 2015 (AF) 5.10-13 Table 5.10-4 City of Anaheim Historic Water Production by Source (AF) 5.10-14 Table 5.10-5 Metropolitan Regional Imported Water Supply Reliability Projections (AF) 5.10-17 Table 5.10-6 Orange County 5.10-20 Table 5.10-7 Platinum Triangle Sewer Improvements 5.10-23 Table 5.10-8 Surcharge Levels within the City Sewers in the Platinum 5.10-27 Table 5.10-9 Total Water 5.10-28 Table 5.10-10 With Project Water Supply and Demand (afy) 5.10-29 Table 5.10-11 With Project Water Demand and Supply (afy*) Under Temporary 40 Percent SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 5.10-31 Table 5.10-12 Projected Solid Waste Demand 5.10-34 Table 5.11-1 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to 5.11-2 Table 5.11-2 Existing GHG Emissions Inventory in the Platinum Triangle 5.11-7 Table 5.11-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Toward 2020 Target 5.11-10 Table 5.11-4 2030 Business-as-Usual Annual GHG Emissions Inventory for the Platinum 5.11-17 Table 5.11-5 2030 Annual GHG Emissions Inventory for the Proposed Project with Scoping Plan 5.11-21 Table 5.11-6 Comparison of Existing vs. Future GHG Emissions w/Scoping Plan 5.11-32 Table 7-1 Summary of Development Table 7-2 Alternatives Comparison Table 7-3 Alternative Impact Comparison Matrix 7-17 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 1-1 1. Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (Proposed Project) in the City of Anaheim, California. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide the public, local, and state governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making. This document focuses on those impacts determined to be potentially significant as discussed in the Initial Study completed for this project (see Appendix A Subsequent EIR (SEIR) is prepared when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project and the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the criteria listed under Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines are met. The City of Anaheim, as lead agency, has determined that preparation of a Subsequent EIR (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11) is appropriate. This SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Anaheim’s CEQA procedures. This SEIR will be used to evaluate the impacts associated with implementing the Proposed Project. Use of a Subsequent EIR provides the City of Anaheim, as lead agency, with the opportunity to consider the environmental impacts that will be created by the Proposed Project and project alternatives, and mitigation measures that can reduce project impacts to the extent possible or to below a level of significance. The City of Anaheim has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Data for this SEIR was obtained from on-site field observations; discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature; and specialized environmental assessments (air quality, noise, traffic, water supply, and sewer). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This SEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are listed below: 1) To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 2) To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 3) To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 4) To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects. 5) To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. 6) To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide objective, factually supported, full- disclosure analyses of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environ- mental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format This SEIR has been formatted as described below. Section 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the Proposed Project, the format of this SEIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. Section 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this SEIR, background on the project, the Notice of Preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final SEIR certification. Section 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, the objectives of the Proposed Project, the project area and location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the project, the necessary environmental clearances for the project, and the intended uses of this SEIR. Section 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting provides baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. Section 5. Environmental Analysis: Provides, for each environmental parameter analyzed, a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the Proposed Project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 1-3 project after mitigation is incorporated and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area. Section 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Proposed Project. Section 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes the impacts of the alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No-Project/Existing MLUP Alternative, Reduced Intensity Alternative, and Increased Residential Intensity Alternative. Section 8. Impacts Found Not to be Significant: Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in this SEIR. Section 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project. Section 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the growth-inducing impacts of the Proposed Project. Section 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this SEIR for the Proposed Project. Section 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing SEIR: Lists the people who prepared this SEIR for the Proposed Project. Section 13. Bibliography: A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this SEIR for the Proposed Project. Appendices. The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover) contain the following supporting documents: • Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study • Appendix B: Comments on Notice of Preparation • Appendix C: Air Quality Modeling Output • Appendix D: Noise Modeling Output • Appendix E: Public Services Correspondence • Appendix F: Traffic Study • Appendix G: Water Supply Assessment • Appendix H: Sewer Study Technical Memorandum • Appendix I: Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan • I.1 Redline • I.2 Clean Copy • Appendix J: Infrastructure/Facility Improvements • Appendix K: HCD’s Approval Letter for the City’s Housing Element. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This SEIR Subsequent EIR This SEIR has been prepared as a Subsequent EIR as authorized by State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15162, Public Resources Code Section 21166). A Subsequent EIR must be prepared if: Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. The subject SEIR is intended to provide the additional environmental documentation for the project actions, including amendments to the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle MLUP, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form, and Zoning Reclassifications. Therefore, this SEIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for subsequent actions within the Platinum Triangle—including all local discretionary approvals and implementation programs and financial mechanisms assessment districts)—requested to implement the Platinum Triangle MLUP. Future developments that require additional discretionary review conditional use permit, variance, development agreement, etc.) will utilize this document for CEQA purposes to the extent possible, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would tier off of Final Subsequent EIR No. 332 for the Platinum Triangle MLUP and Associated Actions (FSEIR No. 332). Based on FSEIR No. 332, the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project in December 2008 found that impacts pertaining to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and mineral resources are less than significant and were not further analyzed in this document. This document analyzes the environmental effects of development pursuant to the Proposed Project to the degree of specificity required by Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This SEIR would be the primary reference document in the formation and implementation of a mitigation reporting and monitoring program for the Platinum Triangle; therefore, the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A would be updated and modified based on the findings contained herein. The purpose of this SEIR is to share information with the public regarding the project’s impacts, identify ways to avoid and/or reduce impacts, analyze alternatives, and to foster interagency coordination and public review. This SEIR will provide an additional environmental documentation for the project actions in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Program EIR This SEIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIR’s are typically more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than a Project EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 1-5 As provided in Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that may be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR provides the City (as Lead Agency) with the opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and provides the City with greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive basis. Agencies generally prepare Program EIR’s for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically, are logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program, or are individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documents may not be required (Guidelines Section 15168(c)). When a Program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the Lead Agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3)). If a subsequent activity would have effects not within the scope of the Program EIR, the Lead Agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. In this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168(h)) encourage the use of Program EIR’s, citing five advantages: • Provide a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR; • Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; • Avoid continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues; • Consider broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them; and, • Reduce paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering). 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The Platinum Triangle (hereinafter also referred to as the project area) is located at the confluence of Interstate (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57), in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California. It is located in the south-central portion of the City of Anaheim. The approximate 820-acre project area is located generally east of I-5, west of the Santa Ana River Channel and SR-57, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, the Grove of Anaheim, and surrounding light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail uses. A number of mixed-use developments have been constructed or are under construction. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The City of Anaheim proposes to increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in the Platinum Triangle as shown in Table 1-1. The Proposed Project has reduced the amount of office and commercial square footage and increased the amount of residential units being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in Final SEIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in the Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities for ARTIC, and reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange. Table 1-1 Proposed Platinum Triangle Development Intensities Land Use Adopted Proposed Increase Residential Units 10,266 18,909 8,643 Commercial Square Feet 2,264,400 4,909,682 2,645,282 Office Square Feet 5,055,550 14,340,522 9,284,972 Institutional Square Feet 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 The Proposed Project would expand the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation within the Platinum Triangle, create two new mixed use districts, and expand two existing mixed use districts within PTMU Overlay Zone. District development intensity maps that break down the allocated development in the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Districts by sub-areas have also been developed and are included in Appendix I of the SEIR No. 339. Development that occurs within the Platinum Triangle is implemented through the processing of subdivision maps and the submittal of plans for building permits unless a conditional use permit or a variance are required. Development in the PTMU Overlay Zone also requires approval of a Master Site Plan and/or a Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement. Specifically, the Proposed Project includes technical refinements and clarifications to the documents that govern and regulate development within the Platinum Triangle—the General Plan, the PTMLUP, and the PTMU Overlay Zone. Below is a description of the proposed amendments to each of these documents. General Plan A. Amend the Land Use Element (Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan) to: a. Redesignate approximately 191 acres from the Office High land use designation to the Mixed Use designation; and b. Redesignate approximately 17 acres from the Institutional land use designation to the Mixed Use designation. c. Reflect a recently constructed park and parks required by approved development agreements. B. Amend the Land Use Element (Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City) as shown in Table 1-2, Existing and Proposed General Plan Density Provisions, to: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 1-7 a. Increase the permitted development intensities in the Platinum Triangle; and b. Remove the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requirement for Mixed Use development in the Platinum Triangle. Table 1-2 Existing and Proposed General Plan Density Provisions (Table LU-4) Existing Description in Table LU-4 Proposed Description in Table LU-4 Location General Plan Land Use Designation Permitted Density Location General Plan Land Use Designation Permitted Density Mixed Use Residential 18,909 Dwelling Units Commercial 4,909,682 Square Feet Office 9,862,166 Square Feet Mixed Use Up to 10,266 dwelling units at densities up to 100 dwelling units per acre; up to 3,265,000 square feet of office development; up to 2,254,400 square feet of commercial development at a maximum FAR of 0.40. Institutional 1,500,000 Square Feet Office-High and Office-Low 4,478,356 Square Feet* Institutional 3.0 FAR Industrial 0.5 FAR Open Space 0.1 FAR The Platinum Triangle Area Office High and Office Low Up to 1,790,550 square feet of office development and up to 10,000 square feet of commercial development and a maximum FAR of 0.50 for properties designated Office-Low The Platinum Triangle *The maximum FAR for properties designated Office- Low is 0.5; the maximum FAR for properties designated Office-High is 2.0. C. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network) to modify the designations of streets within the Platinum Triangle: a. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way from 6-lane Major Arterial to 8-lane Stadium b. Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue from Secondary Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial; c. Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and SR-57 overpass from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; d. Rampart Street between Orangewood Avenue and the South City Limits adjacent to the City of Orange from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; e. West Dupont Drive between Orangewood Avenue and South Dupont Drive from Interior Street to Collector Street; f. South Dupont Drive between West Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place from Interior Street to Collector Street; g. South Towne Centre Place between West Towne Centre Place and Rampart Street from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 h. Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue from Secondary Arterial to 4- lane Primary Arterial; and, i. Cerritos Avenue between State College Boulevard and Douglass Road from Secondary Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial. D. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities) to: a. Extend the Class II Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to West Dupont Drive; b. Add the Class II Bikeway to West Dupont Drive, South Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place to Rampart Street; c. Add the Class II Bikeway to Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Ball Road; and d. Add the Class II Bikeway to Cerritos Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and Douglass Road. E. Amend the Green Element (Figure G-1: Green Plan) to reflect a recently constructed park and parks required by approved development agreements. F. Amend the Public Services and Facilities Element (Figure PSF-1: Fire and Police Facilities Map) to reflect the three fire stations proposed for the Platinum Triangle. Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amend the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) as shown in further detail in Appendix I, Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, to: A. Reflect the proposed General Plan amendments; B. Adjust the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone to create the ARTIC and Office Districts and expand the Katella and Orangewood Districts; C. Distribute the proposed increased development intensities as shown in Table 1-3 and further detailed in Appendix I, Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 1-9 Table 1-3 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Acres Residential Units Commercial Square Feet Office Square Feet3 Platinum Triangle District Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Arena 41 41 425 425 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ARTIC1 0 17 0 520 0 358,000 0 2,202,803 Gateway 53 50 2,142 2,949 50,000 64,000 530,000 562,250 Gene Autry 33 33 1,699 2,362 174,100 304,700 100,000 338,200 Katella 99 141 4,250 5,707 630,300 832,614 775,000 2,131,058 Orangewood 4 35 0 1,771 10,000 130,000 590,000 1,402,855 Stadium2 153 153 1,750 5,175 1,300,000 3,120,368 1,760,000 3,125,000 Total Mixed Use 383 470 10,266 18,909 2,264,400 4,909,682 3,855,000 9,862,166 Office 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 4,478,356 Total PTMU Overlay 383 591 10,266 18,909 2,264,400 4,909,682 5,055,550 14,340,522 1 The proposed development intensity includes 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. 2 The adopted and proposed development intensities for the Stadium District include 119,543 seats for existing (49,043 seats) and potential (70,500 seats) stadiums. 3 The adopted General Plan allows an additional 1,200,550 square feet of office development within the Platinum Triangle on properties outside of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Proposed Project expands the PTMU Overlay Zone to encompass these properties. D. Replace Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A with Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, and, E. Reflect technical refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, refinements to street cross-sections, density descriptions and exhibits. PTMU Overlay Zone Amend Chapter 18.20 PTMU Overlay Zone of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as shown in further detail in Appendix I, Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, to: A. Reflect the proposed General Plan and PTMLUP amendments; B. Provide development standards for the ARTIC, Stadium, Arena, and Office Districts; and, C. Modify zoning standards, including, but not limited to, vacant lots and setbacks and parking structure requirements for hotels and offices. Zoning Reclassification The Proposed Project includes a request to add the PTMU Overlay Zone to the properties within the new ARTIC and Office Districts and the expanded areas of the Katella and Orangewood Districts. Related Infrastructure Upgrades The Proposed Project also includes upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased intensity of land uses. These upgrades include roadway improvements, including a railroad grade separation project along State College Boulevard, between Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue; sewer ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 upgrades; a new water well; a new electrical substation; natural gas infrastructure improvements; and an additional fire station. These improvements are further discussed in Sections 5.9 and 5.10 and Appendix J. More specific design and location of infrastructure facilities as related to specific development projects would be reviewed as part of subsequent plan approvals tentative tract maps, street improvement plans, storm drain improvement plans, and Caltrans encroachment permits). The necessary on-site infrastructure that would be provided as part of future projects would be constructed by future property owner/developers, the City of Anaheim, and/or the utility provider, as determined by the City of Anaheim and/or other responsible agencies. State College Boulevard Railroad Undercrossing: The AT&SF railroad currently crosses State College Boulevard approximately 250 feet north of Wright Circle within the Platinum Triangle. In order to improve traffic flow and safety, the City of Anaheim is working with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on an underpass concept at this location. To accommodate this concept, the State College Boulevard profile requires depression from about 950 feet north to 750 feet south of the railroad crossing. The profiles of Wright Circle and Howell Avenue will need to be adjusted to meet the proposed grade of State College Boulevard. In anticipation of a future railroad grade separation project along State College Boulevard between Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue, a retaining wall was constructed along the southerly right-of-way of Wright Circle and the westerly right-of-way of State College Boulevard adjacent to the Stadium Lofts building. The retaining wall has a maximum height of 14 feet and was designed to be buried during the interim condition until such time that the grade separation project is constructed. The retaining wall design took into consideration the preliminary road profile of the undercrossing from a previous OCTA study and also accounted for a 3:1 landscaped slope from the back of the sidewalk to the face of wall. Portions of the retaining wall adjacent to Wright Circle and State College Boulevard that will be visible from the right-of-way upon completion of the railroad grade separation project were constructed with a decorative brick finish. The location and concept illustration of the grade separation are shown in Figure 3-12. Utilities along State College Boulevard need to be relocated due to the depressed profile of the undercrossing. Existing utilities include a water line, two sewer lines, a storm drain pipe, a gas line, and two underground power conduits. A pump station will be required for pumping stormwater at the sag point. The City has indicated that the pump station for the sewer line is not allowed along State College Boulevard, and that sewer lines need to be relocated within a sewer easement. Water Well: A new water well is proposed adjacent to the proposed Fire Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street south of Stanford Court, as shown on Figure 3-13. The new well will have a capacity between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm), and equipped at an initial production rate of 1,500 gpm. Discharge piping for the new well will connect to the existing 12-inch diameter main in Anaheim Way and the existing 10-inch diameter main in Santa Cruz Street. The building setback requirements and architectural treatments for the new well facility will blend with proposed Fire Station No. 12. Additional information regarding the water well is provided in Section 5.3. Electrical Substation: An electrical substation is proposed adjacent to the new water well at the corner of Orangewood Avenue and Anaheim Way. Construction of the substation will be by the electrical utility provider. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 1-11 Natural Gas: The Southern California Gas Company has indicated that alterations to the existing system and infrastructure improvements would be required. Future street and infrastructure improvements would be coordinated with the appropriate service providers. 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15126.6[a]). As described in Section 7.0 of this SEIR, three project alternatives were identified and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the Proposed Project: 1) No Project/Existing MLUP Alternative 2) Reduced Intensity Alternative 3) Increased Residential Intensity Alternative All three alternatives were selected for further analysis in this SEIR and are evaluated in greater depth in Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. 1.5.1 No-Project/Existing MLUP Alternative This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the Adopted MLUP and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone would remain unchanged. The properties designated by the General Plan for Mixed Use, Institutional, Industrial, Office-High and Office-Low land use would remain unchanged. The Katella and Orangewood Mixed Use Districts would not be expanded. The Office District and ARTIC Mixed Use District would not be created. Therefore, this alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment or amendments to the Platinum Triangle MLUP. As a result, the No- Project/Existing MLUP Alternative assumes a total of 10,266 dwelling units, a maximum overall commercial density of 2,264,400 square feet, and a maximum overall office density of 5,055,550 square feet. 1.5.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative This alternative would reduce proposed intensity increases by 30 percent. Implementation of this alternative would result in a total of 16,316 residential units, 4,116,097 square feet of commercial uses, 11,555,030 square feet of office uses, and 1,050,000 square feet of institutional uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The intent of this alternative is to reduce the impacts associated with implementation of the Platinum Triangle MLUP while achieving the basic goals and objectives established in the City’s General Plan. 1.5.3 Increased Residential Intensity Alternative The Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would convert some of office uses to residential intensity and commercial/retail and institutional square footages would remain. This Alternative would allow a maximum of 23,500 dwelling units, 11,714,038 square feet of office, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial/retail, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The increased Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce 2,626,484 square feet of office use from the Proposed Project and add 4,591 additional residential units. The resulting intensities would result in a ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 more balanced jobs/housing ratio but exacerbate other environmental impacts associated with residential increases such as the need for additional recreation and education facilities where there may not be adequate available sites. 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the Proposed Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to: 1) Whether this SEIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. 2) Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3) Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. 4) Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. 5) Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides those identified in the SEIR. 6) Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY During the NOP Review period and the scoping meeting the following issues were raised as areas of concern. 1. ARTIC – The City of Anaheim is currently preparing an environmental document for construction of ARTIC. The ARTIC project is discussed in the context of the Proposed Project throughout this SEIR. Approval of the Proposed Project is not required for the implementation of the ARTIC project. 2. Provision of affordable housing opportunities within the Platinum Triangle (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) – NOP comments indicated that because the Proposed Project would create a range of employment opportunities at all income levels, housing opportunities should also be provided for all income groups in the Platinum Triangle. Please refer to Section 5.6, Population and Housing, for a discussion of housing affordability within the City of Anaheim. 3. Land Use Decisions related to the Stadium District – A comment by Public Law Center indicated that of special concern are control over and land use decisions related to the areas immediately surrounding the footprint of Angel’s Stadium, irrespective of the terms of any leases. Currently the lease between the City of Anaheim and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim precludes development of residential uses on the stadium property. This issue deals with the contractual arrangement between the City and the Angels. It does not involve any physical impact that needs to be addressed in the SEIR. The SEIR analyzes what the Proposed Project will allow, not what any specific lease agreement permits. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 1-13 4. Job training and local hiring – A comment from OCCORD indicated that it would be beneficial for the Platinum Triangle to address issues pertaining to local hiring and job training in an effort to improve several neighborhoods near the Platinum Triangle. This issue is not discussed in the SEIR because it does not relate to physical impacts on the environment, as required by CEQA. This SEIR has taken into consideration the comments received from the public, various agencies, and jurisdictions in response to the Notice of Preparation. Written comments received during the NOP and scoping period are contained in Appendix B. 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1-4 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this SEIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant, and for all significant impacts mitigation measures are identified. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-15 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1-1: The Proposed Project would alter the visual appearance of the project area. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference number from MMP No. 106A is shown in (italics). 1-1 Prior to approval of a As part of the Final Site Plan application, where adjacent uses are deemed to be shadow sensitive (i.e.e.g., residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas), the property owner/developer for future development projects shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project would not preclude shadow sensitive receptors’ exposure to natural sunlight for at least 50 percent of duration for the season, for at least 50 percent of the shade-sensitive area, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. (5.1-1) Less than significant 5.2 AIR QUALITY 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate substantially more short-term air pollutants compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and would continue to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional significance thresholds. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332), and are applicable to the Proposed Project. (For mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption, see also Chapter 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems). Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from MMP No.106A is shown in (italics). Construction 2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce construction-related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected to remain significant. (5.2-1) a) The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to reduce operational emissions. Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-16 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation b) Where feasible, the The contractor shall use Tier 3 or higher, as identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, off-road construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards for equipment greater than 50 horsepower, based on manufacturer’s availability. low emission mobile construction. c) The contractor shall utilize existing power sources power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary diesel-power generators, where feasible. 2-2 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce in order to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: (5.2-2) a) The property owner/developer shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. b) In addition to the standard measures, the property owner/developer shall implement supplemental measures as feasible to reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent feasible during construction operations. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: a) o During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall rRe-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering as quickly as possible to achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM10 of 5 percent. b) o During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers Pave to on-site haul roads to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 85 percent compared to travel on unpaved, untreated roads. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-17 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation c) o The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall pPhase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. d) o The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSchedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. Restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during construction in coordination with local public agencies. e) o During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant PM10–efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. f) o During active demolition and debris removal and grading, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSuspend demolition and grading operations when during high winds speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to achieve an emissions control efficiency for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions of 98 percent in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. Wash off trucks leaving site. g) o During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall mMaintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other suitable means to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 91 percent. o Cover payloads on trucks hauling soil using tarps or other suitable means. h) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site to achieve an emissions reduction control efficiency for PM10 of 61 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-18 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation i) During active demolition and debris removal, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply water to disturbed soils at the end of each day to achieve an emission control efficiency for PM10 of 10 percent. j) During scraper unloading and loading, the property owner/developer’s construc- tion contractor shall ensure that actively disturbed areas maintain a minimum soil moisture content of 12 percent by use of a moveable sprinkler system or water truck to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 69 percent. k) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall limit on-site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 57 percent. 2-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project site. (5.2-3) 2-4 Prior to issuance approval of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that high-solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regulations. To ensure that volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings do not exceed AQMDs significance thresholds for architectural coatings, the number of gallons of coatings shall be restricted, to the maximum extent feasible, to the maximum daily coating usage identified in Table 5.2-9 of the SEIR. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall specify the use of high volume/low pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-19 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Where feasible, the paint contractor shall use hand applications as well. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer’s shall specify the use of high- volume/low-pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air-atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Plans shall also show that property owner/developers shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting, or use prepainted construction materials, to the extent feasible. (5.2-4) Additional Mitigation No addition mitigation measures are applicable. 5.2-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate substantially more long-term air pollutants compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and would continue to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional significance thresholds. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, and are applicable to the Proposed Project. (For mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption, see also Chapter 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems). Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from MMP No.106A is shown in (italics). Operation 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO, NOX, ROG, and PM10 emissions: (5.2-5) • Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010 traffic study and Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) shall be implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed. Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-20 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 2-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent. Plans shall show the following: a) Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and; therefore, reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at the following website: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs/ or other similar websites. b) Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or other similar websites. c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows. d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square-feet. e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings. Implementation of energy conservation techniques installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. (5.2-6) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-21 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation The following Mitigation Measure from the 2005 EIR for the Adopted MLUP is no longer applicable because SCAQMD adopted Rule 445, Wood-Burning Devices. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits installation of wood-burning fireplaces. Consequently, all fireplaces installed within the Platinum Triangle MLUP would be required to be gas-burning and former Mitigation Measure 5.2-7 is no longer required. 5.2-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the placement of a note on the plans stating that to reduce the health impacts of air quality hazards within The Platinum Triangle, placement of wood-burning fireplaces in residential units shall be prohibited. As an alternative to wood-burning fireplaces, gas fireplaces may be used. Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. 5.2-3: Construction activities would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would also reduce localized concentration of air pollutants during construction. Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. Significant and unavoidable 5.2-4: Mobile sources of emissions related to the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not applicable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-22 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.2-5: Sensitive land uses within 500 feet of State Route 57 and Interstate 5 or within the recommended buffer distances to facilities emitting TACs may be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A No mitigation measures are applicable. Additional Mitigation 2-7 Applicants for new residential developments in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan within 500 feet of Interstate 5 (I-5) or State Route 57 (SR-57) shall be required to install high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters of MERV 14 or better in the intake of residential ventilation systems. MERV 14 filters have a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 90 percent for particulates 1.0 micron to 3.0 microns in size and a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 75 to 85 percent for particles 0.3 to 1.0 micron in size. A MERV 14 filter creates more resistance to airflow because the filter media becomes denser as efficiency increases. Heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems shall be installed with a fan unit designed to force air through the MERV 14 filter. To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV 14 filters in the individual units, the following shall occur: a) Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk from I-5/SR-57 for all affected units. b) For rental units within 500 feet of the I-5/SR-57, the owner/property manager shall maintain and replace MERV 14 filters in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I-5 or SR-57 when windows are open. c) For residential owned units within 500 feet of I-5/SR-57, the homeowner’s association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV 14 filter in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I- 5/SR-57 when windows are open. 2-8 Based on the recommended buffer distances of the California Air Resources Board, applicants for new developments in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan shall place residential structures and active outdoor recreational areas outside of the recommended buffer distances to the following stationary air pollutant sources: Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-23 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • 1,000 feet from the truck bays with an existing distribution center that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week. • 1,000 feet from an existing chrome plating facility. • 300 feet from a dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using one machine and 500 feet from dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using two machines. • 50 feet from gas pumps within a gas-dispensing facility and 300 feet from gas pumps within a gasoline-dispensing facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater. 2-9 All outdoor active-use public recreational areas associated with development projects shall be located more than 500 feet from the nearest lane of traffic on Interstate 5 and State Route 57. 5.2-6: The Proposed Project is consistent with the 2007 AQMP. Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not Applicable 5.2-7: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors; however, implementation of the Proposed Project could result in new residential land uses located near existing odor generators. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A No mitigation measures are applicable. Additional Mitigation 2-10 For all residential projects located within 1,000 feet of an industrial facility that emits substantial odors, which includes but is not limited to • wastewater treatment plants • composting, greenwaste, or recycling facilities • fiberglass manufacturing facilities • painting/coating operations • coffee roasters • food processing facilities, Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-24 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Project Applicant shall submit an odor assessment to the Planning Director prior to approval of any future discretionary action that verifies that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has not received three or more verified odor complaints. If the Odor Assessment identifies that the facility has received three such complaints, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics BACTs) are capable of reducing potential odors to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, scrubbers at the industrial facility, or installation of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters rated at 14 or better at all residential units. 5.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.3-1: The Proposed Project would place additional demands on groundwater supplies due to the construction of a new water well. Less than significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 3-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans documenting that the design of all aboveground structures (with the exception of parking structures) shall be at least three feet higher that the 100-year flood zone, where applicable, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer. All structures below this level shall be floodproofed to prevent damage to property or harm to people. (5.5-1) 3-2 At least 90 days prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, an NOI shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The in Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-25 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area. Long-term measures could include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage, designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. The BMPs selected shall be consistent with the Water Quality Technical Report set forth in for the Proposed Project (Appendix G) of SEIR No. 332. (5.5-2) Additional Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation measures are required. 5.4 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.4-1: Project Implementation would conflict with applicable plans, policies, and/or regulation. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.4-2: Some development pursuant to the Proposed Project will not be compatible with the Southern California Gas Company’s existing microwave tower. Potentially significant No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the potential conflict with the microwave tower’s telecommunication function anticipated by the high-rise towers. Significant and unavoidable 5.5 NOISE 5.5-1: Build-out of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial, permanent increase in ambient traffic noise levels within the vicinity of existing noise- sensitive receptors. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures measure from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-1 Prior to approval of street improvement plans for any project-related roadway widening, the City shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to design project acoustical features that will limit traffic noise at noise sensitive uses to levels that are below the City’s noise ordinance. These treatments shall be noted on the street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 5-1 will reduce impacts related traffic noise increases to the extent feasible. However, some areas may experience noise ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-26 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Department and may include, but are not limited to, the replacement of windows and doors at existing residences with acoustically rated windows and doors. levels in exceedance of the City’s noise ordinance prior to implementation of roadway improvements and associated noise attenuation. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. 5.5-2: Build-out of the Platinum Triangle would not generate significant levels of stationary- source noise that exceeds the City of Anaheim’s noise standards from truck loading/unloading activities and operation of HVAC systems. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.5-3: Noise-sensitive residential units proposed within the Platinum Triangle may be exposed to mobile- and stationary-source noise levels that exceed state and/or City standards. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the SEIR No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers are shown in (italics). 5-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any project generating over 100 peak hour trips, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound- attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary sources industrial, commercial, stadium, etc.), and railroad, to meet City Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-27 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation interior and exterior noise standards as follows: (5.7.2) a) The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential design will result in compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations). b) The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential design shall minimize nighttime awakening from stadium event noise and train horns such that interior single-event noise levels are below 81 dBA Lmax. The property owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project. Additional Mitigation 5-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during a stadium event will be provided to all future tenants in the Stadium District. 5-4 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during sounding of train horns will be provided to all future tenants facing an at-grade crossing of the Orange Count Line. 5.5-4: Building façades that are exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would require architectural improvements to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level limits. Potentially Significant Same mitigation measures as Impact 5.5-3. Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-28 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.5-5: Construction of the Proposed Project would generate substantial levels of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise in the vicinity of vibration-sensitive land uses. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures measure from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-5 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, to reduce noise and vibration impacts from the impact pile driver, the construction contractor shall evaluate the feasibility of using auger cast piles or a similar system to drill holes to construct cast-in-place piles for a pile-supported transfer slab foundation system. This alternative construction method would reduce the duration necessary for use of the impact pile driver and/or eliminate the need to use pile drivers altogether. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the Planning Department in the form of a letter from the construction contractor. Significant and unavoidable 5.5-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project could expose vibration-sensitive receptors to substantial levels of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise in the vicinity of the AMTRAK/Metrolink line. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures measure from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-6 Prior to approval of any Final Site Plan, if new vibration-sensitive land uses are located in close proximity to the Orange County Line, the project applicant shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rail line. If perceptible levels of vibration are detected, the acoustic analysis shall recommend site design features, such as setbacks and trenches, and/or required building improvements, such as harder building materials steel framing vs. wood framing), to eliminate the potential for train operations to result in perceptible levels of vibration that cause human annoyance to future project residents. The site design features shall be identified on the Final Site Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Less than significant 5.5-7: Development within the Platinum Triangle could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels in the vicinity of existing noise-sensitive land uses during construction activities. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A 5-7 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise: (5.7-1) a) Noise generated by construction, shall be limited by the property owner/developer to Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-29 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 60 dBA along the property boundaries, before 7:00 AM and after 7:00 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.7, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. b) Limit the hours of operation of equipment that produces noise levels noticeably above general construction noise levels to the hours of 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. c) All internal combustion engines on all of the construction equipment shall be properly outfitted with well maintained muffler systems. Additional Mitigation 5-8 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. 5-9 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to locate all stationary noise sources generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from occupied noise-sensitive receptors as is feasible. 5-10 Ongoing during construction activities, material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall also be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 6.70. 5.5-8: Heliports/helipads within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle would not significantly expose future residents and/or workers to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.6-1: The Proposed Project would result in direct population growth due to new housing and employment opportunities in the Project Area. Potentially significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Not Applicable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-30 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.7 PUBLIC SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 5.7-1: The Proposed Project would require additional fire facilities to serve project development. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-1 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, plans Plans shall indicate that all buildings shall have fire sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed by the property owner/developer prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection. (5.9-1) Additional Mitigation 7-2 Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for fire facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36. Less than significant POLICE PROTECTION 5.7-2: The Proposed Project would require an increase in police facilities and staffing needs. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-3 Prior to the approval of Final Site Plan, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including implementation of Ordinance 6016 and the concept of crime prevention through environmental design building design, circulation, site Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-31 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation planning and lighting of parking structure and parking areas). Rooftop addresses shall be provided for all parking structures (for the police helicopter). Minimum size for numbers shall be four feet in height and two feet in width. The lines for the numbers shall be six inches thick and spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. All numbers shall have a contrasting color to the parking structure and shall face the street to which the structure is addressed. (5.9-2) 7-4 Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit for a parking structure , the The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Anaheim Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final Building and Zoning inspections. (5.9-3) 7-5 Prior to the approval of Final Site Plan, the The property owner/developer shall submit design plans that shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Anaheim Police Department. (5.9-4) 7-6 Ongoing during project operation, if If the Anaheim Police Department of Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services. (5.9-5) Additional Mitigation 7-7 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for police facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36. SCHOOL SERVICES 5.7-3: The Proposed Project would generate new students and require additional school facilities in the area. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-32 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-8 Ongoing, theThe City of Anaheim will work cooperatively with school districts to identify opportunities for school facilities sites for new schools and school expansions in the Platinum Triangle. (5.9-6) Additional Mitigation 7-9 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the school impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Anaheim Union High School District and Anaheim City School District in compliance with Senate Bill 50 (Government Code [GC] Section 65995 as amended). LIBRARY SERVICES 5.7-4: The Proposed Project would increase the service needs for local libraries. Potentially significant 7-10 Prior to approval of the first Development Agreement with residential units within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan following certification of SEIR No. 339, an update to the library facilities fee program included in the Standardized Development Agreement shall be submitted to the City Council for review and consideration to reflect the Proposed Project intensities. Less than significant DAY CARE FACILITIES 5.7-5: The Proposed Project would increase the service needs for local day care facilities. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Not applicable. 5.8 RECREATION 5.8-1: The Proposed Project would increase demands on existing parks and recreational facilities. Potentially significant 8-1 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to seek property acquisition opportunities for parkland in and adjacent to the project area. 8-2 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to work with developers to seek alternative means of providing recreational amenities. 8-3 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue fostering partnerships with Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-33 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation other public entities and private organizations to seek alternative means of providing various types of recreational opportunities. 5.8-2: Development of recreational facilities would not have adverse physical effect on the environment. Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not Applicable 5.9 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 5.9-1: Project-related trip generation would impact levels of service for the area roadway system. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from the MMP No. 106A is shown in (italics). 9-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, Tthe property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: (5.10-2) • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 9-2 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, and ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property Significant and unavoidable. All arterial roadways and intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service or no worse than No Project conditions provided planned roadway improvements are implemented. However, if these programs are not implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, including Caltrans and the City of Orange, the project’s intersection, impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-34 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. following: (5.10-2) • On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services be provided. • Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. • Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs. • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transporta- tion Authority (including commute rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. A commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. Event shuttle service will be available for the guests. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program, Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Stagger work shifts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-35 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. • Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.) • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants. 9-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, Tthe property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. (5.10-3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-36 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 9-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees, and Platinum Triangle Impact Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. (5.10-5) 9-5 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, Tthe property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. (5.10-6) Additional Mitigation Measures 9-6 Prior to approval of a Development Agreement for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, property owner/developers shall prepare traffic improvement phasing analyses to identify when the improvements identified in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report, Parson Brinkerhoff, August 2010 (Appendix F of this SEIR) shall be designed and constructed. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to implement traffic improvements as identified in the project traffic study to maintain satisfactory levels of service as defined by the City’s General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339, Orange County Congestion Management Program and established in City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-37 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. 9-7 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair-share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. At minimum, fair-share calculations shall include intersection improvements, rights-of-way, and construction costs, unless alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. 9-8 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange: a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within the City of Orange. The fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts shall be calculated in this analysis. b) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with the City of Orange. c) The Proposed Project shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair-share cost prior to issuance of a building permit. The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall allocate the fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-38 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities. 9-9 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, and assuming that a regional transportation agency has not already programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations, property owners/developers and the City will take the following actions in cooperation with Caltrans: a) The traffic study will identify the Project’s proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations and its fair share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339 and established in the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. b) The City shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans. 9-10 Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair-share responsibility as determined by the City as set forth in Mitigation Measure 9-9. The City shall allocate the property owners/developers fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City. 9-11 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Plan. 9-12 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Public Works, Transit Planning Division that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-39 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation the project, the existing Metrolink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following: a. A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co-location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division and ATN.The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan. b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service. e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken its place. f. That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-40 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.9-2: The Proposed Project would increase traffic volumes on Caltrans facilities. Potentially significant Same mitigation measures for Impact 5.9-1. Significant and unavoidable. All Caltrans intersections and freeway mainline segments would operate at an acceptable level of service or no worse than No Project conditions provided planned roadway improvements are implemented. However, if these programs are not implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, the project’s freeway ramp and mainline impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. 5.9-3: The Proposed Project would result in the construction of residential uses within close proximity to several heliports. Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not applicable 5.9-4: Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (sharp curves, etc.) or potentially conflicting uses. Potentially significant 9-13 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements identified under Impact 5.9-4 shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6. Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-41 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 9-14 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 5.9-5: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.9-6: The Proposed Project would promote alternative forms of transportation. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.10-1: Project-generated sewage could be adequately treated by the sewer service provider for the Proposed Project. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-1 The City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle Sewer Study. If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Benefit Parcels and Development Mitigation (Appendix D of the Platinum Triangle Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-42 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Sewer Study), prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final Building and Zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the project area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. (5.11-5) 10-2 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner/developer shall coordinate with the OCSD to ensure that all improvements and construction schedules are coordinated. (5.11-7) Additional Mitigation 10-3 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall contact Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regarding sewer capacity. Additionally, if requested by the OCSD, the property owner/developer shall place up to three flow monitoring devices for up to a month to verify capacity and ensure consistency with the OCSD’s modeling results. 10-4 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to prevent the sewer spill for below-grade structures of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe and the invert elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when they are above the pipe crown. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-43 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-5 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where OCSD will be upsizing truck lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner shall coordinate with OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are installed at the lateral connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties. 10-6 Prior to final design approval, additional analysis shall be performed for each individual project using flow, wet-weather data, and other information specific for that project in order to obtain more accurate results of the surcharge levels for final design. 5.10-2: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881)Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325). Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following: • Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; • Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas; • Low-flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; • Use of self-closing valves for drinking fountains; • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors; • Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals; • Low-flow shower heads in hotels; Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-44 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Infrared sensors on drinking fountains; • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances; • Cooling tower recirculating system; • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; • Use of waterway recirculation systems; • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. (5.11-1) 10-8 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide engineering studies, including network analysis, to size the water mains for ultimate development within the project. This includes detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering reviews and approval in determining project water requirements and appropriate water assessment fees. (5.11-2) 10-9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) (5.11-3) 10-10 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall comply with Rule 15D of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Rule 15D shall be amended to include construction of a new well with a minimum 1,500 GPM capacity within The Platinum Triangle. (5.11-4) Additional Mitigation 10-11 Ongoing, the City shall continue to collaborate with Metropolitan, its member agencies, and OCWD to ensure that available water supplies meet anticipated demand. If it is forecast that water demand exceeds available supplies, the City shall trigger application of its Water ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-45 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Conservation Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.18, as prescribed, to require mandatory conservation measures as authorized by Section 10.18.070 through 10.18.090, as appropriate. 10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. 10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water facets, and water efficient appliances. 10-14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. 10-15 Prior to approval of a project that exceeds the statutory thresholds set forth in SB 610 and SB 221, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that adequate water supply exists to serve the Proposed Project. If it cannot be demonstrated that adequate water exists to serve the specific project, the project shall not be approved. 10-16 Prior to issuance of the first building permit or grading permit following certification of SEIR No. 334, whichever occurs first, Rule 15-D shall be amended to include the following improvements. • A transmission main in Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to SR-57 • A transmission main in Douglass Avenue from Katella to the Anaheim Stadium loop • A transmission main in State College Boulevard from Orangewood south to the City limits • A transmission main in the Lewis Street Connector • A new 3,000 gallon per minute water well ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-46 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.10-3: The Proposed Project would result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. Potentially Significant The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-17 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities, as identified in the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area. If the project will increase stormwater flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient storm drain system or will create a deficiency in an existing storm drain, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the drainage facilities, as required by the City Engineer to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Development Mitigation within Benefit Zones (Appendix E of the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study) of the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final Building and Zoning inspection for the building/ structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. (5.5-3) Less than significant 5.10-4: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-47 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: (5.11-8) • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection • Providing on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. • Prohibiting curbside pick-up. • Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations. 10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: (5.11-9) • Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling. • Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-48 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the The property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/ Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division and /or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site, sale to a broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/ developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if all cannot be reused on the project site. (5.11-10) 5.10-5: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated electricity demands. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Department Business and Community Programs Division. in order to review Title 24 measures incorporated into the project design including energy efficient designs. This consultation shall take place during project design in order to review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient practices efficiency and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage air-conditioning, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives. (5.11-11) Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-49 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, In order to conserve energy, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans implement energy-saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 10 24, which may include the following: • High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control. • Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution. • Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle. • Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. • Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. • Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors compressor motors, air- handling units, and fan-coil units). • Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces. • Use of compact fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent lamps. • Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps. • Use of ® exit lighting or exit signage. • Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified. • Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots. • Use of skylights. • Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or hotel buildings, meeting facilities, theaters, or other intermittent-use spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. • Consideration for participation in Resource Efficiency’s Advantage Services Programs such as: o New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering fees for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. o Energy Sale for New Construction – Cash incentives ($150 300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements. o Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-50 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. o Thermal Energy Storage Feasibility Study – Cost sharing of up to $5,000 for the feasibility study of TES applied to new facilities. • Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush(gpf) or less). • Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). • Use of Weather0based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. • Use of draught-tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping. (5.11-12) 10-23 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, For any buildings requiring a change in electrical service, the property owner/developer shall install their portion of the an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for of Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees service fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the Cityand Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. The underground electrical service will consist of the following improvements to the current electric facilities: (5.11-13) • Relocate Southern California Edison transmission line underground on Katella Avenue from west of the Union Pacific Railroad to Lewis Street (850 feet). • Relocate Southern California Edison communication line underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to east of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • Relocate distribution circuits underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from Anaheim Way to State College Boulevard (1,500 feet). • Relocation a distribution circuit underground on Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to west of the Santa Ana River (1,600 feet). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-51 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Gene Autry Way (950 feet). • Relocate a distribution circuit underground on Douglas Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (1,000 feet). 10-24 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with exceed the State Energy Conservation Standards for Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code) by a minimum of 10 percent. (5.11-14) Additional Mitigation 10-25 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall install their portion of the underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications of underground systems. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City. The underground electrical service will consist of the following improvements to the current electric facilities: • Two new distribution duct banks on Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Street (800 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Douglas Road to Howell Avenue (2,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on State College Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue (2,600 feet). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-52 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Ave. from I-5 to the Santa Ana River (4,800 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from Haster Street to the east side of I-5 (2,500 feet). • A new transmission duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet). • A new transmission duct bank on Lewis Street and Santa Cruz Street from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on the east side of the Angel Stadium parking lot from Orangewood Avenue to the SR-57 (2,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Douglas Road from SR-57 to Cerritos Avenue (4,000 feet). 10-26 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, the property owner/developer shall provide an electrical load analysis to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The analysis shall include a load schedule and maximum electrical coincident demand. Should the property owner/developer’s load analysis result in a contributed load forecast to exceed 20 mega volt-amperes (MVA) above the existing 40 MVA capacity of the electrical system currently serving the Platinum Triangle area, the APUD will initiate construction of a new electrical substation within the Platinum Triangle project area. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees for the electrical substation will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations, or another financial mechanism approved by the City. 5.10-6: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated natural Gas demands. Potentially Significant 10-27 The City shall coordinate all future street and infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle with other service providers, including Southern California Gas Company and the Orange County Sanitation District so that required infrastructure upgrades maybe constructed concurrently. Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-53 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.11 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.11-1: The Proposed Project would generate substantially more greenhouse gas emissions compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California. However, the Proposed Project would be consistent statewide and regional greenhouse gas reductions goals. Potentially Significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from Other EIR Sections Below is a list of mitigation measures included in other environmental topical sections of this EIR that also would reduce GHG emissions associated with the project and are consistent with the California Attorney General’s mitigation measures for energy efficiency, renewable energy and storage, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use, transportation and motor vehicle, and agriculture and forestry measures. It should also be noted that the proposed project is a mixed-use infill project that is consistent with the Attorney General’s recommended measures for land use. In addition, several of the mitigation measures incorporate several categories of the California Attorney General’s recommended measures energy efficiency and water efficiency measures are occasionally incorporated in the same mitigation measure). Solid Waste Measures 2-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project site. (5.2-3) 10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Significant and Unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-54 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: (5.11-8) • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection • Providing on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. • Prohibiting curbside pick-up. • Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations. 10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: (5.11-9) • Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling. • Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. 10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the The property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division, and /or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site, sale to a broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-55 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if all cannot be reused on the project site. (5.11-10) Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO, NOX, ROG, and PM10 emissions: (5.2-5) • Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010, traffic study and Master Plan of Arterial Highways shall be implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed. 9-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, Tthe property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: (5.10-2) • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-56 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 9-2 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, and ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. following: (5.10-2) • On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services be provided. • Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. • Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs. • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commute rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. A commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. Event shuttle service will be available for the guests. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program, Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-57 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Stagger work shifts. • Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. • Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.) • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants. 9-12 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Public Works, Transit Planning Division that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-58 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the project, the existing Metrolink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following: a. A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co-location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division and ATN. The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan. b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service. e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken its place. f. That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-59 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 9-14 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Energy Efficiency 2-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent. Plans shall show the following: a) Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs or similar websites. b) Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or similar websites. c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows. d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-60 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings. Implementation of energy conservation techniques installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark- colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. (5.2-6) 10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with exceed the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Department Business and Community Programs Division. in order to review Title 24 measures incorporated into the project design including energy efficient designs. This consultation shall take place during project design in order to review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient practices efficiency and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage air- conditioning, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives. (5.11-11) 10-22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, In order to conserve energy, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans implement energy-saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 10 24, which may include the following: • High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control. • Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution. • Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle. • Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. • Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. • Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors compressor motors, air- handling units, and fan-coil units). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-61 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces. • Use of compact fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent lamps. • Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps. • Use of Energy Star exit lighting or exit signage. • Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified. • Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots. • Use of skylights. • Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or hotel buildings, meeting facilities, theaters, or other intermittent-use spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. • Consideration for participation in Resource Efficiency’s Advantage Services Programs such as: - New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering fees for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. - Energy Sale for New Construction – Cash incentives ($150 300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements. - Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. - Thermal Energy Storage Feasibility Study – Cost sharing of up to $5,000 for the feasibility study of TES applied to new facilities. (5.11-12) • Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or less). • Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). • Use of weather-based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. • Use of drought-tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping. 10-24 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with exceed the State Energy Conservation Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code) by a minimum of 10 percent. (5.11-14) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-62 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Water Conservation and Efficiency 10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881)Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325). Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following: • Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; • Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas; • Low-flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; • Use of self-closing valves for drinking fountains; • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors; • Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals; • Low-flow shower heads in hotels; • Infrared sensors on drinking fountains; • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances; • Cooling tower recirculating system; • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; • Use of waterway recirculation systems; • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. (5.11-1) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-63 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) (5.11-3) 10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. 10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water facets, and water efficient appliances. 10-14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 1-64 • City of Anaheim August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 2-1 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. This Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15000, et seq. The SEIR is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the Proposed Project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify alternatives to the project. The SEIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the lead agency is “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” The City of Anaheim has the principal responsibility for approval of the Platinum Triangle project. For this reason, the City of Anaheim is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The intent of the SEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Platinum Triangle Expansion Project to allow the City of Anaheim to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of this Subsequent EIR. This SEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the: • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) • State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (herein referenced as CEQA Guidelines), as amended (14 CCR Sections 15000 et seq.) The overall purpose of this SEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects of the development and operation of the Proposed Project. This SEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project, including effects that may be significant and adverse, evaluates a number of alternatives to the project, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY The City of Anaheim issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on December 11, 2008 (See Appendix Comments received during the public review period, which extended from December 11, 2008, to January 9, 2009, are contained in Appendix B. The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIR. Based on this process and the Initial Study for the project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in this SEIR. Issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact are not addressed beyond the discussion contained in the Initial Study. Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for discussion of how these initial determinations have been made. Table 2-1 NOP Responses Agency or Interested Party Comment EIR Section Where Comment Is Addressed Transportation Corridor Agencies No comment. Not applicable. City of Santa Ana No comment. Not applicable. City of Orange The City of Orange requests a list of intersections located in Orange to be included in the EIR and the EIR to consider relevant cumulative projects, including the City’s Comprehensive General Plan Update. The City of Orange and the City of Anaheim are proposing intensifications of land uses in the same area, the cumulative effect on traffic infrastructure should be analyzed and coordinated. See Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic. State of California Public Utilities Commission Potential safety impact due to increased traffic on street and at Cerritos Avenue (DOT# 026651M) and State College Boulevard (DOT# 026652U) crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns/destinations with respect to Metrolink’s Orange County Line right- of-way. See Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic. State of California Native American Heritage Commission Potential impacts to cultural resources. The SEIR should comply with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(c). Issues pertaining to cultural resources were determined as less than significant in the NOP/IS. See Appendix A. Department of Toxic Substances Control This letter states that most of the comments sent by DTSC to the City of Anaheim have been addressed by the FSEIR No. 332 and there is no additional comment. DTSC-related issues were determined as less than significant in the NOP/IS and are not addressed in this document. See Appendix A. State of California Department of Transportation Comments concerning an encroachment permit if any work occurs in the vicinity of the DOT’s rights-of-way. Comments on the traffic impact study methodology and the list of intersections and ramps to be analyzed. See Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 2-3 Table 2-1 NOP Responses Agency or Interested Party Comment EIR Section Where Comment Is Addressed OCTA Comment notifies the City that Metrolink service will be increased to high frequency service by the year 2010 and recommends that bus turnouts be placed at all existing OCTA stops in the project area. See Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic and Section 5.2, Air Quality. Airport Land Use Commission Recommended that the SEIR discuss Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 Section 77.13 requirements and various helicopter training operations. See Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic. The Kennedy Commission Comments on broader community outreach, quality affordable childcare, neighborhood schools, community parks, water quality and water conservation measures, adequate public safety (police), universal design, job training and local hiring, and jobs/housing balance. See Sections 5.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, 5.6, Population and Housing, and 5.7 Public Services. Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development Comments on broader community outreach, quality affordable childcare, neighborhood schools, community parks, water quality and water conservation measures, adequate public safety (police), universal design, job training and local hiring, and jobs/housing imbalance. See Sections 5.2 Air Quality, 5.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, 5.6, Population and Housing, 5.7 Public Services, and 5.9 Transportation and Traffic. Public Law Center Comments on balanced development, child care and schools, mixed-income strategy, compliance with SB 375, properties surrounding the Angels’ Stadium, and inclusive development. See Sections 5.4 Land Use and Planning and 5.6 Population and Housing, and 5.7 Public Services. Ersoylu Consulting Inc. Comments on neighborhood schools, community parks, and adequate public safety. Sections 5.7 Public Services and 5.8 Recreation. OC Public Works Comments on water quality and flood control. Section 5.3 Hydrology and Water Quality. Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice of Orange County Comments on jobs/housing imbalance and local hiring and training. Section 5.6 Population and Housing. Latino Health Access Comments on safe open space and adequate schools. Sections 5.8 Recreation and 5.7 Public Services. UNITE HERE Local 11 Comments on types of jobs and housing created in the project area and jobs/housing imbalance. Section 5.6 Population and Housing. 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS SEIR Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City of Anaheim staff determined that a SEIR should be prepared for the Proposed Project. The scope of the SEIR was determined based upon the City’s Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City of Anaheim. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 The information contained in Chapter 3, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future project-related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project-by-project basis. 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Six environmental impact categories are identified here as not being significantly affected by, or affecting the Proposed Project and are therefore not discussed in detail in this SEIR. This determination was made by the City of Anaheim in its preparation of the Initial Study. The following topical issues are not addressed in the SEIR: • Agricultural Resources • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Mineral Resources 2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Eleven environmental factors have been identified as potentially significant impacts if the Proposed Project is implemented: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems • Greenhouse Gas Emissions These environmental factors are discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this SEIR. 2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This SEIR identifies five significant and unavoidable adverse impact areas, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts are those that fall within the responsibility of another agency and implementation of the mitigation measures cannot feasibly be assured by the City of Anaheim. If the City, as the lead agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts would result from the project, the City must prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 2-5 effects are considered to be acceptable. The impact areas that were found to be significant and unavoidable are: • Air Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Traffic and Transportation • Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following documents are incorporated by reference in this SEIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Anaheim’s Planning Department. • City of Anaheim General Plan: A comprehensive, long-term plan that is a blueprint for the City of Anaheim’s growth and development. It covers issues ranging from the physical development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure, to social concerns. It is organized into ten Elements (Land Use, Circulation, Green, Public Services and Facilities, Growth Management, Safety, Noise, Economic Development, Housing, and Community Design Elements) that address a wide range of subjects and provide goals and policies. • City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final EIR No. 330, State Clearinghouse Number [PHONE REDACTED], May 2004, The Planning Center: A document that addressed the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update. It provided information pertaining to existing and future environmental settings within the City’s jurisdiction. • The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, August 2004, EDAW, Inc., as amended: A plan that serves as the blueprint for development within the Platinum Triangle. It establishes planning principles, applicable land use policies, allowable development intensities, and design guidelines. • The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332, State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED], 2005, The Planning Center: A document that addressed the environmental effects associated with adopting the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. It provided information pertaining to existing and future environmental settings within the City’s jurisdiction. • Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Final EIR No. 321, State Clearinghouse Number 9611041,January 1999, Michael Brandman Associates: This document evaluated environmental effects of adopting the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan, which provided a plan for office, sport, entertainment, and retail uses around stadium area. Development within the Anaheim Stadium Area was implemented through the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone, which was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood School of Technology. The boundaries for the Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan were generally the same as those for the Platinum Triangle and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan replaced the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Anaheim Sports Center Final EIR No. 320, May 1996, Michael Brandman Associates: This document evaluated environmental effects of adopting Area Development Plan No. 120 for the portion of the Stadium property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition center, 250,000 square feet of office development and 15,570 on- site parking spaces. The City of Anaheim General Plan, Final EIR No. 330, The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Final SEIR No. 332 are also available on the City’s website, www.anaheim.net (go to the Planning Department and click on the link to the Platinum Triangle). 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION This SEIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the SEIR to the City of Anaheim address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City of Anaheim will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each comment. A Final SEIR (FSEIR) will then be prepared incorporating all of the comments received, responses to the comments, and any changes to the SEIR that result from the comments received. This FSEIR will be presented to the Anaheim City Council for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who commented on the SEIR will be notified of the availability of the FSEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. The SEIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations: • City of Anaheim, Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 • Anaheim Public Library 500 West Broadway Anaheim, CA 92805 • Sunkist Public Library 901 South Sunkist Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 • Planning Department’s website www.anaheim.net/planning (click on the link to Environmental Documents) 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 2-7 Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No.106 was adopted for the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Final EIR No. 321. Final Subsequent EIR No. 332, which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and associated actions, included an Updated and Modified MMP No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle. Updated and Modified MMP No. 106A will be revised to reflect the mitigation measures described in this SEIR based on the analysis and findings contained herein and will be identified as Updated and Modified MMP No. 106C. Any refinements to the mitigation measures set forth in the Final SEIR shall also be incorporated into the MMP No. 106C prior to consideration of the project by the Planning Commission and City Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Introduction Page 2-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 3-1 3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Platinum Triangle consists of approximately 820 acres and is located at the confluence of Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57), in the City of Anaheim (“City”) in Orange County, California. As shown in Figure 3-1, Regional Location, it is located within the south-central portion of the City. As shown in Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity Map, the Platinum Triangle is located generally east of I-5, west of the Santa Ana River channel and SR-57, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, the Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station, and surrounding residential and mixed use development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail development. An aerial photograph of the project area is shown in Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph. 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Platinum Triangle project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: • Provide for a wide range of housing opportunities in close proximity to jobs and a regional transportation center. • Provide a mix of quality, high-density urban housing that is integrated into the area through carefully maintained pedestrian streets, transit connections, and arterial access. • Create a development plan that encourages residents of Anaheim to work and shop in close proximity to their homes, minimizing use of their automobiles. • Encourage extensive office development along the highly visible periphery of the area to provide a quality employment center. • Foster mixed-use development that serves to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting alternatives to driving, such as walking, biking, and use of mass transit. • Provide on-site open space and recreation amenities that further enhance the mixed-use environment of the area for both residents and employees working in the Platinum Triangle. • Encourage high density mixed use development that is synergistic with the entertainment and employment uses already established in the Platinum Triangle. • Maximize opportunities to increase tax increment received from the Redevelopment Project Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Allow for the continued development of the Platinum Triangle and accommodate future market demand through amendments to the General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.3.2 Project Background Since 1996, the Anaheim City Council has approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle. On May 30, 1996, the Anaheim Planning Commission certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 320 (State Clearinghouse No. 95041029) and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for the portion of the Stadium property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition center, 250,000 square feet of office development and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove of Anaheim, the renovated Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were developed/renovated under this plan. On March 2, 1999, the Anaheim City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). The boundaries for this MLUP were generally the same as those for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that this MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to I-5 that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the approval process for the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP, the City Council also certified FEIR No. 321 (State Clearinghouse No. 9611041) and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the Anaheim Stadium Area was implemented through the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone, which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity. Implementation of this Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood School of Technology. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle. The General Plan Update changed the General Plan designations within the project area from Commercial Recreation and Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum development intensity for the Platinum Triangle to be up to 9,175 dwelling units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50, and institutional development at a maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 were incorporated into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final EIR No. 330 (State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED]), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and associated actions, analyzed the above development intensities on a citywide impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 3-1 Regional Location Orange County Line* Orange County Metrolink Routes * Amtrak Pacific Surfliner shares this route. Inland Empire-Orange County Line 91 Line (Riverside/Fullerton/Downtown LA) 405 405 5 10 15 15 10 605 * SITE 60 60 91 91 91 57 90 241 241 71 55 5 73 1 1 22 74 261 133 19 39 Anaheim Fullerton Orange Placentia 0 7 Scale (Miles) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 3-2 Local Vicinity Map 5 57 22 Orange Anaheim Garden Grove Santa Ana Orangewood Av Katella Av Gene Autry Way Ball Rd Chapman Av Lampson Av Garden Grove Bl Cerritos Av Harbor Bl Lewis St State College Bl Sunkist St Anaheim Bl East St Batavia St Glassell St Main St Angel Stadium of Anaheim Santa Ana River SCE Easement The Platinum Triangle The Platinum Triangle Honda Center 0 3,100 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: Google Earth Pro 2009 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 3-3 Aerial Photograph 57 22 Orange Orange Garden Grove Garden Grove Anaheim Anaheim Orangewood Av Orangewood Av Katella Av Katella Av Cerritos Av Cerritos Av Ball Rd Ball Rd Chapman Av Chapman Av Harbor Bl Harbor Bl Lewis St Lewis St State College Bl State College Bl Sunkist St Sunkist St Anaheim Bl Anaheim Bl East St East St Batavia St Batavia St Main St Main St Gene Autry Way Gene Autry Way Angel Stadium of Anaheim Angel Stadium of Anaheim The Platinum Triangle The Platinum Triangle Honda Center Honda Center Santa Ana River Santa Ana River 5 57 0 2,600 Scale (Feet) The Block The Block ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 3-9 level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle. In order to provide the implementation tools necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, on August 17, 2004, the City Council replaced the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP with the Platinum Triangle MLUP (PTMLUP), replaced the SE Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, approved the form of the Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement and approved associated zoning reclassifications. Under these updated zoning regulations, property owners desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions are required to enter into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim. Ordinances associated with the PTMU Overlay Zone and the approved zoning reclassifications became effective September 23, 2004. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council adopted and certified the Final Subsequent EIR (FSEIR) No. 332 (State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED]) including an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106A for the PTMLUP and associated actions, which utilized the certified FEIR No. 321 (adopted for the Anaheim Stadium MLUP, as discussed above) and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. At the present time, FSEIR No. 332 serves as the primary environmental document for subsequent land use actions within the Platinum Triangle, including necessary infrastructure improvements and all local discretionary approvals requested to implement the PTMLUP, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The General Plan Amendment associated with FSEIR No. 332 increased the allowable development intensity within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet of office uses; and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses. Since the approval and certification of FSEIR No. 332, the majority of the permitted development intensity on private properties analyzed by the SEIR has been either developed, is under construction or has been designated for development under approved Development Agreements. In addition, City Council has approved two addendums to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity by 67 residential units; 55,550 square feet of office development; and, 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. A project EIR has also been approved to increase the allowable development intensity by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable development intensity within the Platinum Triangle to up to 10,266 residential units; 5,055,550 square feet of office uses; and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses. In order to increase the overall densities within the Platinum Triangle to accommodate market demands for increased densities, and to further the project objectives outlines above, in 2007, the City embarked upon a process to adopt a General Plan Amendment; amendments to the PTMLUP, PTMU Overlay Zone, and the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development; and related zoning reclassifications to increase the development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units; 5,657,847 square feet of commercial uses; 16,819,015 square feet of office uses; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (hereafter, the “Platinum Triangle Expansion Project”). As required by law, the City prepared an environmental impact report in connection with the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, known as DSEIR No. 334 and was first circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 12, 2007 to August 27, 2007. On October 4, 2007, the City released the DSEIR No. 334 for an additional 45-day public review. The recirculated DSEIR No. 334 contained minor revisions to the Project Description and additional traffic information based on comments received from the City of Orange and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Other minor revisions to the DSEIR were made based on other comments received on the previously circulated DSEIR No. 334. The recirculated FSEIR No. 334 was approved in December 2007 and reapproved in April 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 However, following the approval of the FSEIR No. 334, a lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD) challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions and directed staff to prepare a new subsequent EIR for the project. The City took this direction because the City has very rarely been challenged based on alleged non compliance with CEQA, and because the City desired to assuage any concerns held by the public concerning the adequacy of the previous document. 3.3.2 Description of the Project The City of Anaheim proposes to increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in the Platinum Triangle as shown in Table 3-1. The Proposed Project has reduced the amount of office and commercial square footage and increased the amount of residential units being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in the Platinum Triangle at build-out, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities for ARTIC, and reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange. Table 3-1 Proposed Platinum Triangle Development Intensities Land Use Adopted Proposed Increase Residential Units 10,266 18,909 8,643 Commercial Square Feet 2,264,400 4,909,682 2,645,282 Office Square Feet 5,055,550 14,340,522 9,284,972 Institutional Square Feet 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 The Proposed Project would expand the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation within the Platinum Triangle as shown in Figure 3-4 and create two new mixed use districts and expand two existing mixed use districts within PTMU Overlay Zone as shown in Figure 3-5. District development intensity maps that further break down the allocated development in the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Districts by sub-areas have also been developed and are included in Appendix I of the SEIR No. 339. Development that occurs within the Platinum Triangle is implemented through the processing of subdivision maps and the submittal of plans for building permits unless a conditional use permit or a variance are required. Development in the PTMU Overlay Zone also requires approval of a Master Site Plan and/or a Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement. Specifically, the Proposed Project includes technical refinements and clarifications to the documents that govern and regulate development within the Platinum Triangle—the General Plan, the PTMLUP, and the PTMU Overlay Zone. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: City of Anaheim 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 3-4 Platinum Triangle General Plan Land Use 0 2,400 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: City of Anaheim 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 3-5 PTMU Overlay Zone Mixed Use Districts 0’ 2,400’ Scale Note: The new Mixed Use boundaries include expansion of the Katella and Orangewood Districts and the addition of the ARTIC and Office Districts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 3-15 Below is a description of the proposed amendments to each of these documents. General Plan A. Amend the Land Use Element (Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan) as shown in Figure 3-4, Platinum Triangle General Plan Land Use, to: a. Redesignate approximately 191 acres from the Office High land use designation to the Mixed Use designation; and b. Redesignate approximately 17 acres from the Institutional land use designation to the Mixed Use designation. c. Reflect a recently constructed park and parks required by approved development agreements. B. Amend the Land Use Element (Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City) as shown in Table 3-2, Existing and Proposed General Plan Density Provisions, to: a. Increase the permitted development intensities in the Platinum Triangle; and b. Remove the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requirement for Mixed Use development in the Platinum Triangle. Table 3-2 Existing and Proposed General Plan Density Provisions (Table LU-4) Existing Description in Table LU-4 Proposed Description in Table LU-4 Location General Plan Land Use Designation Permitted Density Location General Plan Land Use Designation Permitted Density Mixed Use Residential 18,909 Dwelling Units Commercial 4,909,682 Square Feet Office 9,862,166 Square Feet Mixed Use Up to 10,266 dwelling units at densities up to 100 dwelling units per acre; up to 3,265,000 s.f. of office development; up to 2,254,400 s.f. of commercial development at a maximum FAR of 0.40. Institutional 1,500,000 Square Feet Office-High and Office-Low 4,478,356 Square Feet* Institutional 3.0 FAR Industrial 0.5 FAR Open Space 0.1 FAR The Platinum Triangle Area Office High and Office Low Up to 1,790,550 s.f. of office development and up to 10,000 s.f. of commercial development and a maximum FAR of 0.50 for properties designated Office-Low The Platinum Triangle *The maximum FAR for properties designated Office-Low is 0.5; the maximum FAR for properties designated Office-High is 2.0. C. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network) to modify the designations of streets within the Platinum Triangle (see Figure 3-6, Existing Planned Roadway Network and Figure 3-7, Proposed Planned Roadway Network) : ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 a. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way from 6-lane Major Arterial to 8-lane Stadium b. Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue from Secondary Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial; c. Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and SR-57 overpass from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; d. Rampart Street between Orangewood Avenue and the South City Limits adjacent to the City of Orange from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; e. West Dupont Drive between Orangewood Avenue and South Dupont Drive from Interior Street to Collector Street; f. South Dupont Drive between West Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place from Interior Street to Collector Street; g. South Towne Centre Place between West Towne Centre Place and Rampart Street from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; h. Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue from Secondary Arterial to 4- lane Primary Arterial; and, i. Cerritos Avenue between State College Boulevard and Douglass Road from Secondary Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial. D. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities) to (see Figure 3-8, Existing Bicycle Facilities and Figure 3-9, Proposed Bicycle Facilities) : a. Extend the Class II Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to West Dupont Drive; b. Add the Class II Bikeway to West Dupont Drive, South Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place to Rampart Street; c. Add the Class II Bikeway to Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Ball Road; and d. Add the Class II Bikeway to Cerritos Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and Douglass Road. E. Amend the Green Element (Figure G-1: Green Plan) to reflect a recently constructed park and parks required by approved development agreements (see Figure 3-10, Existing Green Plan and Figure 3-11, Proposed Green Plan). F. Amend the Public Services and Facilities Element (Figure PSF-1: Fire and Police Facilities Map) to reflect the three fire stations proposed for the Platinum Triangle. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Planning Center • Figure 3-6 Existing Planned Roadway Network SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim 0 1,600 Scale (Feet) 5 57 3. Project Description ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Planning Center • Figure 3-7 Proposed Planned Roadway Network SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim 0 1,600 Scale (Feet) 5 57 3. Project Description ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-20 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Planning Center • Figure 3-8 Existing Bicycle Facilities SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim 0 1,600 Scale (Feet) 5 57 3. Project Description ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-22 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Planning Center • Figure 3-9 Proposed Bicycle Facilities SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim 0 1,700 Scale (Feet) 5 57 3. Project Description ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-24 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description The Planning Center • Figure 3-10 Existing Green Plan SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim 0 1,600 Scale (Feet) 5 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-26 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Planning Center • Figure 3-11 Proposed Green Plan SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim 0 2,000 Scale (Feet) 5 57 3. Project Description ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-28 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 3-29 Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amend the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) as shown in further detail in Appendix I, Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, to: A. Reflect the proposed General Plan amendments; B. Adjust the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone to create the ARTIC and Office Districts and expand the Katella and Orangewood Districts; C. Distribute the proposed increased development intensities as shown in Table 3-3 and further detailed in Appendix I, Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Table 3-3 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Acres Residential Units Commercial Square Feet Office Square Feet3 Platinum Triangle District Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Arena 41 41 425 425 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ARTIC1 0 17 0 520 0 358,000 0 2,202,803 Gateway 53 50 2,142 2,949 50,000 64,000 530,000 562,250 Gene Autry 33 33 1,699 2,362 174,100 304,700 100,000 338,200 Katella 99 141 4,250 5,707 630,300 832,614 775,000 2,131,058 Orangewood 4 35 0 1,771 10,000 130,000 590,000 1,402,855 Stadium2 153 153 1,750 5,175 1,300,000 3,120,368 1,760,000 3,125,000 Total Mixed Use 383 470 10,266 18,909 2,264,400 4,909,682 3,855,000 9,862,166 Office 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 4,478,356 Total PTMU Overlay 383 591 10,266 18,909 2,264,400 4,909,682 3,855,000 14,340,522 1 The proposed development intensity includes 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. 2 The adopted and proposed development intensities for the Stadium District include 119,543 seats for existing (49,043 seats) and potential (70,500 seats) stadiums. 3 The adopted General Plan allows an additional 1,200,550 square feet of office development within the Platinum Triangle on properties outside of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Proposed Project expands the PTMU Overlay Zone to encompass these properties. D. Replace Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A with Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, and, E. Reflect technical refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, refinements to street cross-sections, density descriptions and exhibits. PTMU Overlay Zone Amend Chapter 18.20 PTMU Overlay Zone of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as shown in further detail in Appendix I, Proposed Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, to: A. Reflect the proposed General Plan and PTMLUP amendments; B. Provide development standards for the ARTIC, Stadium, Arena, and Office Districts; and, ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-30 • The Planning Center August 2010 C. Modify zoning standards, including, but not limited to, vacant lots and setbacks and parking structure requirements for hotels and offices. Zoning Reclassification The Proposed Project includes a request to add the PTMU Overlay Zone to the properties within the new ARTIC and Office Districts and the expanded areas of the Katella and Orangewood Districts. Related Infrastructure Upgrades The Proposed Project also includes upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased intensity of land uses. These upgrades include roadway improvements, including a railroad grade separation project along State College Boulevard, between Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue; sewer upgrades; a new water well; a new electrical substation; natural gas infrastructure improvements; and an additional fire station. These improvements are further discussed in Sections 5.9 and 5.10 and Appendix J. More specific design and location of infrastructure facilities as related to specific development projects would be reviewed as part of subsequent plan approvals tentative tract maps, street improvement plans, storm drain improvement plans, and Caltrans encroachment permits). The necessary on-site infrastructure that would be provided as part of future projects would be constructed by future property owner/developers, the City of Anaheim, and/or the utility provider, as determined by the City of Anaheim and/or other responsible agencies. State College Boulevard Railroad Undercrossing: The AT&SF railroad currently crosses State College Boulevard approximately 250 feet north of Wright Circle within the Platinum Triangle. In order to improve traffic flow and safety, the City of Anaheim is working with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on an underpass concept at this location. To accommodate this concept, the State College Boulevard profile requires depression from about 950 feet north to 750 feet south of the railroad crossing. The profiles of Wright Circle and Howell Avenue will need to be adjusted to meet the proposed grade of State College Boulevard. In anticipation of a future railroad grade separation project along State College Boulevard between Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue, a retaining wall was constructed along the southerly right-of-way of Wright Circle and the westerly right-of-way of State College Boulevard adjacent to the Stadium Lofts building. The retaining wall has a maximum height of 14 feet and was designed to be buried during the interim condition until such time that the grade separation project is constructed. The retaining wall design took into consideration the preliminary road profile of the undercrossing from a previous OCTA study and also accounted for a 3:1 landscaped slope from the back of the sidewalk to the face of wall. Portions of the retaining wall adjacent to Wright Circle and State College Boulevard that will be visible from the right-of-way upon completion of the railroad grade separation project were constructed with a decorative brick finish. The location and concept illustration of the grade separation are shown in Figure 3-12. Utilities along State College Boulevard need to be relocated due to the depressed profile of the undercrossing. Existing utilities include a water line, two sewer lines, a storm drain pipe, a gas line, and two underground power conduits. A pump station will be required for pumping stormwater at the sag point. The City has indicated that the pump station for the sewer line is not allowed along State College Boulevard, and that sewer lines need to be relocated within a sewer easement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: JMD 2009 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 3-12 State College Boulevard Undercrossing 0 525 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-32 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 3-33 Water Well: A new water well is proposed adjacent to the proposed Fire Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street south of Stanford Court, as shown on Figure 3-13. The new well will have a capacity between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm), and equipped at an initial production rate of 1,500 gpm. Discharge piping for the new well will connect to the existing 12-inch diameter main in Anaheim Way and the existing 10-inch diameter main in Santa Cruz Street. The building setback requirements and architectural treatments for the new well facility will blend with proposed Fire Station No. 12. Additional information regarding the water well is provided in Section 5.3. Electrical Substation: An electrical substation is proposed adjacent to the new water well at the corner of Orangewood Avenue and Anaheim Way. Construction of the substation will be by the electrical utility provider. Natural Gas: The Southern California Gas Company has indicated that alterations to the existing system and infrastructure improvements would be required. Future street and infrastructure improvements would be coordinated with the appropriate service providers. 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS SUBSEQUENT EIR This DSEIR examines the environmental impacts of the implementation of the Platinum Triangle, which includes, but is not limited to, the approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement plans, final site plans, development agreements, and other related actions. It is the intent of this DSEIR to enable the City of Anaheim, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested actions. The anticipated approvals required for this project are: Lead Agency Action City of Anaheim City Council • Certify Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and adopt Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C. • Approve General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471. • Approve Miscellaneous Case No. 2008-00283 (Amendments to the Platinum Triangle MLUP). • Approve Zoning Code Amendment No. 2008-00074. • Approve Zoning Reclassification No. 2008-00222. • Approve Miscellaneous Case No. 2008-00284 (Water Supply Assessment). • Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement plans, final site plans, development agreement, financial mechanisms including but not limited to assessment districts, etc.). Responsible Agencies Action South Coast Air Quality Management District • Issue necessary air quality permits to implement the project. Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region) • Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit to allow for the implementation of the project. Orange County Sanitation District • Approval of necessary sewer upgrades to OCSD facilities. City of Orange • Provide necessary street intersection improvements Caltrans • Provide necessary freeway improvements OCTA • Provide necessary freeway improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-34 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: City of Anaheim 3. Project Description SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 3-13 Fire Station No. 12 and Water Well Location 0 60 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Project Description Page 3-36 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 4-1 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a regional perspective.” The environmental setting will provide a set of baseline physical conditions that will serve as a tool from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2.1 Regional Location The Platinum Triangle (hereinafter also referred to as the project area) is located at the confluence of Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57) in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California. The approximate 820-acre Platinum Triangle is located generally east of I-5, west of the Santa Ana River and SR-57, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, the Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and the surrounding light industrial buildings, several industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and supporting retail uses. 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations Air Quality Management Plan An air basin generally has similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout the basin. California is geographically divided into 15 air basins, and the City of Anaheim is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). This air basin contains the largest urban area in the western US. It is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SoCAB includes all of the nondesert portions of San Bernardino, Los Angeles (non–Antelope Valley portion), and Riverside Counties and all of Orange County. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB, a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources. Every three years since 1979, SCAQMD has prepared a new AQMP, with updates to the previous plan and a 20-year horizon. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan was adopted on June 1, 2007, and builds upon the approaches for attainment in the 2003 AQMP. The 2007 AQMP incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. It proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOX, directly emitted PM2.5, NOX, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 2015. The eight-hour ozone ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOX and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming a bump-up (extended attainment date) is obtained. The AQMP provides local guidance for the State Implementation Plan, which provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas; areas that do not meet these standards are in nonattainment. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable policies and standards of the AQMP is analyzed in detail in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Southern California Association of Governments Orange County and the City of Anaheim are at the southern edge of a six-county metropolitan region composed of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the SCAQMD, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. Orange County and its jurisdictions constitute the Orange County Subregion of the SCAG region. This subregion is governed by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG). SCAG has developed plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the Proposed Project are discussed below. Regional Transportation Plan SCAG has adopted the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to help coordinate development of the region’s transportation improvements. On May 8, 2008, SCAG adopted the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Making the Connections. The 2008 RTP is a $531.5 billion plan that emphasizes the importance of system management, goods movement, and innovative transportation financing. It provides a regional investment framework to address the region's transportation and related challenges, and looks to strategies that preserve and enhance the existing transportation system and integrate land use into transportation planning. The 2008 RTP is based on Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy land use projections, which are not consistent with Orange County and City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Elements. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable RTP policies is analyzed in detail in Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning. Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy In 2004, SCAG adopted the Compass Blueprint, which is a part of the 2004 regional growth forecast policy that attempts to reduce emissions and increase mobility through strategic land use changes. The program resulted in a plan that identified strategic growth opportunity areas. The Compass Blueprint is a voluntary guidance document identifying how and where an alternative future vision for southern California’s future can be implemented. Goals for areas identified in the Compass Blueprint include locating new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing, encouraging in-fill development, promoting development with a mix of uses, creating walkable communities, providing a mix of housing types, and focusing development in urban areas. A portion of the Platinum Triangle has been designated by SCAG as a strategic area in which to focus growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 4-3 This area contains the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) that will be served by Amtrak, Metrolink commuter rail, and Orange County Transportation Authority bus services. In addition, potential high-speed rail service to San Francisco and Las Vegas, Nevada could be provided. The project is consistent with the overall Compass Blueprint in that it directs additional housing and mixed-use opportunities near to existing and future jobs Orange County subregion and locates new jobs near to transit. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the Compass Blueprint is addressed in detail in Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning. 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.3.1 Location and Land Use The Platinum Triangle is an 820-acre area located within the City of Anaheim. The project area is comprised of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station, various light industrial uses, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, public recreation areas, and residential and supporting retail uses. The project area is bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east, the Anaheim City Limit to the south (approximately Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard), I-5 to the west, SR-57 to the east, and the Southern California Edison easement (approximately Cerritos Avenue) to the north. The project area is accessible by motor vehicles from I-5, SR-57, Katella Avenue, State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, Lewis Street, and Anaheim Way. Additional access is provided through the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak station adjacent to the stadium. 4.3.2 Biological Resources The project area is completely developed and there are no native biological resources within the area. 4.3.3 Climate and Air Quality The project area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SoCAB includes all of the nondesert portions of San Bernar- dino, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties and all of Orange County. Basinwide conditions are characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate onshore daytime breezes, and moderate humidity. Anaheim is located outside of the marine microclimatic zone and summers are generally cooler than areas along the coast. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The City’s average daily high temperature ranges from 51 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 89°F in August in a typical year. The average annual precipi- tation is nearly 14 inches, although the region is subject to significant variations in annual precipitation with occasional summer thundershowers. The topography and climate of southern California combine to produce unhealthful air quality in the SoCAB. Low temperature inversion, light winds, shallow vertical mixing, moist semi-arid climate, and extensive sunlight, in conjunction with a shallow marine layer that hinders horizontal and vertical dispersion of air pollutants, combine to create degraded quality, especially in inland valleys of the basin. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 4.3.4 Geology and Landform The Platinum Triangle is located near the southeastern margin of the Central Block within the Peninsular Range Province, extending from Los Angeles County to southern Baja California. The project area has a relatively flat surface with a shallow southwest slope of 250:1 (16 feet per mile). The area was primarily formed by alluvial stream deposition from the Santa Ana River that forms a 2,000-foot-thick section below the project area, consisting of horizontally bedding sands and silts. Sedimentary formations underlying the area are comprised of consolidated and semiconsolidated sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerates of Cretaceous to late Tertiary age. Soils underlying the project area are characterized by moderate to moderately rapid permeability, slow runoff, and a slight erosion potential. Major fault lines that run within proximity of the project area are the Newport-Inglewood fault, the Whittier fault, and the El Modeno fault. The nearest active faults to the project area are the Newport-Inglewood fault located approximately nine miles southwest of the project area and the Whittier fault, located approximately eight miles northeast of the project area. The nearest potentially active fault is the El Modeno fault, which is located approximately five miles west of the project area. 4.3.5 Hydrology The Platinum Triangle is located within the Santa Ana River watershed. The Santa Ana River, located adjacent to the project area, is the major drainage system in the City. The river originates in the San Bernardino Mountains, traveling in a southwesterly direction to the sea at the Huntington Beach/Newport Beach boundary. Drainage from the project area is generally conveyed by two major sub-drainages. The central portion of the project area drains into the Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12) while the western portion drains into Spinnaker Storm Drain (CO5P21). E12, parallel to State College Boulevard, is a 9-foot by 9-foot concrete box that conveys urban run-off, discharging into the Santa Ana River north of Chapman. The project area is predominately covered with impervious surfaces. Runoff occurs primarily in sheet flow across parking areas in a southeast direction, to the surrounding street system, designed to convey the theoretical 10-year storm event. The project area is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study area within Zone A99 and X designation. 4.3.6 Noise The project area is located centrally between two freeways, a railway station, and several major roadways. The project area consists of industrial, commercial, business office, and hotel, and retail land uses that are not generally considered to be noise sensitive. However, several residential and mixed-use developments have recently been constructed. Noise sources include state highways, arterials, railroad, and aircraft overflights. Temporary construction activities and sporting events also provide additional noise sources. Construction noise is generally high-level, short-duration noise, generated from heavy construction equipment and excavation and grading activities. Sporting events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim produce high-level, short-duration noise, generated from technical equipment, crowds, and increased associated traffic. Long-term noise sources result predominately from automobiles, trucks, and railroad stations. The project area contains an Amtrak/Metrolink station, serving as a major railway corridor connecting Anaheim with both Los Angeles and San Diego. Residents living in proximity to the station experience two types of noise, generated from the engine and the railroad cars. Major noise exposure as a result of traffic is audible throughout the site along major highways and roadways, primarily I-5, SR-57, State College Boulevard, ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 4-5 Orangewood Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Lewis Street, and Katella Avenue; therefore, the project area is currently subject to high levels of construction, railroad, automobile, and truck noise. 4.3.7 Scenic Features The Platinum Triangle project area contains relatively flat topography and is primarily urban in character. There are no distinct natural landscape features or natural visual resources or vistas within the project area, nor is there natural open space within the project area. Existing views within and surrounding the project area are generally limited, resulting from the lack of topography, large size of the area, and existing develop- ment. The Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, and their accompanying parking lots, are the most significant viewsheds within the project area and can be seen from many surrounding uses and streets in the vicinity. No scenic corridors or designated scenic highways are located in the project vicinity. Major arterial streetscapes are dominated by commercial and office buildings, light industrial complexes, retail, associated landscaping, and overhead utility lines. Structures within the project area range from one-story to multistory office buildings and hotels. 4.3.8 Public Services and Utilities Public services are currently provided to the Platinum Triangle by a number of providers. Police services are provided by the Anaheim Police Department, with assistance during emergencies and major planned events from neighboring cities’ Police Departments, such as Garden Grove and Orange, and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Fire services are provided by the Anaheim Fire Department. School services are provided by the Anaheim Union High School District and the Anaheim City School District. Parks and recreation services are provided by the City of Anaheim Community Services Department. Library services are provided by the Library Division of the Anaheim Community Services Department. Utilities are currently provided to the Platinum Triangle by a number of utility providers. Electricity is provided by Anaheim Public Utilities Department (PUD), Electrical Services Division. Power supply comes primarily from PUD owned interest in the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant and the Intermountain Power Project in Utah through PUD interState and Southern California Edison (SCE) interstate high-voltage transmission lines. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SGC), which has gas lines along Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, and Lewis Street. Telephone and cable TV service is provided by Verizon and Adelphia. Water service is provided by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Division. Reserve supply will be purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Wastewater and sewer services are provided by the City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer system, and are tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Solid waste pickup is provided by Anaheim Disposal, Inc., under contract to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works to provide waste hauling services throughout the City. 4.3.9 General Plan and Zoning The City of Anaheim General Plan designations for the site include Office-Low, Office-High, Industrial, Institutional, Open Space, and Mixed Use, as shown on Figure 3-4, Platinum Triangle General Plan Land Use. These existing General Plan designations would allow for the development of a maximum of 10,266 dwelling units, 5,055,550 square feet of office uses, 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses, industrial uses at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5, open space at a 0.10 FAR and institutional uses at a 3.0 FAR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 General Plan Land Use Designations The Platinum Triangle MLUP describes the development intensities permitted by the General Plan for the Platinum Triangle. The following descriptions indicate the types of land uses that are under the purview of the Platinum Triangle MLUP: • Mixed Use. The Mixed Use General Plan designation is implemented through the PTMU Overlay Zone. The PTMU Overlay Zone is in addition to the property’s existing zoning designation. Property owners may either develop or continue operating under the existing zoning designation or, if they choose, they can take advantage of the opportunities to develop their property under the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone. • Office-High and Office-Low. The Office-High and Office-Low General Plan designations are implemented through the O-H (High Intensity Office) and O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones and provide new workplace opportunities within easy access to a variety of housing, retail, entertainment and sports facilities within the mixed-use areas. The maximum amount of allowable office square footage for these designations is 1,735,000 square feet. • Industrial. The Industrial General Plan designation is implemented by the I (Industrial) Zone. These uses may have a FAR of up to 0.50. • Open Space. The Open Space General Plan designation is implemented through the OS (Open Space) Zone and includes those areas intended to remain in natural open space including utility easements that will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents. • Institutional. The Institutional General Plan designation is implemented through the SP (Semi- Public) Zone. It covers a wide variety of public and quasi-public land uses and is applied to existing public facilities. Institutional uses may have a FAR of up to 3.0. Zoning Designations Properties within the project area are zoned PR (Public Recreational), O-L (Low Intensity Office), OS (Open Space), SP (Semi-Public), T (Transitional), I (Industrial), and C-G (General Commercial), as shown on Figure 5.4-1, Existing Zoning Designations, in Section 5.4, Land Use. In addition, properties designated Mixed Use by the General Plan are within the PTMU (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use) Overlay Zone, which allows properties to be developed under the provisions of the underlying zone or the PTMU Overlay Zone. 4.3.10 Traffic and Transportation Table 4-1 quantifies the existing average daily traffic (ADT) on key arterial segments in the project area. Table 4-1 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Traffic Count Lanes Capacity V/C LOS A-1 Anaheim Blvd Katella Ave I-5 Freeway 19,380 6D 56,300 0.34 A A-2 Anaheim Blvd I-5 Freeway Cerritos Ave 33,160 6D 56,300 0.59 A A-3 Anaheim Blvd Cerritos Ave Ball Road 26,790 4D 37,500 0.71 C A-4 Anaheim Blvd Ball Road Vermont Street 25,230 4D 37,500 0.67 B ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 4-7 Table 4-1 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Traffic Count Lanes Capacity V/C LOS A-5* Anaheim Way State College Blvd Orangewood Ave 3,220 3D 28,150 0.11 A A-6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 18,190 3D 28,150 0.65 B A-7 Anaheim Way Katella Ave Anaheim Blvd 10,730 3D 28,150 0.38 A A-8 Ball Road Walnut Street Disneyland Drive 34,020 6D 56,300 0.60 A A-9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Blvd 44,320 6D 56,300 0.79 C A-10 Ball Road Harbor Blvd Anaheim Blvd 36,890 6D 56,300 0.66 B A-11 Ball Road Anaheim Blvd East Street 35,280 6D 56,300 0.63 B A-12 Ball Road East Street State College Blvd 38,110 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-13 Ball Road State College Blvd Sunkist Street 40,500 4D 37,500 1.08 F A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway 48,400 6D 56,300 0.86 D A-15* Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 32,740 6D 56,300 0.58 A A-16 Cerritos Ave Anaheim Blvd Lewis Street 11,710 4U 25,000 0.47 A A-17 Cerritos Ave Lewis Street State College Blvd 10,030 4U 25,000 0.40 A A-18 Cerritos Ave State College Blvd Sunkist Street 6,180 4U 25,000 0.25 A A-19 Cerritos Ave Sunkist Street Douglass Road 4,520 4U 25,000 0.18 A A-20* Chapman Ave State College Blvd SR-57 Freeway 30,740 6D 56,300 0.55 A A-21* Chapman Ave SR-57 Freeway Main Street 27,260 6D 56,300 0.48 A A-22* The City Drive SR-22 Freeway Chapman Ave 20,980 8D 75,000 0.28 A A-23 Clementine Street Orangewood Ave Gene Autry Way NA NA NA NA NA A-24 Clementine Street Gene Autry Way Katella Ave NA NA NA NA NA A-25 Clementine Street Katella Ave Manchester Ave 7,510 4U 25,000 0.30 A A-26* Collins Ave Eckhoff Street Main Street 6,620 4U 24,000 0.28 A A-27* Collins Ave Main Street Batavia Street 10,800 4U 24,000 0.45 A A-28* Collins Ave Batavia Street Glassell Street 14,710 4U 24,000 0.61 B A-29 Disney Way Harbor Blvd Clementine Street 7,770 6D 56,300 0.14 A A-30 Disney Way Clementine Street Anaheim Blvd 13,880 6D 56,300 0.25 A A-31 Douglass Road Katella Ave Cerritos Ave 6,910 4U 25,000 0.28 A A-32* Eckhoff Street Orangewood Ave Collins Ave 10,870 2D 18,750 0.58 A A-33 Gene Autry Way Harbor Blvd Clementine Street NA NA NA NA NA A-34 Gene Autry Way Clementine Street Haster Street NA NA NA NA NA A-35 Gene Autry Way Haster Street I-5 Freeway NA NA NA NA NA A-36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Blvd 2,220 4U 25,000 0.09 A A-37 Harbor Blvd Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 35,560 6D 56,300 0.63 B A-38 Harbor Blvd Orangewood Ave Convention Way 35,870 6D 56,300 0.64 B A-39 Harbor Blvd Convention Way Katella Ave 40,430 6D 56,300 0.72 C A-40 Harbor Blvd Katella Ave Disney Way 38,410 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-41 Harbor Blvd Disney Way Manchester Ave 41,340 6D 56,300 0.73 C A-42 Harbor Blvd Manchester Ave I-5 Freeway 39,450 7D 65,625 0.60 A A-43 Harbor Blvd I-5 Freeway Ball Road 44,360 8D 75,000 0.59 A A-44 Harbor Blvd Ball Road Vermont Street 26,900 6D 56,300 0.48 A A-45 Haster Street Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 18,190 4U 25,000 0.73 C A-46 Haster Street Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 19,760 4U 25,000 0.79 C A-47 Howell Ave State College Blvd Sunkist Street 4,390 4U 25,000 0.18 A A-48 Howell Ave Sunkist Street Katella Ave 5,830 4U 25,000 0.23 A A-49 Katella Ave Euclid Street Ninth Street 31,470 6D 56,300 0.56 A A-50 Katella Ave Ninth Street Walnut Street 29,270 6D 56,300 0.52 A A-51 Katella Ave Walnut Street Disneyland Drive 35,240 6D 56,300 0.63 B A-52 Katella Ave Disneyland Drive Harbor Blvd 37,440 6D 56,300 0.67 B ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 4-1 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Traffic Count Lanes Capacity V/C LOS A-53 Katella Ave Harbor Blvd Clementine Street 39,100 6D 56,300 0.69 B A-54 Katella Ave Clementine Street Anaheim Blvd 38,510 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-55 Katella Ave Anaheim Blvd I-5 Freeway 37,830 6D 56,300 0.67 B A-56 Katella Ave I-5 Freeway Lewis Street 35,040 6D 56,300 0.62 B A-57 Katella Ave Lewis Street State College Blvd 30,260 6D 56,300 0.54 A A-58 Katella Ave State College Blvd Sportstown 32,800 6D 56,300 0.58 A A-59 Katella Ave Sportstown Howell Ave 34,240 6D 56,300 0.61 B A-60 Katella Ave Howell Ave SR-57 Freeway 37,990 6D 56,300 0.67 B A-61 Katella Ave SR-57 Freeway Main Street 29,610 6D 56,300 0.53 A A-62* Katella Ave1 Main Street Batavia Street 30,280 6D 59,115 0.51 A A-63* Katella Ave1 Batavia Street Glassell Street 29,490 6D 59,115 0.50 A A-64 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way Katella Ave 1,440 2U 12,500 0.12 A A-65 Lewis Street Katella Ave Cerritos Ave 7,680 4U 25,000 0.31 A A-66 Lewis Street Cerritos Ave Ball Road 6,460 4U 25,000 0.26 A A-67* Main Street Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 20,090 4U 24,000 0.84 D A-68* Main Street Orangewood Ave Collins Ave 16,900 4U 24,000 0.70 B A-69* Main Street Collins Ave Katella Ave 17,700 4U 24,000 0.74 C A-70* Main Street Katella Ave Taft Avenue 11,440 4U 24,000 0.48 A A-71 Manchester Ave Compton Ave Orangewood Ave 6,840 3D 28,150 0.24 A A-72 Manchester Ave Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 11,050 3D 28,150 0.39 A A-73 Manchester Ave Katella Ave Anaheim Blvd 1,410 3D 28,150 0.05 A A-74 Orangewood Ave Harbor Blvd Haster Street 15,540 4U 25,000 0.62 B A-75 Orangewood Ave Haster Street Manchester Ave 17,950 4U 25,000 0.72 C A-76** Orangewood Ave2 Manchester Ave State College Blvd 19,810 6D 56,300 0.35 A A-77 Orangewood Ave State College Blvd Rampart Street 24,490 4U 25,000 0.98 E A-78** Orangewood Ave2 Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway 23,490 4U 25,000 0.94 E A-79* Orangewood Ave SR-57 Freeway Eckhoff Street 27,720 4D 37,500 0.74 C A-80* Orangewood Ave Eckhoff Street Main Street 14,160 4D 37,500 0.38 A A-81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 3,880 2U 12,500 0.31 A A-82 Rampart Street Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 2,770 2U 12,500 0.22 A A-83* State College Blvd Chapman Ave I-5 Freeway 26,980 8D 75,000 0.36 A A-84* State College Blvd I-5 Freeway Orangewood Ave 21,400 8D 75,000 0.29 A A-85 State College Blvd Orangewood Ave Gene Autry Way 22,160 6D 56,300 0.39 A A-86 State College Blvd Gene Autry Way Katella Ave 20,120 6D 56,300 0.36 A A-87 State College Blvd Katella Ave Howell Ave 23,980 6D 56,300 0.43 A A-88 State College Blvd Howell Ave Cerritos Ave 23,440 6D 56,300 0.42 A A-89 State College Blvd Cerritos Ave Ball Road 23,320 6D 56,300 0.41 A A-90 State College Blvd Ball Road Wagner Ave 24,020 6D 56,300 0.43 A A-91* Struck Ave Katella Ave Main Street 6,720 2U 12,000 0.56 A A-92 Sunkist Street Howell Ave Cerritos Ave 3,900 4U 25,000 0.16 A A-93 Sunkist Street Cerritos Ave Ball Road 7,720 4U 25,000 0.31 A A-94* Walnut Ave Main Street Batavia Street 8,540 2U 12,000 0.71 B A-95* Walnut Ave Batavia Street Glassell Street 8,090 2U 12,000 0.67 B Note: All arterial segments are in the City of Anaheim jurisdiction except where noted * that are in the City of Orange and that are in both cities (Anaheim and Orange). Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken. 1 Smart Street segments in Orange include a 5 percent capacity enhancement. 2 Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 4-9 Public Transportation Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates five transit routes in the project area. These routes include regular bus service, station-link bus service, and express bus service. It is projected that demand for mass transit services will increase in the near future, especially when the ARTIC is built and fully operational. 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. The cumulative impact analysis contained in this Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) uses method B above. The City of Anaheim completed a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which was adopted by the Anaheim City Council on May 25, 2004. The adopted General Plan designates the general distribution of land uses and intensities throughout the City. The cumulative impact analysis contained in this SEIR utilizes the projections contained in the City’s adopted General Plan and associated Program EIR No. 330. The land use intensities allowed by the adopted General Plan are shown on Table 4-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 4-2 General Plan Buildout Potential for Purposes of Cumulative Impact Analysis Existing Land Use Adopted General Plan Remaining Buildout Potential Single-Family Dwelling Units 45,807 55,463 9,656 Multifamily Dwelling Units 55,979 73,697 17,718 Total Dwelling Units 101,786 129,159 27,373 Population 337,700 403,773 66,073 Commercial Square Footage 9,029,400 14,885,342 5,855,942 Office Square Footage 7,775,167 15,021,049 7,245,882 Industrial Square Footage 44,467,380 30,614,730 –13,852,650 Total Square Footage 61,271,947 60,521,121 –750,826 Commercial Employment 25,829 95,453 69,624 Office Employment 25,569 58,793 33,226 Industrial Employment 121,189 63,292 –57,897 Other Employment 29,793 33,858 4,065 Total Employment 202,378 251,397 49,018 Source: City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final EIR No. 330, State Clearinghouse Number [PHONE REDACTED]. (May 2004; The Planning Center) Notes: The figures contained herein are based on GIS mapping data prepared as part of the General Plan and Zoning Code Update. 2002 existing dwelling unit data and nonresidential square footage provided by the City of Anaheim. Dwelling unit projections assumes 50-50 split of single-family and multifamily dwelling units in the Low Medium Density, Hillside Low Medium Density, and Hillside Medium Density categories for the Existing General Plan. 2002 population source: California Department of Finance (January 2002) Population projections assume average household size of 3.3 for non-mixed-use designations and 1.5 for mixed-use designations. 2002 employment data provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Employment is based on existing square footage of employment-generating land uses and traffic trips. Hotel rooms are included in the Commercial square footage. Open space acreage is not shown. SCAG has adopted growth forecasts for each subregion within the region—Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial Counties—through the year 2030. The City of Anaheim is located in the Orange County Council of Governments Subregion. Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis for the General Plan Update utilized the regional growth projections contained in the Destination 2030 Final Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, February 2004, for the Orange County Council of Governments Subregion. Because the update of the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code would guide future growth within the City and its Sphere of Influence as a whole, cumulative citywide impacts have been addressed in the context of overall growth projected for the region, which includes projects underway and planned in the City of Orange adjacent to the Platinum Triangle. As shown in Table 4-2, General Plan Buildout Potential for Purposes of Cumulative Impact Analysis, the adopted City of Anaheim General Plan includes a total of 55,463 single-family units, 73,697 multi-family units, 14,885,342 square feet of commercial, 15,021,049 square feet of office, and 30,614,730 square feet of industrial at build-out of the City. The City has adopted growth projections for planning horizon year post- 2030 (representing General Plan build-out), based upon the City's General Plan, and demographic forecasts adopted by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) in June, 2000. The County of Orange, its cities, and public agencies, have executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the OCCOG to contract ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 4-11 with the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, to develop and periodically update demographic growth projections for Orange County, based on adopted General Plans and historic growth trends. OCP-2004 is the most current adopted growth projection that has been disaggregated into TAZs for use in traffic studies. The City of Anaheim has developed an Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) utilizing OCP and Anaheim's General Plan, for purposes of forecasting cumulative growth within the City of Anaheim and regionally. Regional growth outside of the City of Anaheim has accounted for traffic, air quality, and noise impacts through use of ATAM, a socioeconomic-based traffic model that uses regional growth projections to calculate future traffic volumes. The growth projections adopted by the City and surrounding area for ATAM are used for the cumulative impact analyses of this SEIR. For the TAZs used in the ATAM, the OCP-2004 projections were modified for the project traffic analysis as follows to reflect more recent data relevant to growth projections in and near the Platinum Triangle: 1) City of Orange General Plan Update: The Orange City Council adopted the 2010 General Plan on March 9, 2010. The General Plan consists of 11 elements that together meet state requirements for the General Plan. The elements are land use, circulation and mobility, natural resources, public safety, noise, growth management, cultural resources, infrastructure, urban design, economic development, and housing (not included in this update). The General Plan also includes an implementation plan. Development pursuant to the General Plan land use policy would result in an increase of approximately 23,478 dwelling units and 35.7 million square feet of nonresidential building floor area over existing conditions. A net population increase of 57,844 persons is also anticipated at build-out. It serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City and establishes an overall development capacity. 2) Anaheim Resort Area Specific Plan Amendment: The Proposed Project consists of two components: the build-out of development within the C-R District; and an increase in the maximum permitted development in the PR District to provide for the expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center (the “Proposed Project”). The City of Anaheim is currently preparing a supplemental EIR to analyze the Proposed Project. The SEIR will analyze maximum build-out of the C-R District using the allowed densities or 75 rooms per lot/parcel, whichever is greater. In addition, for purposes of establishing a baseline figure from which to measure the increase in hotel rooms at build-out, this process will convert existing commercial uses into hotel room equivalents. There are currently 10,888 hotel rooms and approximately 419,000 square feet of commercial development within the C-R District. This results in a baseline hotel room equivalent of 11,587 hotel rooms. A maximum of 32,500 hotel rooms are permitted in the C-R District. Therefore, the SEIR will analyze the addition of up to 20,913 additional hotel rooms within this area. The SEIR will also analyze an increase in the maximum permitted development in the PR District to provide for expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center to allow an addition of 406,359 square feet of Convention Center space (including exhibit halls, ballrooms, flexible meeting space, office and meeting rooms, and an interior bridge/skyway) and 125,000 square feet of commercial space (including, but not limited to, retail stores and restaurants); and, Hotel Development, including up to 900 hotel rooms, 40,000 square feet of meeting and ballroom space, and 55,000 square feet of commercial space (including retail stores, spa facilities, bars and and restaurants). This would increase the maximum permitted development in ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 the PR District to a total of 2,158,363 square feet of Convention Center/meeting space, 2,500 hotel rooms, and 180,000 square feet of commercial space. 3) Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC): The City of Anaheim, in collaboration with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is preparing an EIR to analyze the impacts associated with relocation of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrack Station south of Katella Avenue in Katella District to approximately one quarter mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW) to the new ARTIC District. ARTIC would include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. The Intermodal Terminal is proposed to be a three-level building of approximately 310,000 gross square feet that is comprised of approximately 140,000 square feet at-grade or above-grade and approximately 170,000 square feet below the building. There will be two levels at-grade or above-grade and one level below the building. The Intermodal Terminal will include the Public Hall/Waiting Area, which is located on the first level of the Intermodal Terminal. This space is designed to enhance the traveling public’s experience. This area has access to exterior terraces, Tracks/Platforms, and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area; and Program Space, which is located on all three levels of the Intermodal Terminal. The below-building level includes spaces for OCTA, mechanical and ventilation, and building services. The at-grade uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. The above-grade uses will include passenger- oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. The Bus Transit Center is located on the lower level of the Intermodal Terminal. This Transit Center will include bus islands, waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, and driving ramps for surface street access. The Bus Transit Center will contain a 16-bay bus facility (two, eight bay islands) located directly below the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will be an open air facility for ventilation. A waiting area will be provided on each bus island. This approach to the Regional Growth Projections Method of using adopted local growth projections along with recent updates that incorporate the major projects such as those listed above is appropriate for evaluating cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Project. This is especially true given the size and long-term nature of the project, which is better considered within the context of adopted growth projections than by attempting to list reasonably foreseeable individual development projects that may occur nearby over the next several years. The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project have been addressed for each environmental category discussed in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of this SEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.1-1 5. Environmental Analysis 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1.1 Environmental Setting Regional Character The Platinum Triangle is in the south central portion of the City of Anaheim, approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, in north Orange County, California. Regionally, the City of Anaheim is surrounded by the cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated Orange County to the south; and the cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. The project area is situated northeast of Interstate 5 south of the Southern California Edison easement, west of the Santa Ana River channel, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The City of Anaheim is a largely built-out city with little or no topographic relief throughout its central and western portions. The City’s remaining open space features are left only to the eastern part of the City in the Hill and Canyon Area, including undeveloped portion of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area. Views and vistas in the Hill and Canyon Area to the east are important visual amenities in the City, along with major parks of region and statewide interest that are adjacent to the city, such as Deer Canyon Preserve, state-owned land adjacent to the Chino Hills State Park and the Cleveland National Forest. Local Character A landmark can be any prominent feature within a city, including buildings, geographic features, or cultural centers. Landmarks often serve to give a city its own distinct character and image, as well as help orient residents and visitors. The Platinum Triangle and its surrounding area are highly urbanized with no geographic features or natural resources of importance. Instead, landmarks such as Angel Stadium of Anaheim with the “Big A” sign and Honda Center provide visual prominence and can be seen from many surrounding uses and streets within the project vicinity. Representative photographs of the project area are shown on Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2. No scenic corridors or highways are in the vicinity of the project area. The closest officially designated State Scenic Highway within the City of Anaheim is a 4.5-mile segment of State Route 91 (SR-91) from State Route 55 (SR-55) to the Weir Canyon Road interchange; however, the project area is not visible from any part of SR-91. The project area is transitioning from light industrial to mixed use development in accordance with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). As of April 2010, 1,577 dwelling units had been constructed within the Platinum Triangle, 343 units were under construction and an additional 6,445 units were approved through development agreements and not yet under construction. In addition 16,264 square feet of commercial development had been constructed, 13,105 feet were under construction and an additional 413,871 square feet of commercial development and 899,419 square feet of office development had been approved through development agreements, but not yet constructed. A full list of approved and pending projects is provided on the City’s website at www.anaheim.net (go to Planning Department and ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 click on link to the Platinum Triangle). Representative photographs of the project area are depicted on Figure 5.1-3. Shade, Shadow, and Illumination Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Honda Center are two of the most prominent shadow sources in the project area and generally cast shadows in the adjacent parking areas. Other sources include high-rise office uses along State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue and several taller structures along Katella Avenue adjacent to the stadium. In addition, approved developments within the PTMU Overlay Zone that have been constructed or are in the planning stages are comprised of medium- to high-rise structures with a typical maximum building height of 100 feet, with exceptions. For instance, the Experience at Gene Autry project, which has been approved through a development agreement between the City and the Property owner, includes residential towers up to 300 feet in height. Due to the various sports-entertainment uses and restaurants uses, night lighting is widespread throughout the project area. Existing ambient sources of nighttime lighting are characterized by neon and fluorescent signage associated with commercial and retail land uses and additional sources such as parking lot lighting, structural lighting for hotels and restaurants, overhead street lighting along roadways, lighting from vehicle headlights and sign/building illumination, and lighting during nighttime sporting events at Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Honda Center. 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. AE-3 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold AE-1 • Threshold AE-2 • Threshold AE-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.1-1 Site Photographs Angel Stadium of Anaheim Honda Center The Grove of Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.1-2 Site Photographs View of State College Boulevard looking south at railroad gate crossing. Katella Avenue & State College Boulevard intersection. Residential and office buildings on State College Boulevard. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.1-3 Site Photographs Industrial buildings on State College Boulevard. Orangewood Avenue & State College Boulevard intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.1-9 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses the threshold of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed a potentially significant impact. The applicable threshold is identified in the brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.1-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ALTER THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE PROJECT AREA. [THRESHOLD AE-3] Impact Analysis: The Proposed Project would allow for the construction of an additional 8,643 dwelling units, up to 6,007,166 square feet of additional office area, up to 2,645,282 square feet of additional commercial area, and up to 1,500,000 square feet of institutional area in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone Mixed Use District, and up to 3,277,806 square feet of additional office space in the new PTMU Overlay Zone Office District. Therefore, development in accordance with the increased development intensities would inevitably result in changes to the visual appearance of the project area as the height, size, and scale of structures increase. The Proposed Project would also modify widths of streets and street intersections within the Platinum Triangle to ensure that increased development intensities are accommodated. All new mixed use development would be required to continue to adhere to the adopted design standards set forth in the Chapter 18.20, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, and other applicable zoning regulations of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code. For instance, the existing regulation requires that if a residential development of more than 400 units is proposed on a parcel of five acres or greater, then more than one building type shall be constructed to achieve a product diversity. Development within the Platinum Triangle would be designed in accordance with the adopted Platinum Triangle design principles such as creating appropriate block size, providing various housing types, developing parks and recreational leisure area, and creating streets that are attractive, safe, and engaging to pedestrians as well as automobiles. The Proposed Project would remove the FAR requirements for Mixed Use Districts. However, the maximum site coverage of 75 percent and setback requirements for the PTMU Overlay Zone would not change and would guide individual projects toward variations in density and open space. The proposed Office Districts would allow an FAR consistent with the property’s corresponding General Plan land use designation. The adopted maximum building height within the PTMU Overlay Zone is 100 feet, unless otherwise approved by a conditional use permit, and within the Arena and Stadium Districts, there is no height restriction. The proposed ARTIC District would also have no height restrictions while development within the proposed Office District would be limited to 100 feet, unless otherwise approved by a conditional use permit. Therefore, development projects within the project area would be constructed of sizes and scales that are consistent with existing development in the area and provide a mix of block, building, and unit configurations to enhance the visual quality and attractiveness of the project area as intended by the Platinum Triangle. As implementation of the Proposed Project occurs over an extended period of time, various urban design attributes incorporated in the MLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone would ensure that individual projects are architecturally consistent and well landscaped as envisioned by the MLUP. New Water Well A new water well is proposed adjacent to the proposed Fire Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street south of Stanford Court. Although building elevations for the water well are not yet ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 available, they will go through a design review process so that the building setback and architectural treatments for the new well facility are compatible with the proposed Fire Station No. 12. State College Boulevard Railroad Undercrossing The AT&SF railroad crosses State College Boulevard approximately 250 feet north of Wright Circle within the Platinum Triangle. In order to improve traffic flow and safety, the City of Anaheim is working with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on an underpass concept at this location. Figure 3-12 shows the proposed undercrossing location and conceptual illustration. Because it is an underpass concept, any visual impact would be minimal, as it would not be visible from surrounding areas. It is anticipated that this undercrossing would improve the visual quality of the area as landscaping would be incorporated into the project design. Shade/Shadow Analysis The issue of shade and shadow pertains to the blockage of direct sunlight by on-site buildings, which affects adjacent properties. Shading is an important environmental issue because the users or occupants of certain land uses, such as residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas have expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun. Factors that influence the extent and range of shading include season; time of day; weather; building height, bulk, and scale; spacing between buildings; and tree cover. The longest shadows are cast during the winter months, when the sun is lowest on the horizon, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months. Shadows are longer in the early morning and late afternoon. The City does not provide any specific provisions in regulating shade or shadow impacts. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the extent of shadow impacts is considered substantial if 50 percent of sun-sensitive area is in shade/shadow for at least 50 percent of the duration for the season three hours between 9 AM and 3 PM during winter daylight hours). The Platinum Triangle envisions a vibrant community that promotes pedestrian walkways, benches, public plazas, parks, and public gathering places. Although extensive shading is commonplace and an accepted part of the normal pattern of light during early morning and late afternoon in late fall and early winter, especially in a built-up urban area, occupants of these areas would expect a certain level of sunlight. As indicated previously, shadow are dependent on the height and size of the buildings from which they are cast, and the angle of the sun. Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Honda Center are two of the most prominent existing shadow sources in the project area. The majority of approved and planned structures in the PTMU Overlay Zone are medium to high-rise structures with a typical maximum building height of 100 feet. However, exceptions are allowed with the approval of conditional use permits and some districts have no height restrictions. With the exception of proposed development standards for office buildings and hotels, the PTMU Overlay Zone design standards do not allow a continuous roof or parapet line exceeding 120 feet in length without vertical break that cause a change in height of at least 6 feet, and requires a building that exceeds 240 feet in length to step down in at least one location at least one floor for a minimum length of 24 feet. In addition, all properties would have a minimum open setback for the full width of the property regardless of style. These requirements would reduce shade/shadow impacts by breaking up continuous shade lines and allow sunlight. The extent and duration of shadows cast by buildings developed in the Platinum Triangle would depend on the actual design, bulk, height, and location of structures in relation to open space and pedestrian areas, without the actual site plans and building elevations. Therefore, an attempt to evaluate the actual shade/shadow impacts at the program level would be speculative. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.1-11 Nonetheless, the increased allowable density and height of the Proposed Project would result in increased shadow and widths being cast by the existing conditions. Therefore, despite the existing design guidelines, there is a potential that over 50 percent of on- and off-site shadow-sensitive areas would experience shade/shadow effects for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. Future development projects adjacent to uses that are deemed shadow sensitive would be required to demonstrate that they would not interfere with those uses’ exposure to natural sunlight and to incorporate design features that allow direct sunlight for at least 50 percent of the sun-sensitive areas for at least 50 percent of duration for the season. Therefore, with mitigation, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with the project area’s visual appearance. 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The project area is characterized by urban uses and does not contain any scenic resources or natural open space areas. Cumulative development will intensify urban uses in the area through proposed increases to commercial and office uses and residential units. Some of the buildings in the project area would include visually prominent structures. While the Proposed Project will intensify the urban character of the area, properties developed within the Platinum Triangle will be required to comply with the Platinum Triangle MLUP, and the PTMU Overlay Zone, which will create a more cohesive and visually appealing character for the project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative aesthetic impact. The ARTIC facility design is intended as an iconic structure with visual prominence. It is anticipated that the facility would be a unique architectural structure that would alter the existing skyline and be visible from various points in the City and also from the City of Orange. The facility would replace the existing old buildings in the area and enhance the aesthetic quality of the surrounding area. ARTIC is within the proposed ARTIC District, which is generally bounded by the Arena District to the north, Katella District to the west, Stadium District to the south, and the Santa Ana River to the west. ARTIC and the ARTIC District are proposed to be compatible with the surrounding development, Angels Stadium in the Stadium District and Honda Center in the Arena District. Although residential units are proposed within the Katella District, only commercial and office uses are in the Katella sub-area immediately west of Douglass Road. Sensitive receptors in the Stadium and Arena Districts would already be exposed to unique regional facilities such as the Angels Stadium and Honda Center and development of the ARTIC facility would be a compatible addition to the visual characteristic in the area. 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Future development projects within the Platinum Triangle shall be required to comply with the planning principles and the urban design elements contained in the Platinum Triangle MLUP as amended, and the development standards contained in the PTMU Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) as amended. 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.1-1 The Proposed Project would alter the visual appearance of the project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Page 5.1-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.1-1 Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A (MMP No. 106A) for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference number from MMP No. 106A is shown in (italics). 1-1 Prior to approval of a As part of the Final Site Plan application, where adjacent uses are deemed to be shadow sensitive (i.e.e.g., residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas), the property owner/developer for future development projects shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project would not preclude shadow sensitive receptors’ exposure to natural sunlight for at least 50 percent of duration for the season, for at least 50 percent of the shade-sensitive area, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. (5.1-1) 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measure identified above would reduce potential impact associated with aesthetics to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to aesthetics remain. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-1 5.2 AIR QUALITY This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project to impact air quality. The project’s impacts are compared to the Adopted MLUP. The analysis in this section is based on air quality analysis completed by The Planning Center. The air quality model output sheets are included as Appendix C 5.2.1 Environmental Setting South Coast Air Basin The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The air basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region is in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest the site is in Anaheim (ID No. 040192). The average minimum temperature is reported at 46.9°F in December and the average maximum temperature is 86.9°F in August (WRCC 2009). In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 12.92 inches per year in the project area, as measured in Anaheim (WRCC 2009). Humidity Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; low stratus clouds, often called high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the east portions of the SoCAB. Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollu- tant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area. Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. These are known as criteria air pollutants and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. VOC and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Presented below is a description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects. Other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, a natural by-product of animal respiration that is also produced in the combustion process, have been linked to such phenomena as global warming (see Section 5.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (SCAQMD 2005). Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. VOCs are synonymous with reactive organic gases. Other sources of VOC include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by VOC, but rather by reactions of VOC to form secondary pollutants such as ozone (SCAQMD 2005). Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NOX acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens (SCAQMD 2005). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-3 NO2 is a by-product of fuel combustion. The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10, PM2.5, and ozone (SCAQMD 2005). Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. Fuel combustion is the primary source of SO2. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. A primary source of SO2 emissions is high-sulfur-content coal. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and hence do not release significant quantities of SO2 (SCAQMD 2005). Particulate Matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns 10 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns 2.5 one- millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems (SCAQMD 2005). Diesel particulates are classified by the CARB as a carcinogen. Fugitive dust primarily poses two public health and safety concerns. The first concern is that of respiratory problems attributable to the particulates suspended in the air. The second concern is that of motor vehicle accidents caused by reduced visibility during severe wind conditions. Fugitive dust may also cause significant property damage during strong windstorms by acting as an abrasive (much like sandblasting). Finally, fugitive dust can result in a nuisance factor due to the soiling of proximate structures and vehicles (SCAQMD 2005). Ozone (O3), or smog, is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed when VOC and NOX (both by-products of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. O3 is present in relatively high concentrations in the SoCAB, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog are generally related to the concentrations of O3. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Additionally, O3 has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and premature death. O3 can also be a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products (SCAQMD 2005). Toxic Air Contaminants The public’s exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection of Section 112 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United Sates Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is authorized to identify a substance as ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. CARB has, to date, established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. Since the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB has designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, the CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines. In 2000, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the air toxics risk. In 2008, SCAQMD conducted its third update to their study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,200 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 84 percent of the air toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008). Diesel Particulate Matter In 1998, the CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in the diesel exhaust were considered as TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. The major sources of diesel PM are from diesel-fueled engines and vehicles used in California (CARB 2000). These sources include trucks, public and school buses, large off-road equipment, portable equipment such as transport refrigeration units (TRUs), and stationary engines used to generate power or pump water. The CARB adopted the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles (Plan) in September of 2000. The Plan represents the State’s comprehensive plan to reduce diesel PM emissions within the state. Its goals are a 75 percent reduction in diesel PM by 2010 and an 85 percent reduction by 2020 from the 2000 baseline (CARB 2000). Measures to reduce diesel PM emissions range from requiring use of cleaner diesel fuel to implementing standards in improving new and in-use diesel engines for on-road and off-road vehicles and equipment. The following are regulations adopted by CARB within the past decade to reduce emissions of diesel PM from mobile sources: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-5 • Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (adopted 1993, amended in 2003) • CARB Rule 2021: Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measures for Waste Collection Trucks (Adopted 2003) • CARB Rule 2023: Transit Fleet Vehicles (Adopted 2005) • CARB Rule 2025: On-Road Heavy Duty Truck In-Use Regulation (Adopted 2008) • CARB Rule 2027: Port Truck Regulation (Adopted 2007) • CARB Rule 2449: Off-Road In-Use Fleet Regulation (Adopted 2007) • CARB Rule 2477: Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) – Transport Refrigeration Units (Adopted 2004) • CARB Rule 2480: ATCM – School Bus Idling (Adopted 2002) • CARB Rule 2485: ATCM – Commercial Vehicle Idling (Adopted 2004) Other Effects of Air Pollution Just as humans are affected by air pollution, so too are plants and animals. Animals must breathe the same air and are subject to the same types of negative health effects. Certain plants and trees may absorb air pollutants that can stunt their development or cause premature death. There are also numerous impacts to our economy including lost workdays due to illness, a desire on the part of business to locate in areas with a healthy environment, and increased expenses from medical costs. Pollutants may also lower visibility and cause damage to property. Certain air pollutants are responsible for discoloring painted surfaces, eating away at stones used in buildings, dissolving the mortar that holds bricks together, and cracking tires and other items made from rubber. In conformance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared a monetary cost/benefit analysis related to implementation requirements. By the year 2010, the EPA estimates that its emissions reductions programs would cost approximately 27 billion dollars. The programs are estimated to result in a savings benefit of 110 billion dollars, for a net benefit of 83 billion dollars. While these values are for the nation as a whole, a net benefit ratio of about 4:1 is noted and a similar ratio could be expected for the City of Anaheim and its residents. Another direct cost/benefit issue relates to federal funding. Areas that do not meet the federal air quality standards may lose eligibility for federal funding for road improvements and other projects that require federal or California Department of Transportation approval. Cleaner air also yields benefits to ecological systems. The benefits of Clean Air Act Amendments programs that can be quantified within the overall monetary benefits include increased agricultural and timber yields, reduced effects of acid rain on aquatic ecosystems, and reduced effects of nitrogen deposited to coastal estuaries. Many ecological benefits, however, remain difficult or impossible to quantify, or can only be quantified for a limited geographic area. The magnitude of quantified benefits and the wide range of unquantified benefits nonetheless suggest that as we learn more about ecological systems and can conduct more comprehensive ecological benefits assessments, estimates of these benefits could be substantially greater. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 Baseline Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the City of Anaheim are best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The City is in the Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17 – Central Orange County (Inland Orange County). The SCAQMD air quality monitoring station in the SRA 17 that is closest to the City is the Anaheim Monitoring Station. However, this station only monitors CO, NO2, O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Consequently, data was supplemented from the Los Angeles North Main Street Monitoring Station for SO2. Data from these two stations are summarized in Table 5.2-1. The data show recurring violations of both the state and federal O3 standards. The data also indicate that the area regularly exceeds state PM10 standard and federal PM2.5 standards; however the federal PM10 standard was only exceeded once in the last five years. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards have not been violated in the last five years at the stations. Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations Pollutant/Standard 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ozone1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm State 8-Hour ≥ 0.070 ppm Federal 8-Hour > 0.0752 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 14 50 29 0.120 0.097 1 8 2 0.095 0.078 6 5 3 0.113 0.089 2 7 1 0.127 0.100 2 10 5 0.105 0.086 Carbon Monoxide (CO)1 State/Federal 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 4.09 0 3.27 0 2.90 0 2.91 0 3.44 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.184 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.122 0 0.089 0 0.114 0 0.086 0 0.093 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)3 State 24-Hour ≥ 0.04 ppm Federal 24-Hour ≥ 0.14 ppm Max 24-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0 0.015 0 0 0.010 0 0 0.006 0 0 0.005 0 0 0.003 Coarse Particulates (PM10)3 State 24-Hour > 50 μg/m3 Federal 24-Hour > 150 μg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3) 7 0 74.0 3 0 65.0 7 0 104.0 6 1 489.06 3 0 61.0 Fine Particulates (PM2.5)1 Federal 24-Hour > 355 μg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3) 20 58.9 13 54.7 7 56.2 14 79.4 2 39.4 Source: CARB 2008c. ppm: parts per million; μg/m3:micrograms per cubic meter 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim Monitoring Station. 2 The USEPA revised the 8-hour O3 standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm, effective May 2008. 3 Data obtained from the Los Angeles North Main Street Monitoring Station 4 The NOX standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1-hr standard from 0.25 ppm to 0.18 ppm. 5 The USEPA recently revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3. However, this standard did not take effect until December 2006. Federal exceedance based on measured day the ambient air quality concentrations exceeded the 24-hour standard. 6 Maximum concentration includes exceptional events (wildfire). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-7 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Existing and proposed industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. The nearest sensitive land uses proximate to the project are existing and planned residential uses within The Platinum Triangle. Regulatory Setting Development associated of the Proposed Project has the potential to release emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air; therefore, it falls under the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by SCAQMD. However, SCAQMD reports to CARB, and all criteria emissions are also governed by the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to project are summarized below. Ambient Air Quality Standards The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting NAAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 Amendments are the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CAAQS tend to be more restrictive than the NAAQS and are based on higher health and welfare standards. These NAAQS and CAAQS standards are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 5.2-2, these pollutants are O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Table 5.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Pollutant Health and Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources 1 hour 0.09 ppm NA Ozone (O3) 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm High concentrations can directly affect lungs, causing irritation. Long-term exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Motor vehicles. 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Classified as a chemical CO interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddish- brown. Motor vehicles, petroleum- refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Annual Arithmetic Mean * 0.03 ppm 1 hour 0.25 ppm * Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Irritates upper respiratory tract; injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow the leaves of plants, destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 — Respirable Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Respirable Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hours * 35 μg/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, decreases in lung capacity, cancer and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility. Dust and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g. wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 1.5 μg/m3 * Quarterly * 1.5 μg/m3 Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average 0.15 μg/m3 Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and causes anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurologic dysfunction (in severe cases). Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 μg/m3 * Decrease in ventilatory functions; aggravation of asthmatic aggravation of cardio- pulmonary disease; vegetation damage; degradation of visibility; property damage. Industrial processes. Source: California Air Resources Board, updated January 2010. ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * = standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-9 Air Quality Management Planning SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The most recent AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007 and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment or demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOX, directly emitted PM2.5, and focused control of NOX and VOC by 2015. The eight-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOX and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming an extended attainment date is obtained. Area Designations The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas are classified as attainment nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards for that pollutant. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. Attainment classifications apply to individual pollutants: • Unclassified: the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment for a pollutant • Attainment: the CAAQS was not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period for that pollutant • Nonattainment: there was at least one violation of a state AAQS for that pollutant in the area • Nonattainment/Transitional: a subcategory of the nonattainment designation; signifies that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant The attainment status for the SoCAB is included in Table 5.2-3. As listed in this table, air quality in the SoCAB is in nonattainment of the national and state AAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, while CO and SO2 are in attainment of both the federal and state standards. In addition, on March 25, 2010, CARB approved designating the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB as nonattainment under the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead and the entire SoCAB as nonattainment under the NAAQS for NOX. According to the 2007 AQMP, the SoCAB will have to meet the new federal PM2.5 standards by 2015 and the 8-hour O3 standard by 2024, and will most likely have to achieve the recently revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment1 Ozone – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment2 PM10 Serious Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment3 (Proposed Attainment) PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment4 NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance (Proposed Nonattainment) SO2 Attainment Attainment Lead (Pb) Attainment Nonattainment (Los Angeles Only)5 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: California Air Resource Board, based on 2006 State Area Designations and National Area Designations current as of July 2007. 1 Under prior standard. 2 May petition for Extreme. 3 Annual Standard Revoked September 2006. 4 The USEPA granted the request to redesignate the SoCAB from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS on May 11, 2007 (Federal Register Volume 71, No. 91), which became effective as of June 11, 2007. 5 On October 15, 2008, the USEPA revised the federal AAQS from 1.5 μg/m3 to 0.15 μg/m3. CARB is recommending designating the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB as nonattainment under the new federal standard. The USEPA has one year to review the recommendations. Nonattainment areas have five years to attain the new lead standard. Although the SoCAB is in nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, air pollution controls have resulted in general improvement of air quality within the SoCAB. Figure 5.2-1 shows the long-term annual trend in percent basin-days exceedances of the federal standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 from 1990 to 2005 within the SoCAB (SCAQMD 2007). As shown, there has been a downward trend during this 20-year period. In 2005, the SoCAB exceeded the federal standards for O3, PM10 or PM2.5 on a total of 89 days at one or more locations; this compares to 128 days in 2003 and 94 days in 2004 (SCAQMD 2007). Figure 5.2-2 shows the maximum pollutant concentrations of NO2, CO, O3, PM10, and PM2.5 as percent of the federal standards within the SoCAB during this same period. Overall, as shown in this figure, pollutant concentrations of NO2, CO, O3, PM10, and PM2.5 have generally declined since 1990(SCAQMD 2007). The number of days where the SoCAB exceeds the federal 1-hour ozone standard has continually declined over the years. However, while the number of days exceeding the federal 1-hour ozone standard has dropped since the 1990s, the rate of progress has slowed since the beginning of the decade (SCAQMD 2007). According to the 2007 AQMP, although past controls were designed to address the federal 1-hour ozone and PM10 standards, they also improved on our ability to attain the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The 8-hour ozone levels have been reduced by half over the past 30 years, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead standards have been met, and other criteria pollutant concentrations have significantly declined (SCAQMD 2007). The federal and state CO standards were also met as of the end of 2002. On May 11, 2007, the USEPA granted the request to redesignate the SoCAB from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS (Federal Register Volume 71, No. 91), which became effective as of June 11, 2007. Although the SoCAB still experiences substantial exceedances of health-based standards for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5, the SoCAB has not violated the federal 24-hour PM10 standard during the period including 2004 through 2007. Per the criteria specified in the NAAQS, the SoCAB has been in compliance with the 24-hour PM10 standard from 2006 (based on 2004-2006 data) and has maintained compliance since (SCAQMD 2009). Subsequently, CARB approved to redesignate the SoCAB from nonattainment to attainment for PM10 under the federal standards on March 25, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: SCAQMD 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.2-1 Long-Term Annual Trend in Percent Basin-Days Exceedances of Federal Standards for O , PM , 3 10 and PM2.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: SCAQMD 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.2-2 Maximum Pollutant Concentrations of NO , CO, 2 O and PM as Percent of Federal Standards 3 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-15 SCAQMD Local Rules and Regulations In addition to federal and state requirements, new construction and operation in the SoCAB is governed by the rules and regulations of the SCAQMD. 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. AQ-3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ-5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds The analysis of the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in the SCAQMD Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook (formerly the CEQA Air Quality Handbook). CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) requires that lead agencies determine significance findings based to the “extent possible on scientific and factual data.” Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 requires that significance thresholds used by a lead agency must be supported by substantial evidence. As air districts are the public agencies responsible for regulating air quality, they have the technical expertise and means to develop significance thresholds to evaluate impacts of a project on air quality that are substantially supported. The SCAQMD recommends lead agencies within its boundaries to use the SCAQMD Handbook in assessing air quality impacts of projects. Regional Significance Thresholds SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction activities and project operation, as shown in Table 5.2-4. 1 The Initial Study did not include an evaluation of odors associated with placement of residential land uses within proximity of existing industrial land use that have the potential to generate objectionable odors. A discussion of potential odor impacts has been incorporated in the EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.2-4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Fine particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Source: SCAQMD 2007 CO Hotspot Analysis Localized CO impacts are determined based on the presence of congested intersections. The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether the project would cause substantial concentrations of CO. A project is considered to have significant impacts if project-related mobile-source emissions result in an exceedance of the California one-hour and eight-hour CO standards, which are: • 1 hour = 20 parts per million • 8 hour = 9 parts per million Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 generated at the project site (off-site mobile-source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA area and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects of five acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. If emissions exceed the LST screening criteria, then dispersion modeling needs to be conducted. Projects larger than five acres can determine the localized significance for construction by performing dispersion modeling using the thresholds in Table 5.2-5 for emissions that exceed the LST screening criteria. However, LST analysis and dispersion modeling are not applicable at the master land use plan level due to the scale of the project. Individual projects implemented under the Platinum Triangle MLUP would have to undergo additional environmental analysis, which includes an evaluation of the LSTs and/or dispersion modeling. Table 5.2-5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds – AAQS Air Pollutant (Relevant AAQS) Concentration 1-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm 8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm 1-Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.18 ppm 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)1 10.4 μg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)1 10.4 μg/m3 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 μg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 μg/m3 ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter 1 Threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Since the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the threshold is established as an “allowable change” in concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-17 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts The assessment of potential air pollution impacts for the Proposed Project included both a localized and regional analysis of criteria pollutants. Regional emissions for construction and area sources from operations were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions model. Emissions from transportation sources related to operations were calculated using the EMFAC2007 model. The URBEMIS2007 model includes an inventory of air pollutant emissions from stationary emissions sources. The EMFAC2007 computer model includes an inventory of emission rates for vehicular sources. Transportation emissions are based on emission rates using the EMFAC2007 computer model, based on trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from the traffic report prepared by Parson Brinkerhoff Associates. In addition, the traffic generated during the operations phase was assessed for localized concentrations of CO based on modeling of congested intersections. The calculated emissions are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects to determine whether project emissions would result in significant air quality impacts. Model runs for operation phase air pollutant emissions are included as Appendix C. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement: IMPACT 5.2-1: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SHORT-TERM AIR POLLUTANTS COMPARED TO THE ADOPTED MASTER LAND USE PLAN AND WOULD CONTINUE TO EXCEED SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS. [THRESHOLDS AQ-2 AND AQ-3] Impact Analysis: Construction emissions associated with the Adopted MLUP were considered a significant unavoidable impact in FSEIR No 332 and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted. The FSEIR No. 332 identified impacts associated with emissions of VOCs and NOx using the URBEMIS2002 computer model. Since certification of the FSEIR No. 332, new AAQS were established for PM2.5 and SCAQMD adopted significance thresholds for this criteria air pollutant. In addition, a newer version of the URBEMIS model has been released. Construction emissions for both the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project have been revised below. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Grading activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from soil-disturbing activities. Exhaust emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with new development in the project area would temporarily increase localized PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOX, SOX, and CO concentrations in the project vicinity and regional emissions within the SoCAB. The primary source of construction-related CO, SOX, VOC, and NOX emissions is gasoline- and diesel-powered, heavy-duty mobile construction equipment. Primary sources of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be clearing and demolition activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth. Construction emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 computer model to provide an order of magnitude estimate of emissions from the development of individual components of the MLUP. The construction emissions analysis evaluates a construction scenario that involves the development of the MLUP over the course of 20 years. The modeling assumes development occurring on 25 percent of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 MLUP at any one time. Therefore, the model also assumes overlap of various construction activities grading, building, paving, etc.) to account for concurrent projects that are at different development phases. Construction equipment used in the construction emissions analysis are default types based on the URBEMIS2007 model. Considering the 820-acre project area and a 20-year build-out schedule, approximately 41 acres on average may be under construction at any one time in any given year. Modeled air pollutant emissions for the various project construction phases are shown in Table 5.2-6. Because SCAQMD has adopted separate threshold for construction and operation, construction emissions are compared to SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for construction. As shown in this table, emissions generated by the construction activities would exceed the threshold values established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, significant air quality impacts from construction related emissions would occur. Table 5.2-6 Sample Project-Related Daily Construction Emissions (in pounds per day) Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Adopted MLUP Demolition 6 47 805 1 7 4 Grading1 11 96 49 0 134 31 Trenching 2 18 9 0 1 1 Paving 3 19 12 0 2 2 Architectural Coatings 19 <1 1 0 <1 <1 Building 51 333 1,016 2 22 16 Maximum Daily 92 513 1,115 2 160 52 Proposed Project Demolition 6 47 27 0 2 2 Grading1 11 96 49 0 134 31 Trenching 4 35 18 0 2 2 Paving 3 20 12 0 2 2 Architectural Coatings 77 <1 2 0 <1 <1 Building 120 750 2,624 4 50 36 Maximum Daily 222 948 2,732 4 190 72 SCAQMD Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Difference between the Adopted MLUP and Proposed Project 130 435 1,617 2 30 20 Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Based on development occurring over a 20-year build-out timeframe. Construction emissions are based on default construction usage provided by URBEMIS2007 computer model. 1 PM10 and PM2.5 generated by fugitive dust assumes maximum daily disturbance of 41 acres and implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, which includes the following dust control measures during ground-disturbing activities: replacing groundcover in disturbed areas quickly, watering exposed surfaces at least two time daily, implementation of equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, and reducing speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. Construction activities occurring within the Platinum Triangle would potentially exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for NOX, CO, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 and significantly contribute to the O3, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. The emissions shown in Table 5.2-7 represent an estimate of construction emissions from development of multiple projects occurring within the Platinum Triangle MLUP. However, actual maximum daily emissions would depend on the number of simultaneously occurring projects. Regional construction impacts associated with the Adopted MLUP in the 2FSEIR No. 332 were considered a significant impact of the project. The Proposed Project would generate substantially more ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-19 construction emissions over the same 20-year time frame as compared to the adopted MLUP. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. IMPACT 5.2-2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE LONG-TERM AIR POLLUTANTS COMPARED TO THE ADOPTED MASTER LAND USE PLAN AND WOULD CONTINUE TO EXCEED SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS. [THRESHOLDS AQ-2 AND AQ-3] Impact Analysis: Operational phase emissions associated with the Adopted MLUP were considered a significant unavoidable impact in the FSEIR No. 332 and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted. The FSEIR No. 332 identified impacts associated with emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, and PM10 using the URBEMIS2002 computer model. Since certification of the FSEIR No. 332, new AAQS were established for PM2.5 in addition to the SCAQMD adopting significance thresholds for this criteria air pollutant. Also, a newer version of the URBEMIS model has been released. Operational phase emissions for both the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project have been revised below. Stationary and mobile source emissions were compiled for the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project for residential, office, commercial, and institutional land uses in the Platinum Triangle. Mobile-source air pollutant emissions are based on the traffic study prepared for this project by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2009). Stationary sources were compiled using the URBEMIS2007 computer model. Modeling results are shown in Table 5.2-7. Table 5.2-7 Project-Related Operational Phase Emissions (in pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Adopted MLUP Stationary Sources 602 213 114 0.36 5 5 Mobile Sources 1,441 743 6,307 24 193 191 Total 2,043 956 6,421 24 198 196 Proposed Project Stationary Sources 1,155 443 252 0.67 9 9 Mobile Sources 2,628 1,358 11,518 43 353 350 Total 3,783 1,801 11,770 44 362 359 SCAQMD Standard 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Difference between the Adopted MLUP and Proposed Project 1,740 845 5,349 20 164 163 Source: URBEMIS2007 and EMFAC2007 based on trips and VMT from Parson Brinkerhoff (2009). Stationary sources based on worst-case summer/winter emissions. The Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5. The Proposed Project would generate substantially more air pollutant emissions when compared to the Adopted MLUP because the project would result in additional residential, commercial, and office development. The primary source of project-related long-term air pollutant emissions are from mobile sources vehicles traveling to and from the project site). Emissions of VOC, PM10, PM2.5, and NOx that exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds would contribute to the O3 nonattainment designation. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 that exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds would contribute to the particulate matter ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-20 • The Planning Center August 2010 (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for both the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project. IMPACT 5.2-3: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WOULD POTENTIALLY EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS OF NOX, CO, PM10, AND PM2.5. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: The SCAQMD previously considered evaluation of LSTs to be optional for lead agencies. Consequently, the FSEIR No. 332 did not evaluate whether construction activities would generate substantial pollutant concentrations. However, in 2006, SCAQMD began commenting on projects that did not conduct a localized analysis for construction activities. The analysis below addresses LSTs for both the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike the mass (lbs/day) of construction emissions, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or μg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. Construction associated with implementation of the Proposed Project would cause temporary, short-term emissions of CO, NOX, VOC, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 generated at the project site (off-site mobile source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national AAQS or California AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA area and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. Air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis. For this broad-based master land use plan it is not possible to determine the emissions that would be generated by the development of individual projects that would occur through the implementation of the Proposed Project, due to the speculative nature of scheduling construction projects. However, it is expected that due to the proximity of the existing and proposed residences within the Platinum Triangle in addition to the magnitude of construction activities, construction activities associated within build-out of the Proposed Project could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction activities. Consequently, this impact would be significant for both the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project. IMPACT 5.2-4: MOBILE SOURCES OF EMISSIONS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: The Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels or place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the mass (lbs/day) of operational emissions shown in Tables 5.2-8, localized concentrations refer to the amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or μg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. CO Hot Spot Analysis An air quality impact would also be significant if emission levels exceed the state or federal AAQS, thereby exposing receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-21 from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Vehicle congestion has the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Note that the federal levels are a one-hour standard of 35 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Thus, an exceedance condition would occur based on the state standards prior to exceedance of the federal standard. Because traffic congestion is highest where vehicles queue while waiting to drive through an intersection, hot spots are typically produced at intersection locations. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse. Four intersections with the worst-case congestion (see Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic) were selected to screen for the potential to form CO hotspots. Table 5.2-8 list the one- and eight-hour baselines and project-related CO concentrations that would occur at the study area intersections operating under an LOS F or worse with the Proposed Project, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic. As shown in this table, project-related traffic is not anticipated to exceed any of the state one- or eight-hour CO AAQS at the study area intersections. Consequently, sensitive receptors in the area would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by operation of the Proposed Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions would therefore be less than significant for the Proposed Project. Table 5.2-8 CO Concentrations at Congested Intersections in the Project Vicinity (parts per million) Exceeds CAAQS Intersection Highest 1-Hour CO Concentration 1-Hour CAAQS Highest 8-Hour CO Concentration 8-Hour CAAQS 1-Hour 8-Hour Lewis Street and Katella Avenue 6.5 20 4.6 9 No No State College Boulevard and Gateway Center Drive 6.3 20 4.4 9 No No Glassell Street and Walnut Avenue 6.1 20 4.3 9 No No Haster Street and Gene Autry Way 6.1 20 4.3 9 No No Source: CALINE4. Version 1.31. Based on traffic volumes, roadway configurations, and speed limits obtained from the traffic study prepared by Parson Brinkerhoff (2009). CO concentrations include a background ambient CO concentration of 5.8 ppm obtained from the SCAQMD, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CO/CO.html, for SRA 17 in year 2030. 8-Hour CO concentrations obtained by multiplying 1-Hour CO concentrations by a persistence factor of 70 percent. Diesel Particulate Matter According to the MATES III model of estimated carcinogenic risk, health risk in the Platinum Triangle ranges from 931 to 1,086 in a million (SCAQMD 2008). Overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics is about 1,200 in a million in the SoCAB. Mobile sources account for approximately 94 percent of all health risk in the SoCAB while stationary sources (industries, dry cleaners, chrome-plating operations, etc.) account for the remaining 6 percent. The largest contributor to this risk is diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 84 percent of the total air toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008). The Proposed Project would result in converting warehouse and industrial land uses to residential and ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-22 • The Planning Center August 2010 commercial land uses. This would result in lower truck trips generated as residential and commercial land uses would not generate the same number of truck trips as warehousing and industrial uses. In addition to a reduction of truck trips, heavy duty trucks and buses within the Platinum Triangle are subject to CARB Rule 2845, Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, and Rule 2840, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at School. These rules prohibit commercial vehicles and school buses from non-essential idling more than five minutes and limit non-essential idling for transit busses to up to 10 minutes prior to boarding. The proposed ARTIC project is within the proposed ARTIC Mixed Use District. ARTIC would entail multiple transit buses that could occur idle in close proximity to commercial, office and residential land uses. However, with adherence to CARB Rule 2845 and 2840, idling emissions from heavy duty trucks and busses throughout the Platinum Triangle, including within the proposed ARTIC Mixed-Use District, would be extremely limited. Overall, the Proposed Project would reduce emissions of diesel PM and the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts from diesel PM would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.2-5: SENSITIVE LAND USES WITHIN 500 FEET OF STATE ROUTE 57 AND INTERSTATE 5 OR WITHIN THE RECOMMENDED BUFFER DISTANCES TO FACILITIES EMITTING TACS MAY BE EXPOSED TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: In 2005, CARB released the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of sources that generate TACs including freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This voluntary guidance document was developed as a tool for assessing compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. While CARB recognizes that the recommendations within the Handbook are advisory, and land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs in determining where to site new sensitive land uses, the buffer distances indicate the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. In July 2009, the California Association of Air Pollution Control Officers (CAPCOA) released a Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects to assist land use agencies in complying with CEQA. CAPCOA’s handbook states that new land use project should use CARB’s buffer distances as a preliminary screening tool and recommends a more refined analysis if a project is located within the buffer distances. The analysis below identifies impacts for both the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project. Air Quality Compatibility The Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors (residential and recreational) to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would place sensitive land uses in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations that are substantially higher than the ambient concentrations in the SoCAB. As stated in the above diesel PM discussion, the estimated carcinogenic health risk in the Platinum Triangle ranges from 931 to 1,086 in a million and is less than the 1,200 in million average for the SoCAB. The majority of health risk in the SoCAB can be attributed to mobile sources, particularly diesel trucks. Because sensitive land uses fall outside CARB jurisdiction, CARB’s handbook addresses the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed as a tool for assessing compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. Table 5.2-9 shows a summary of CARB recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses within the vicinity of air-pollutant-generating sources. Recommendations in this table are based on data ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-23 that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations. However, the impact of air pollution from these sources is on a gradient that at some point becomes indistinguishable from the regional air pollution problem. Since there are no rail yards, ports, or refineries within or in close proximity to the Platinum Triangle, site recommendations for these facilities are not applicable. Table 5.2-9 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Source Category Advisory Recommendations Freeways and High- Traffic Roads • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Distribution Centers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week). • Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points. Rail Yards • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. • Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches. Ports • Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks. Refineries • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation. Chrome Platers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater. Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the local air district. • Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations. Gasoline Dispensing Facilities • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. Source: CARB 2005. Under the Proposed Project, development of residential uses and associated private recreational areas would be limited to the mixed-use districts. As shown in Figure 5.2-3, CARB 500-Foot Recommended Buffer Distance from Freeways, portions of the mixed-use districts and associated private facilities would fall within the 500-foot buffer distance to Interstate 5 (I-5) and State-Route 57 (SR-57). Proposed parks within the Platinum Triangle would not be within the 500-foor buffer distance of the freeway. In addition, future residents and recreational uses may be within the recommended buffer distance of existing distribution centers, chrome platers, dry cleaners, gas stations, or other facilities that may be currently operating within the Platinum Triangle that emit TACs. Consequently, applicants for new development within the Platinum Triangle would need to evaluate air quality land use compatibility. However, the mixed-use districts would be buffered from the existing industrial areas in the Platinum Triangle by the office districts. Placement of sensitive uses (residential and recreational) near major pollutant sources would result in significant air quality impacts from the exposure of persons to substantial concentrations of toxic air pollutant contaminants. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-24 • The Planning Center August 2010 IMPACT 5.2-6: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2007 AQMP. [THRESHOLD AQ-1] Impact Analysis: A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by the SCAQMD and SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based on the land use designations of the City’s General Plan and form, in part, the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) compiled by SCAG to determine priority transportation projects and determine VMT within the SCAG region. As shown in Table 5.2-10, the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project would result in an overall increase in both trips and VMT in the Platinum Triangle because the project would substantially increase the density of development in the Platinum Triangle. Although the project would increase VMT and trips in the local area, the project would result in a net benefit to the SCAG region as a whole because it precludes the need for people to be housed in less dense development, farther away from employment centers. This is evidenced by the decrease in average trip length because employment, services, and housing would be located in proximity to each other, as well as to existing development, thus reducing the need to develop in outlying areas that would result in longer trips and an increase in emissions. The need for residents within the project site and surrounding area to travel long distances to other commercial and entertainment centers would be reduced. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint program identifies changes to land use and transportation trends on key infill areas located near transit and existing jobs and housing in the region to reduce VMT. Portions of the Platinum Triangle are identified in the Opportunity Area Map for Orange County (SCAG 2007). SCAG has identified these 2 percent areas as the key parts of the region for targeting growth, where projects, plans and policies consistent with the Compass Blueprint principles will best serve the mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision. Impacts would be greater under the Proposed Project compared to the Adopted MLUP. However, the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project would remain consistent with the SCAG’s strategies to reduce VMT in the SCAG region and the proposed development would be consistent with the AQMP under the second indicator. Consequently, impacts are considered less than significant relative to project consistency with the AQMP. Table 5.2-10 Comparison of Trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled Scenario Trips per Day VMT Per Day Average Trip Length Existing 84,416 655,113 7.76 Adopted MLUP 243,060 1,715,669 7.06 Proposed Project 443,263 3,135,398 7.07 Increase from Adopted MLUP 200,203 1,419,729 0.01 Source: Parson Brinkerhoff 2009. VMT: vehicle miles traveled. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: City of Anaheim 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.2-3 CARB 500-Foot Recommended Buffer Distance from Freeways 0’ 1,600’ Scale Note: The new Mixed Use boundaries include expansion of the Katella and Orangewood Districts and the addition of the ARCTIC and Office Districts. 57 5 Connector Street 500-Foot Buffer Zone from Freeways Public Parks Open Space Market Street Lewis Street ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-26 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-27 IMPACT 5.2-7: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS; HOWEVER, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL LAND USES LOCATED NEAR EXISTING ODOR GENERATORS. [THRESHOLD AQ-5] Impact Analysis: SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, regulates the generation of offensive odors. Project construction would involve the operation of heavy equipment and haul trucks, resulting in exhaust emissions and attendant nuisance odors. Any such odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time odors generated by diesel exhaust reached the sensitive residential receptors, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are not significant air quality impact. Additionally, some odor would be produced from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. Again, any exposure of the general public to these common odors would be of short duration and less than significant. Off-Site Impacts Odors generated by land uses within the Platinum Triangle must comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the generation of odors that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of people. Because proposed office, commercial, hotel, and residential land uses typically do not generate substantial odors, no significant impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. On-Site Impacts SCAQMD cites the following land uses as having the potential to generate noisome odors: agricultural (farming and livestock), chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding, landfills, refineries, rendering plants, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants (SCAQMD 2005). Industrial uses within the Platinum Triangle area may generate odors that are objectionable to some. At buildout, residential areas would be buffered by office uses from industrial areas that have the potential to generate odors. Therefore, at buildout, residential land uses would not be exposed to objectionable odors. While many of the industrial land uses within The Platinum Triangle are generally non-odorous, during conversion of The Platinum Triangle residential land uses maybe temporarily located adjacent to industrial businesses that generate odors. Consequently, impacts would be potentially significant without mitigation measures to ensure that new land uses are not located in proximity to existing land uses that generate substantial odors within the Platinum Triangle. 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional or localized air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment would significantly contribute to a cumulative impact. Regional or local emissions that exceed the emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD are considered a substantial source of air pollution that has the potential to contribute significantly to a cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include new development as well as general growth within the project area. As air pollutant emissions are typically confined within the project’s air basin, the cumulative project area encompasses the entire SoCAB. The greatest source of emissions within the SoCAB is from mobile sources. The SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project- related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized emissions thresholds shown in Tables 5.2-4 and 5.2-5. The FSEIR No. 332 for the Adopted MLUP identified significant unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-28 • The Planning Center August 2010 Construction The SoCAB is in nonattainment for O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Mitigation measures specified for the project will assist in mitigating these cumulative impacts and can be applied to all similar cumulative projects. Due to the magnitude of construction projected with build-out of the Proposed Project , construction emissions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emission thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would significantly contribute to cumulative impacts within the SoCAB and cumulative impacts would be significant. Operation For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As shown in Table 5.2-8, operational emissions generated by the project would exceed the regional emission thresholds for CO, NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5.Air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project and other cumulative development would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts. Consequently, the project would significantly contribute to cumulative impacts within the SoCAB and the region’s NAAQS and CAAQS nonattainment designations. Therefore cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be significant. It should be noted that the ARTIC project is considered a cumulative project, which would result in regional air quality benefits. ARTIC will be a world-class transportation center where people transfer between travel services to reach both regional and interregional activity centers and business districts. The specific objectives of the ARTIC Project are: • to provide a regional intermodal transit center that can combine multiple transportation modes at a central location; • to accommodate projected increases in mass transit ridership; • to provide a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes; • to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to multimodal transit options; • to provide improved access and availability of mass transit resources; • to encourage the reduction of vehicle miles traveled on freeways and local arterial streets; and • to provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. ARTIC will provide a necessary component for this transportation network within Anaheim and will serve as the gateway to the southern California region. The ARTIC Project will enhance Orange County’s overall transportation system by accommodating additional bus transit options, additional alternatives to road based travel, and improved services for the transit-dependent. As a result, development of ARTIC would partially off- set regional cumulative air quality emissions through the increased use of public transit services. However, air pollutant emissions from build-out of the Proposed Project are still expected to exceed of SCAQMD’s air quality significance thresholds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-29 Localized Emissions Unlike regional construction and air quality emissions, elevated concentrations of air pollutant emissions generated during construction of the project are concentrated in a localized area of impact and disperse farther away from the project site or intersection. Therefore, cumulative impacts would only occur if more than one project is being constructed in the local vicinity at the same time. Because the multiple projects comprising the Platinum Triangle MLUP could be constructed within the time frame or in close proximity to the other project sites within the Platinum Triangle, including the ARTIC project, cumulative construction localized impacts could occur. Consequently, project-related construction could significantly contribute to localized concentrations of air pollutants at sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be significant with regard to construction activities. As shown under Impact 5.2-4, operational phase emissions in addition to cumulative development within the vicinity of the project would not result in exposure of persons to substantial pollutant concentrations. Consequently, project implementation would not significantly contribute to localized concentrations of air pollutants. 5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct • SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors • SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust • SCAQMD Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities • CARB Rule 2480: Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) – Schools • CARB Rule 2485: Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) – Commercial Vehicles • Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) • Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20) • Motor Vehicle Standards (AB1493) • 2007 AQMP 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.2-4 and Impact 5.2-6 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.2-1 Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate substantially more short-term air pollutants compared to the Adopted MLUP and would continue to exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. • Impact 5.2-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate substantially more long- term air pollutants compared to the Adopted MLUP and would continue to exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. • Impact 5.2-3 Construction activities would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-30 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Impact 5.2-5 Multifamily Residential Units within 500 feet of State Route 57 and Interstate 5 or within the recommended buffer distances to facilities emitting TACs may be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Impact 5.2-7 The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors; however, new development could be proximate to existing odor generators. 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.2-1 Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332), and are applicable to the Proposed Project. (For mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption, see also Chapter 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems). Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from MMP No.106A is shown in (italics). Construction 2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce construction-related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected to remain significant. (5.2-1) a) The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to reduce operational emissions. b) Where feasible, the The contractor shall use Tier 3 or higher, as identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, off-road construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards for equipment greater than 50 horsepower, based on manufacturer’s availability. low emission mobile construction. c) The contractor shall utilize existing power sources power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary diesel-power generators, where feasible. 2-2 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce in order to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: (5.2-2) a) The property owner/developer shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-31 b) In addition to the standard measures, the property owner/developer shall implement supplemental measures as feasible to reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent feasible during construction operations. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: a) o During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall rRe-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering as quickly as possible to achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM10 of 5 percent. b) o During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers Pave to on-site haul roads to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 85 percent compared to travel on unpaved, untreated roads. c) o The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall pPhase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. d) o The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSchedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. o Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. o Restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during construction in coordination with local public agencies. e) o During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant PM10–efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. f) o During active demolition and debris removal and grading, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSuspend demolition and grading operations when during high winds speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to achieve an emissions control efficiency for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions of 98 percent in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. o Wash off trucks leaving site. g) o During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall mMaintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other suitable means to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 91 percent. o Cover payloads on trucks hauling soil using tarps or other suitable means. h) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-32 • The Planning Center August 2010 every three hours on the construction site to achieve an emissions reduction control efficiency for PM10 of 61 percent. i) During active demolition and debris removal, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply water to disturbed soils at the end of each day to achieve an emission control efficiency for PM10 of 10 percent. j) During scraper unloading and loading, the property owner/developer’s construc- tion contractor shall ensure that actively disturbed areas maintain a minimum soil moisture content of 12 percent by use of a moveable sprinkler system or water truck to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 69 percent. k) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall limit on-site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 57 percent. 2-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project site. (5.2-3) 2-4 Prior to issuance approval of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that high-solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regulations. To ensure that volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings do not exceed AQMDs significance thresholds for architectural coatings, the number of gallons of coatings shall be restricted, to the maximum extent feasible, to the maximum daily coating usage identified in Table 5.2-9 of the SEIR. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall specify the use of high volume/low pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Where feasible, the paint contractor shall use hand applications as well. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer’s shall specify the use of high- volume/low-pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air-atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Plans shall also show that property owner/developers shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting, or use prepainted construction materials, to the extent feasible. (5.2-4) Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-33 Impact 5.2-2 Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, and are applicable to the Proposed Project. (For mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption, see also Chapter 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems). Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from MMP No.106A is shown in (italics). Operation 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO, NOX, ROG, and PM10 emissions: (5.2-5) • Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinkerhoff, August 2009, traffic study and Master Plan of Arterial Highways shall be implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed. 2-6 Prior to approval of building permits, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent at the time of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall show the following: a) Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs or similar websites. b) Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or similar websites. c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-34 • The Planning Center August 2010 d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square feet. e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings. Implementation of energy conservation techniques installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. (5.2-6) The following Mitigation Measure from Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106A is no longer applicable because SCAQMD adopted Rule 445, Wood-Burning Devices. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits installation of wood- burning fireplaces. Consequently, all fireplaces installed within the Platinum Triangle would be required to be gas-burning and former Mitigation Measure 5.2-7 is no longer required. 5.2-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the placement of a note on the plans stating that to reduce the health impacts of air quality hazards within The Platinum Triangle, placement of wood-burning fireplaces in residential units shall be prohibited. As an alternative to wood-burning fireplaces, gas fireplaces may be used. Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. Impact 5.2-3 Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would also reduce localized concentration of air pollutants during construction. Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. Impact 5.2-5 Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A No mitigation measures are applicable. Additional Mitigation 2-7 Applicants for new residential developments in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan within 500 feet of Interstate 5 (I-5) or State Route 57 (SR-57) shall be required to install high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters of MERV 14 or better in the intake of residential ventilation systems. MERV 14 filters have a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 90 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-35 percent for particulates 1.0 micron to 3.0 microns in size and a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 75 to 85 percent for particles 0.3 to 1.0 micron in size. A MERV 14 filter creates more resistance to airflow because the filter media becomes denser as efficiency increases. Heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems shall be installed with a fan unit designed to force air through the MERV 14 filter. To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV 14 filters in the individual units, the following shall occur: a) Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk from I-5/SR-57 for all affected units. b) For rental units within 500 feet of the I-5/SR-57, the owner/property manager shall maintain and replace MERV 14 filters in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I-5 or SR-57 when windows are open. c) For residential owned units within 500 feet of I-5/SR-57, the homeowner’s association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV 14 filter in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I- 5/SR-57 when windows are open. 2-8 Based on the recommended buffer distances of the California Air Resources Board, applicants for new developments in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan shall place residential structures and active outdoor recreational areas outside of the recommended buffer distances to the following stationary air pollutant sources: • 1,000 feet from the truck bays with an existing distribution center that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week. • 1,000 feet from an existing chrome plating facility. • 300 feet from a dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using one machine and 500 feet from dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using two machines. • 50 feet from gas pumps within a gas-dispensing facility and 300 feet from gas pumps within a gasoline-dispensing facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater. 2-9 All outdoor active-use public recreational areas associated with development projects shall be located more than 500 feet from the nearest lane of traffic on Interstate 5 and State Route 57. Impact 5.2-7 Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A No mitigation measures are applicable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-36 • The Planning Center August 2010 Additional Mitigation 2-10 For projects located within 1,000 feet of an industrial facility that emits substantial odors, which includes but is not limited to • wastewater treatment plants • composting, greenwaste, or recycling facilities • fiberglass manufacturing facilities • painting/coating operations • coffee roasters • food processing facilities Project Applicant shall submit an odor assessment to the Planning Director prior to approval of any future discretionary action that verifies that the South Coast Air Quality Management District has not received three or more verified odor complaints. If the Odor Assessment identifies that the facility has received three such complaints, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential odors to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, scrubbers at the industrial facility, or installation of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters rated at 14 or better at all residential units. 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.2-1 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would reduce construction emissions associated with new development projects in the Platinum Triangle. However, due to the magnitude of construction activities that could take place with build-out of the Proposed Project, emissions of CO, NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 would continue to exceed the SCAQMD’s regional construction regional emissions thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. As a result, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-2 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-4 through 2-6 would reduce operational phase emissions of the project. However, due to the magnitude of new air pollutant emissions sources that could result with build- out of the Proposed Project, emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. As a result, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-3 Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would reduce on-site construction emissions to the extent feasible. However, due to the magnitude of the construction grading activities, the probability that multiple construction activities could occur at the same time, and the proximity of existing and future sensitive receptors within the Platinum Triangle, construction emissions may exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds. As a result, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.2-37 Impact 5.2-5 Placement of sensitive uses near major pollutant sources would result in significant air quality impacts from the exposure of persons to substantial concentrations of toxic air pollutant contaminants. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-7 and 2-8 would ensure that residences within the Platinum Triangle are not located in close proximity to major stationary sources of air pollution identified by CARB. As a result, no significant impact would occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-7 would reduce the potential indoor health risk. While long-term maintenance associated with replacement of the MERV filters is not in the control of the developer for indoor air quality impacts, Mitigation Measure 2-7 would require the property manager (rentals) and HOA (homeowners) to require homeowners to replace filters to reduce health risk associated with diesel particulates from being located within 500 feet of I-5 and SR-57. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-7 and 2-8 would ensure that residents within the Platinum Triangle would not be exposed to levels of toxic air contaminants that exceed the ambient concentrations in the project vicinity, which are 931 to 1,086 in a million in the Platinum Triangle area (SCAQMD 2009). While Mitigation Measure 2-9 would reduce the potential outdoor health risk for parks within close proximity to the freeway, development projects may include outdoor private recreational areas within the CARB- recommended distance of 500 feet. Therefore, placement of private outdoor recreational areas would expose people to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants that exceed the ambient concentrations in the project vicinity, which are 931 to 1,086 a million in the Platinum Triangle (SCAQMD 2008), and impacts would be potentially significant. Impact 5.2-6 would be significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-7 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-10 would ensure that residences within the Platinum Triangle that are located in close proximity to an industrial facility that emits substantial odors properly mitigate the impacts of the odors. Therefore, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.2-38 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.3-1 5.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality conditions associated with the Proposed Project. Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface and groundwater. Surface water is water on the surface of the land and includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks. Groundwater is water below the surface of the earth. Water supply and wastewater treatment issues are addressed in Section 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems. The project site is located within the Platinum Triangle, which has been evaluated previously in terms of potential hydrology impacts in: • The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332, The Planning Center, October 2005. • The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment, Psomas, July 2009. FSEIR No. 332 and its associated studies are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full and are available for review at the City of Anaheim Planning Department and on the City’s website, www.anaheim.net (go to the Planning Department and click on the link to the Platinum Triangle). The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment is included as Appendix G to this document. 5.3.1 Environmental Setting FSEIR No. 332 analyzes impacts associated with the increased development intensity within the Platinum Triangle. As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix the Proposed Project involves redevelopment of an underutilized industrial area and would not change the project boundaries or increase the impervious surface area. Therefore, the water quality impact analysis contained in the FSEIR No. 332 is adequate and no further analysis is necessary. As discussed in Section 5.5, Hydrology and Water Quality of the FSEIR No. 332, pollutant concentrations for the project condition are anticipated to decrease both with and without the best management practices (BMPs). Even without any mitigation, concentrations of all considered constituents are predicted to decrease for the project under the proposed land use conditions as compared to existing conditions. The decreases in concentrations are the result of changes in land use, which in general would result in less light industrial/ commercial and more mixed uses. With implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in FSEIR No. 332, these pollutant concentrations are expected to further decrease and the project water quality impacts (if any) are fully mitigated. Therefore, with proper implementation of the recommended BMPs (structural and nonstructural), project water quality conditions are expected to be better than existing conditions. Clean Water Act The Proposed Project is subject to federal permit requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later referred to as the CWA) was amended to require that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source be effectively prohibited, unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 1987, the CWA was again amended to add the Section 402(p), requiring that USEPA establish regulations for the permitting of stormwater discharges by municipal and industrial facilities and construction activities under the NPDES permit program. USEPA published final regulations directed at municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of 100,000 or more, and stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities, including construction activities, on ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.3-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 November 16, 1990. The regulations require that MS4 dischargers to surface waters be regulated by a NPDES permit (Phase I Final Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. 47990). USEPA published final regulations directed at stormwater discharges not covered in the Phase I Final Rule, including, as applicable here, small construction projects of one to five acres, on December 8, 1999 (Phase II Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 68722). Section 402(p) of the CWA provides that MS4 permits must “require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable [MEP], including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods and such other provisions as the [USEPA] Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” The Office of Chief Counsel of the has issued a memorandum interpreting the meaning of MEP to include technical feasibility, cost, and benefit derived with the burden being on the municipality to demonstrate compli- ance with MEP by showing that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are not technically feasible in the locality or that BMP costs would exceed any benefit to be derived (dated February 11, 1993). The CWA authorizes USEPA to permit a state to serve as the NPDES permitting authority in lieu of USEPA. The State of California has in-lieu authority for an NPDES program. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code 13000 et seq.) authorizes through to regulate and control the discharge of pollutants into waters of the state. entered into a memorandum of agreement with USEPA on September 22, 1989, to administer the NPDES program governing discharges to waters of the U.S. In addition, CWA requires the states to adopt water quality standards for water bodies and have those standards approved by the EPA. Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses for a particular water body wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, fishing), along with water quality objec- tives necessary to support those uses. Water quality objectives can be numerical concentrations or levels of constituents, such as lead, or suspended sediment, or narrative statements that represent the quality of water needed to support a particular use. Because California had not established a complete list of acceptable water quality objectives to USEPA, the USEPA, EPA Region IX (in which California lies) has established numeric water quality criteria applicable to all receiving waters for certain toxic constituents in the form of the California Toxics Rule (CTR) (40 CFR 131.38). When designated beneficial uses of a particular water body are compromised and fail to meet water quality objectives, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires identifying and listing that water body as “impaired.” Once a water body has been deemed impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for each water quality constituent that compromises a beneficial use. A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants, from point, nonpoint, and natural sources, that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards (often with a “factor of safety” included). Once established, the TMDL is allocated among current and future dischargers into the water body. Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA, the reach of the river in which the Platinum Triangle lies (Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River) has not been listed as being impaired for any pollutants, nor has the reach, Reach 1. Likewise, no have been developed for any reach of the Santa Ana River. Water Quality Control Basin Plan All of the activities under the NPDES program are aimed at meeting water quality objectives of receiving waters, which eventually discharge into receiving waters that often traverse multiple counties and cities. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region designates the beneficial uses of receiving waters, including Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River to which the project area currently discharges to and ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.3-3 would discharge to at build-out. The Basin Plan also specifies both narrative and numerical water quality objectives for these receiving waters in Orange County. Because these standards are applicable to receiving waters, they are not a direct measure of storm water quality from the Platinum Triangle. However, water quality criteria from the Basin Plan are useful as benchmarks. Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River lies between Prado Dam and 17th Street in Santa Ana and beneficial uses include agriculture, groundwater, contact water recreation, non-contact water recreation, water freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, and rare, threatened or endangered species. The reach of the Santa Ana River (Reach 1) has no additional beneficial uses. Both reaches have been excepted from municipal uses. The California Toxic Rule (CTR) is a federal regulation issued by USEPA providing water quality criteria for protection of surface waters of the State of California with designated uses protective of human health or aquatic life. However, CTR water quality criteria and water quality objectives and beneficial uses do not apply directly to discharges of stormwater runoff. Nonetheless, these standards can provide a useful benchmark to assess the potential for project discharges to affect the water quality of receiving waters when pollutant load analysis are preformed. City of Anaheim The City of Anaheim is required by the Santa Ana Regional Municipal Permit to minimize short and long- term impacts on receiving waters from new development and significant redevelopment to the maximum extent practicable. The City of Anaheim’s General Plan provides a general overview of requirements for development/redevelopment within the City to ensure adequate watershed and water quality protection to receiving Hydrology The Platinum Triangle is located within the Santa Ana River watershed and the Westminster watershed. Drainage from the project area is generally conveyed by two major subdrainages, the Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12) and the Spinnaker Storm Drain (CO5P21). E12 generally parallels State College Boulevard and discharges into the Santa Ana River north of Chapman Avenue and CO5P21 discharges into the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg/Oceanview Channel System. Santa Ana River Watershed The Platinum Triangle east of State College Boulevard is in the Santa Ana River watershed. The Santa Ana River watershed is the largest in Orange County, covering 153.2 square miles. The river begins almost 75 miles away in the San Bernardino Mountains, crossing central Orange County before emptying into the Pacific Ocean; this outlet to the ocean is in Huntington Beach. The watershed is divided into two sections, the Upper and Lower Watershed. Between the San Gorgonio Peak east of Big Bear and Prado Basin at the SR-91 and SR-71 is the Upper Watershed and south of Prado Basin to the Pacific Ocean is the Lower Watershed. The Orange County portion of the watershed includes portions of the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Huntington Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. The river serves as the main tributary to the watershed, with Santiago Creek being the largest tributary within Orange County. This reach is not listed as impaired according the 2002 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list published by State Water Resources Control Board. ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.3-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 Westminster Watershed The Platinum Triangle west of State College Boulevard is in the Westminster watershed. The Westminster Watershed covers 74.1 square miles in the southwestern corner of Orange County. It includes portions of the cities of Anaheim, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, and Westminster. Three main tributaries drain to this watershed. The Los Alamitos Channel drains into the San Gabriel River. The Bolsa Chica Channel empties into the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor complex. The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel drains through Bolsa Bay into Huntington Harbor. Based on the 2002 section of the 303(d) list of Water Quality Limited Segments, Huntington Harbor is listed as an impaired water body for nickel, dieldrin, copper, pathogens, and PCBs. Flooding The project area is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study area within Zone A99 and X designation. Groundwater The primary source of groundwater for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) that underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote Hills and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminating at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. The Basin is dominated by a deep structural depression containing a thick accumulation of fresh water-bearing imbedded marine and continental sand, silt, and clay deposits. The sediments containing easily recoverable fresh water extend to approximately 2,000 feet in depth. Although water bearing aquifers exist below that level, reduced water quality and pumping make these materials economically unviable at present. However, upper, middle, and lower aquifer systems are recognized in the Basin with well production yields ranging from 500 to 4,500 gallons per minute, but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per minute. The Basin is one of the richest and most plentiful sources of groundwater in the entire State, holding millions of acre-feet (af) of water, of which about 1.25 to 1.5 million af is available for use. To ensure that the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Groundwater conditions in the Basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions and the Basin is recharged primarily by four sources: 1) local rainfall, which varies due to the extent of the annual seasonal precipitation; 2) storm and base flows from the Santa Ana River, which includes recycled wastewater from treatment plants in Riverside and San Bernardino counties; 3) imported water; and 4) highly treated recycled wastewater. The production capability of the Basin has increased as a result of increased wastewater reclamation and the blending of waters of different qualities to produce high- quality potable water for public distribution. OCWD is a special district that manages the Basin largely through the basin production percentage (BPP) that is established each water year. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, ideal precipitation, Santa Ana River runoff, and basin management objectives. The BPP represents a set percentage identifying the amount of groundwater all pumpers in the basin can pump without paying a high pumping tax or basin equity assessment (BEA) to OCWD. Groundwater production equal to or less than the BPP pays a replenishment assessment and if groundwater production greater than the BPP, a BEA is paid on each af of water pumped above the BPP. According to OCWD’s Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2006−2007, total groundwater production from the Basin in OCWD's jurisdiction was 349,858 af. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.3-5 Groundwater Recharge OCWD is responsible for managing groundwater basin that provides most of northern and central Orange County’s drinking water. OCWD maintains one of the most advanced managed aquifer recharge systems to replace the water that is pumped from about 400 wells belonging to local water agencies, cities and other groundwater users. The recharge basins are located solely in the cities of Anaheim and Orange, including a six-mile section of the Santa Ana River channel from Imperial Highway to Ball Road in the City of Anaheim. OCWD has invested heavily in infrastructure to maximize the recharge capacity of its facilities. Key improvements include two inflatable rubber dams on the Santa Ana River, multiple pumping stations, miles of pipelines, numerous valves, flow meters, water level sensors, and a sophisticated computerized control system that slows the system to be controlled remotely via a computer. The most recent improvement to OCWD’s recharge system is the completion of the Groundwater Replenish System. This system takes highly treated sewer water from OCWD’s treatment plant in Fountain Valley via a 13-mile long pipeline and purifies it to levels that meet state and state federal drinking water standards, allowing high quality water for year-round recharge. Basin recharge occurs largely in the following recharge basins: 1) Warner Basin, a 50-foot deep recharge basin located next to the Santa Ana River at the intersection of the SR-55 and SR-91 freeways; 2) Burris Pit, located between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road; 3) Kraemer Basin, located adjacent to Burris Pit, and 4) Santiago Creek. All of these recharge facilities are located in or adjacent to the City of Anaheim. A large portion of the recharge of the OCWD groundwater basin comes from water flowing in the Santa Ana River south of the Prado Dam, located in San Bernardino County, just east of the Orange County’s jurisdictional boundary. With the exception of contractual rights conveyed to Bryant Ranch landowners in east Yorba Linda, which have contractual rights to approximately 2,800 afy of Santa Ana River water, OCWD has the legal rights to all of the Santa Ana River flow south of the Prado Dam. 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. HYD-2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. HYD-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. HYD-5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. HYD-6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.3-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 HYD-7 Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. HYD-8 Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. HYD-9 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. HYD-10 Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. HYD-11 Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas. HYD-12 Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing) of the receiving waters. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold HYD-1 • Threshold HYD-3 through Threshold HYD-12. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.3-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD PLACE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS ON GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WATER WELL. [THRESHOLD HYD-2] Impact Analysis: According to the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project, the increased development intensities within the Platinum Triangle would result in additional demands on groundwater supplies. The City owns and operates a network of groundwater wells to supply groundwater to their users. Groundwater production wells are scattered throughout the water distribution system in the flatland area (555 pressure zone and below) of the City and move from flatland area to hill and canyon areas (585 pressure zone and above) through booster station. In 2007/08, the City received approximately 79 percent of its water supply from groundwater and 21 percent from imported water. The average BPP, set by OCWD for the past twenty years is 72.9 percent. Based on discussions with OCWD staff and background analysis provided for the January 7, 2009 OCWD Board of Directors meeting on annual water budget and water replenishment, an average projected BPP between 65 percent and 69 percent was documented. Therefore, as shown in Table 5.3-1, an average of 67 percent of total water supply is projected through 2030. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.3-7 Table 5.3-1 Projected Normal Year Groundwater Pumping (in acre-feet per year) Basin Name 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Orange County Groundwater Basin 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310 Percent of Total Water Supply into the System 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% Source: The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment Amendment, Psomas, July 2009. There are two groundwater wells located on the project area: a monitoring well on the eastern border of the project area and a production well located north of Angel Stadium of Anaheim. To meet the project water demands the City proposes to upgrade the initial production rate of a previously proposed new water well in the Platinum Triangle (located adjacent to planned Fire Station No. 12, between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street and designated as Well No. 57) and drill an additional new water well at a location to be determined. The Well No. 57 would have a capacity between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm), and equipped at an initial production rate of 1,500 gpm. Discharge piping for the new well will connect to the existing 12-inch diameter main in Anaheim Way and the existing 10-inch diameter main in Santa Cruz Street. Well No. 57’s production rate would be upgraded from 1,500 gpm to 3,500 gpm. A possible future recycled water plant location is proposed adjacent to the proposed Well No. 57 building. However, this future water reclamation facility will be subject to a separate environmental review process and is not a part of the current project. The proposed additional new water well, whose location has not yet been determined, would have an initial production rate of 4,000 gpm and also serve the 335 pressure zone. The OCWD drills one new well every one or two years to replace existing shallow and deteriorated wells and provide additional production capacity. Construction of an additional water well to serve the Platinum Triangle would provide the necessary production capacity. The proposed water well is one of the water facility improvements identified in Rule 15D – Water Facility Fee for the Platinum Triangle and would not result in substantial depletion of groundwater supplies. OCWD monitors and ensures that the Basin is not overdrawn. For example, OCWD recharges the Basin with imported water and through the Groundwater Replenish System, if necessary, to ensure that a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level does not occur. The WSA determined that adequate water supplies are available to support the proposed expansion of the Platinum Triangle MLUP under the conservative 40 percent reduction in SWP deliveries to MWD in response to the Bay-Delta ecosystem issue, provided that certain conservation measures are implemented. Additional water supply and demand discussion from the WSA and applicable conservation measures are included in Chapter 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems, of this SEIR. Although additional groundwater would be drafted with the new water well, because of the location of the City’s wells in relation to the OCWD Groundwater Basin, impacts would be less than significant. Many of the City’s wells are located adjacent to the Santa Ana River and in the northeast part of the groundwater basin, especially the six wells near Anaheim Lake, From a hydro-geological standpoint, City wells are ideally located within the Basin, that they pump from geological structures which are relatively high up and geologically differentiated from other parts of the OCWD groundwater basin. In addition, because the City’s wells are located relatively near to the Prado Dam outlet to the Santa Ana River, particularly as compared to the well locations of other producers in the Basin, the City’s well fields draw water from easily accessible groundwater tables that are recharged on a naturally-occurring priority basis due to: 1) the location of OCWD recharge basins in or adjacent to the City, and 2) the City’s wells’ location in or near the upper reaches of the Santa Ana River. In essence, Santa Ana River water has the natural effect of recharging the portion of the OCWD Basin that provides groundwater to the City wells prior to such ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.3-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 Santa Ana River water reaching the lower portion of the river. Thus, construction of an additional groundwater well in the City would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or substantially affect the production of groundwater production wells operated by other producers located in other portions of the Basin. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts The 20-year projection of water demand will be met by 67 percent groundwater and 33 percent imported water, confirmed reliable by MWD. Since there are adequate water supplies to meet the project water demands without substantially depleting groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, the cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • Future projects shall comply with the Storm Drain Impact and Improvement Fee in the Anaheim Municipal Code. The Fee is designed to implement the goals in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the City of Anaheim General Plan, and the Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Financial Implementation Plan for the South Central City Area, mitigating flooding and storm drainage impacts. 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.5-1 would be less than significant. 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 3-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans docu- menting that the design of all aboveground structures (with the exception of parking structures) shall be at least three feet higher that the 100-year flood zone, where applicable, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer. All structures below this level shall be floodproofed to prevent damage to property or harm to people. (5.5-1) 3-2 At least 90 days prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, an NOI shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.3-9 in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area. Long-term measures could include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage, designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. The BMPs selected shall be consistent with the Water Quality Technical Report set forth in for the Proposed Project (Appendix G) of SEIR No. 332. (5.5-2) Additional Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation measures are required. 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 5.3-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-1 5.4 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.4.1 Environmental Setting Existing Land Uses On-Site The Platinum Triangle is located at the confluence of the Interstate 5 (I-5) and the State Route 57 (SR-57), in the City of Anaheim, California. The project area encompasses approximately 820 acres, including Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, The Grove of Anaheim, surrounding light industrial buildings, several industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, retail uses and recently constructed residential and mixed use development. Surrounding Land Uses The Platinum Triangle’s southern and eastern boundaries border the City of Orange city limits. Land uses that surround the project area within the City of Anaheim include industrial uses to the north, I-5 to the west and general commercial uses and medium density residential beyond I-5 to the west. Land uses that surround the project area within the City of Orange include commercial recreation to the northeast, light manufacturing and industrial to the east, single-family residential to the southeast, and limited business uses to the southwest. Existing General Plan Designations As shown in Figure 3-4, Existing General Plan Designations, the City of Anaheim General Plan designations for the Platinum Triangle include Office-Low, Office-High, Industrial, Institutional, Open Space, and Mixed-Use. Following is a description of the above-noted General Plan designations, permitted densities, and zoning designations. • Mixed-Use. The Mixed-Use designation is implemented through the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The PTMU Overlay Zone is in addition to the property’s existing zoning designation and provides currently for the development of up to 10,266 dwelling units at densities up to 100 dwelling units per acre; 3,855,000 square feet of office development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0; and, up to 2,264,400 square feet of commercial development at a maximum FAR of 0.4. Property owners may either develop or continue operating under their property’s existing zoning designation or, if they choose, they can take advantage of the opportunities to develop their property under the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone. • Office-High and Office-Low. The Office-High and Office-Low designations are implemented through the O-H (High Intensity Office) and O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones and provide workplace opportunities within easy access to a variety of housing, retail, entertainment, and sports facilities within the mixed-use areas. The current maximum amount of allowable office square footage for these designations is 1,735,000 square feet at a maximum FAR of 2.0 for properties designated Office-High and a maximum FAR of 0.50 for properties designated Office-Low. • Industrial. The Industrial designation is implemented by the I (Industrial) Zone. These uses may have an FAR ranging from 0.35 to 0.50 and will continue to provide needed jobs for the area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Open Space. The Open Space designation is implemented through the OS (Open Space) Zone and includes those areas intended to remain in natural open space, including utility easements that will provide recreational and trail access to Anaheim’s residents. • Institutional. The Institutional designation is implemented through the SP (Semi-Public) Zone and covers a wide variety of public and quasi-public land uses and is applied to existing public facilities. Institutional uses may have a FAR of up to 3.0. Zoning Regulations The City’s Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan, providing development standards, identifying allowable land uses, and specifying other regulations. By establishing rules regarding the use of property and site development standards building heights and setbacks, parking standards, etc.), the Zoning Code provides detailed guidance for development based on, and consistent with, the land use policies established within the General Plan. The project area zoning designations include the O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zone, O-H (High Intensity Office) Zone, I (Industrial) Zone, C-G (General Commercial) Zone, SP (Semi-Public) Zone, and PR (Public Recreation) Zone. Properties designated for mixed-use land use by the General Plan have the PTMU Overlay Zone applied to their properties in addition to the properties’ existing zone. Property owners with properties within the PTMU Overlay Zone may either develop under the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone or continue operating under their property’s existing zoning designation. The existing zoning designations are shown on Figure 5.4-1, Existing Zoning Designations. Existing PTMU Overlay Zone As shown in Figure 3-6, the existing PTMU Overlay Zone identifies five mixed-use districts. • Stadium District. The Stadium District is bounded by State College Boulevard to the west, Orangewood Avenue to the south, the Santa Ana River channel and the City of Orange to the southeast, SR-57 to the northeast, and the Amtrak/Metrolink tracks and Katella Avenue to the north. On-site uses include Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove of Anaheim, and an office tower located east of State College Boulevard. The remainder of the district is utilized as a parking lot. • Arena District. The Arena District is located in the upper northeast corner of the Platinum Triangle, east of SR-57. Honda Center is located within the Arena District and the site is currently being used for public recreation and event parking. • Gateway District. The Gateway District is located in the southwest portion of the Platinum Triangle, along Orangewood Avenue, at its intersection with State College Boulevard. On-site land uses primarily consist of office and industrial buildings, fast food, residential uses and vacant lots. • Gene Autry District. The Gene Autry District is located west of State College Boulevard and along Gene Autry Way. On-site land uses consist of office and industrial buildings and graded areas planned for mixed use, including residential units. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis The Planning Center • Figure 5.4-1 Existing Zoning Designations SEIR No. 339 Semi-Public Anaheim City Boundary General Commercial Industrial Low Intensity Office Public Relations Transit High Intensity Office The Platinum Triangle SP C-G I O-L PR T O-H 0 1,500 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-5 • Katella District. The Katella District is located along Katella Avenue. On-site land uses include industrial buildings, restaurants, residential uses, offices, commercial uses and mixed-use development, as well as, graded areas planned for mixed use, including residential units. • Orangewood District. The Orangewood District is located south of Orangewood Avenue between West and East Dupont Drive and is currently developed with industrial buildings, with plans approved for future office development. 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: LU-1 Physically divide an established community. LU-2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LU-3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold LU-1 • Threshold LU-3 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines does not address land use compatibility issues between residential and nonresidential uses. However, this issue has been evaluated in Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.5, Noise, of this SEIR and Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the FSEIR No. 332, incorporated by reference. 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.4-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE PLANS, POLICIES AND/OR REGULATIONS. [THRESHOLD LU-2] Impact Analysis: The City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), and the Zoning Code establish standards for development within the project area subject to approval of any required permits and/or a Standardized Development Agreement for properties that are developed in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone. Although the Proposed Project would require ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 amendments to these documents, consistency with the overall goals and policies of each planning document as proposed is shown below. Consistency with the General Plan The PT MLUP is an approved document that implements the City of Anaheim General Plan Update (May 2004). Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the following General Plan Amendments: A. Amend the Land Use Element (Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan) to: a. Redesignate approximately 191 acres from the Office High land use designation to the Mixed Use designation; b. Redesignate approximately 17 acres from the Institutional land use designation to the Mixed Use designation; and c. Reflect a recently constructed park and parks required by approved development agreements. B. Amend the Land Use Element (Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City) to: a. Increase the permitted development intensities in the Platinum Triangle; and b. Remove the FAR requirement for Mixed Uses and Office Uses in the Platinum Triangle. C. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network) to modify the designations of streets within the Platinum Triangle: a. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way from 6-lane Major Arterial to 8-lane Stadium b. Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue from Secondary Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial; c. Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and SR-57 overpass from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; d. Rampart Street between Orangewood Avenue and the South City Limits adjacent to the City of Orange from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; e. West Dupont Drive between Orangewood Avenue and South Dupont Drive from Interior Street to Collector Street; f. South Dupont Drive between West Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place from Interior Street to Collector Street; g. South Towne Centre Place between West Towne Centre Place and Rampart Street from Interior Street to Secondary Arterial; ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-7 h. Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue from Secondary Arterial to 4- lane Primary Arterial; and i. Cerritos Avenue between State College Boulevard and Douglass Road from Secondary Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial. D. Amend the Circulation Element (Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities) to: a. Extend the Class II Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to West Dupont Drive; b. Add the Class II Bikeway to West Dupont Drive, South Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place to Rampart Street; c. Add the Class II Bikeway to Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Ball Road; and d. Add the Class II Bikeway to Cerritos Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and Douglass Road. E. Amend the Green Element (Figure G-1: Green Plan) to reflect a recently constructed park and parks required by approved development agreements. F. Amend the Public Services and Facilities Element (Figure PSF-1: Fire and Police Facilities Map) to reflect the three fire stations proposed for the Platinum Triangle. The applicable components of the General Plan goals and policies are excerpted and addressed in Table 5.4-1. Consistency with the General Plan Housing Element is discussed in Section 5.6, Population and Housing. Table 5.4-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies Relevant Policy Compliance with Policy LAND USE ELEMENT Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimize impacts to surrounding land uses. Policy 1 Ensure that land uses develop in accordance with the Land Use Plan and Zoning Code in an effort to attain land use compatibility. Consistent: Although, the Proposed Project requires General Plan Amendment, Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MLUP), Zoning Code Amendment, and Zoning Reclassification, these amendments are consistent with the current General Plan goal to create a mixed-use environment in the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan includes provisions to maintain land use compatibility consistent with this General Plan Policy. Policy 2 Promote compatible development through adherence to Community Design Element policies and guidelines. Consistent: See Compliance with Policy findings under the Community Design Element. Policy 3 Ensure that developer consider and address project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods during the design and development process. Consistent: Project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods are evaluated in appropriate sections throughout this SEIR and also in the FSEIR No. 332. Developers are required to consider and address project impacts on surrounding neighborhood through compliance with the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement and modified and updated mitigation monitoring program. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.4-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies Relevant Policy Compliance with Policy Policy 4 Require new or expanded uses to provide mitigation or buffer between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur. Consistent: Project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods are evaluated in appropriate sections throughout this SEIR and also in the FSEIR No. 332. Developers are required to consider and address project impacts on surrounding neighborhoods through compliance with the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement and modified and updated mitigation monitoring program. Goal 15.1: Establish the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades. Policy 1 Continue more detailed planning efforts to guide the future development of the Platinum Triangle. Consistent: Since the adoption of the Platinum Triangle MLUP in 2004, numerous development projects have been approved and are in various development stages. The Proposed Project continue the City’s effort to guide the future development in the Platinum Triangle through approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement plans, final site plans, development agreements, and other related actions. Policy 2 Encourage a regional inter-modal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Consistent: ARTIC proposes enhanced access to existing bus, Amtrak, and Metrolink services and a link to both the proposed California High Speed Rail system and the California/Nevada maglev rail line. The Proposed Project would allow new residential and additional office and commercial uses near ARTIC. ARTIC is not dependent on, but would be enhanced by the Proposed Project. Policy 3 Encourage mixed-use projects integrating retail, office and high density residential land uses. Consistent: The Proposed Project is a mixed use project that integrates retail, office, and high density residential land uses; thereby directly supports this policy. Policy 4 Maximize and capitalize upon the view corridor from the Santa Ana (I-5) and Orange (SR-57) Freeways. Consistent: Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Honda Center are visible from various locations along I-5 and SR-57. The Proposed Project would not change the existing Platinum Triangle height and massing regulations. The Platinum Triangle would continue to maximize and capitalize upon the view corridor from I-5 and SR-57. Policy 5 Maximize views and recreational and development opportunities afforded by the area’s proximity to the Santa Ana River. Consistent: The Proposed Project includes amendments to General Plan Circulation Element Figure C-F: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities that would enhance connectivity to the Santa Ana River regional trail system. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Goal 6.3: Create a major, mixed-use regional center in the Platinum Triangle providing employment, shopping, entertainment, and housing for residents, employees and visitors. Policy 1 Implement a creative, proactive approach in designing a strategic planning process for the development of the Platinum Triangle, including the preparation of a Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and identity program. Consistent: The Proposed Project is intended to proactively plan for future development in the Platinum Triangle. Since the approval of the Platinum Triangle in 2004, the City has received multiple requests for development proposals and inquiries that exceeded the currently allowed development intensities. The Proposed Project would expand the existing PTMU Overlay Zone and create two additional districts within the mixed-use designation to accommodate current development projects and plan for future development opportunities and a third district exclusively for Office uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-9 Table 5.4-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies Relevant Policy Compliance with Policy Policy 2 Encourage mixed-use and higher density development within the Platinum Triangle. Consistent: The area designated for Mixed-Use by the General Plan allows office, retail, and residential uses to occur in close proximity or within the same building. The Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use designa- tion allows up to 10,266 dwelling units; 5,055,550 square feet of office uses; and, 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses. The Proposed Project would allow for an additional 8,643 dwelling units, 2,645,282 additional square feet of commercial uses, 9,284,972 additional square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet for institutional uses. Policy 3 Introduce large-scale residential development to provide a market for growing retail and office uses in the area. Consistent: The Proposed Project allows for large-scale residential development and requires a minimum residential project size of 50 dwelling units. Policy 4 Plan for and encourage creativity in design in order to adapt to changing situations, circumstances and challenges that may arise as the area undergoes transition. Consistent: Regardless of market strength for any one use at a given time, the opportunity and value for all uses will be enhanced by a supportive, integrated, and multiuse district approach. In addition, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan encourages a greater diversity in housing type by requiring a mix of housing types within a single large ownership. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT Goal 8.1: Coordinate with private utilities to provide adequate natural gas and communications infrastructure to existing and new development in a manner compatible with the surrounding community. Policy 1 Coordinate with private utilities to provide Anaheim residents with high-speed, high capacity information systems and adequate natural gas infrastructure. Inconsistent: The City is coordinating with the private utility providers to ensure adequate services to the project area and to minimize potential interruptions to the existing and future natural gas service system. However, there is a microwave tower at the corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard that may be interrupted by implementation of the Platinum Triangle MLUP. Policy 2 Coordinate with private utilities on site design and land use compatibility issues. Inconsistent: The City is coordinating with the natural gas and communications providers, i.e., Southern California Gas Company (SCG), Time Warner, and AT&T, to ensure adequate services and to minimize any potential interruptions to the existing and future system operations. Telecommunications facilities are permitted in the Platinum Triangle subject to standards in Zoning Code section 18.38.050, provided that the rooftop facilities are shielded or covered. However, shielding or covering of the SCG’s microwave tower would interfere with the critical telecommunications functions. Therefore, some development pursuant to the Platinum Triangle MLUP would not be compatible with the SCG’s existing facility. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Goal 15.1: The Platinum Triangle will become a dynamic, mixed-use center of regional interest, providing retail, office, residential, employment, and entertainment opportunities. Policy 1 Develop comprehensive, Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and Design Guidelines to implement the vision for the Platinum Triangle. Consistent: The proposed amendments are consistent with the vision for the Platinum Triangle to create a mixed-use center of regional interest, providing retail, office, residential, employment, and entertainment opportunities. The proposed amendments would not affect the existing design standards and all development within the Platinum Triangle would be developed in compliance with the adopted design standards. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.4-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies Relevant Policy Compliance with Policy Policy 2 Provide a mix of quality, high-density urban housing that is integrated into the area through carefully maintained pedestrian streets, transit connections, and arterial access. Consistent: The proposed amendments would provide additional opportunities for a mix of quality, high density urban housing in support of pedestrian friendly, intermodal access system. Additional housing units and commercial and office areas were assigned in each district in connection with the existing and planned roadway system. Policy 3 Develop a Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program to enhance the visibility and sense of arrival into the Platinum Triangle through peripheral view corridors, gateways, and specialized landscaping. Consistent: The Platinum Triangle MLUP contains a Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program section and the Proposed Project would include adjustments to this section; however, the adjustments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Platinum Triangle and would not impact this section of the MLUP. Policy 4 Develop a strong pedestrian orientation throughout the area, including wide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, gathering places, ground-floor retail, and street-level landscaping. Consistent: High density residential units in proximity to retail, office, and entertainment uses would provide a strong pedestrian orientation throughout the area. Ground floor retail uses are required along Market Street, and the MLUP sets forth streetscape plans, including pedestrian sidewalks and street landscapes. Policy 5 Encourage extensive office development along the highly visible periphery of the area to provide a quality employment center. Consistent: The Proposed Project would increase the development intensities for office use from 5,055,550 square feet to 14,340,522 square feet. The office use square footages are integrated within the mixed use district and within a separate office district designated to encourage extensive office development and provide a quality employment center in support of this policy. Policy 6 Develop criteria for comprehensive property management agreements for multiple-family residential projects to ensure proper maintenance as the area develops. Consistent: All residential development requires a development agreement which includes development requirements and maintenance obligations. Policy 7 Identify and pursue opportunities for open space areas that serve the recreational needs of the Platinum Triangle residents and employees. Consistent: Residential development with more than 325 units on parcels larger than eight acres will be required to provide a mini-park. Parcels that do not meet this criteria will be required to pay a park-in- lieu fee. In addition, every development will be required to provide 200 square feet of recreational-leisure area for each dwelling unit within private and/or common area. Source: City of Anaheim General Plan Consistency with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the following Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) amendments: A. Reflect the proposed General Plan amendments; B. Adjust the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone to create the ARTIC and Office Districts and expand the Katella and Orangewood Districts; C. Distribute the proposed increased development intensities as shown in Table 5.4-2 and further detailed in Appendix I; ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-11 Table 5.4-2 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities Acres Residential Units Commercial Square Feet Office Square Feet3 Platinum Triangle District Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Arena 41 41 425 425 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ARTIC1 0 17 0 520 0 358,000 0 2,202,803 Gateway 53 50 2,142 2,949 50,000 64,000 530,000 562,250 Gene Autry 33 33 1,699 2,362 174,100 304,700 100,000 338,200 Katella 99 141 4,250 5,707 630,300 832,614 775,000 2,131,058 Orangewood 4 35 0 1,771 10,000 130,000 590,000 1,402,855 Stadium2 153 153 1,750 5,175 1,300,000 3,120,368 1,760,000 3,125,000 Total Mixed Use 383 470 10,266 18,909 2,264,400 4,909,682 3,855,000 9,862,166 Office 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 4,478,356 Total PTMU Overlay 383 591 10,266 18,909 2,264,400 4,909,682 3,855,000 14,340,522 1 The proposed development intensity includes 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. 2 The adopted and proposed development intensities for the Stadium District include 119,543 seats for existing (49,043 seats) and potential (70,500 seats) stadiums. 3 The adopted General Plan allows an additional 1,200,550 square feet of office development within the Platinum Triangle on properties outside of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Proposed Project expands the PTMU Overlay Zone to encompass these properties. D. Replace Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A with Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C; and, E. Reflect technical refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, refinements to street cross-sections, density descriptions and exhibits. An amendment to the PTMLUP is required to reflect the General Plan changes and to adjust the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The proposed expansion to the Platinum Triangle MLUP would not degrade the integrity of or conflict with the plan’s principles. The Platinum Triangle MLUP includes the following planning principles: • Balance and integrate uses. • Stimulate market-driven development. • Create a unique, integrated, walkable urban environment. • Reinforce transit-oriented development opportunities. • Maintain and enhance connectivity. • Create great neighborhoods. The Proposed Project provides additional housing, commercial, and office opportunities in a unique, mixed-use urban environment. The Proposed Project builds upon the planning principles of the Platinum Triangle MLUP. Furthermore, creation of the ARTIC District would reinforce transit-oriented development opportunities, and adjustment of mixed-use boundaries would enhance connectivity and create dynamic neighborhoods. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 Consistency with Zoning Designations for the Project Area The Proposed Project would require zoning reclassification to add properties to the PTMU Overlay Zone to create new ARTIC and Office Districts and expand the Katella and Orangewood Districts. Consequently, Chapter 18.20 PTMU Overlay Zone of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code would be amended to: 1) reflect the boundary changes; 2) provide development standards for ARTIC, Stadium, Arena, and Office Districts; and 3) modify zoning standards, including, but not limited to, vacant lots and setbacks and parking structure requirements for hotels and offices. As indicated in subsection 18.20.010.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the PTMU Overlay Zone has the following major objectives: • Create a unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and reduces dependence on the automobile for everyday needs, through a streetscape that is connected, attractive, safe and engaging. • Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located. • Encourage compatibility between residential, commercial and sports entertainment uses. • Reinforce Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities around the existing Amtrak/Metrolink and the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARCTIC) stations. • Maintain and enhance connectivity and linkages with convenience services, dining, retail and recreation facilities within walking distance, by providing ground floor commercial uses in key locations. • Provide a mix of housing types. • Create great long-lasting neighborhoods that maintain value through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes. • Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreational-leisure areas and public parks. • Create a balance of landscape and architecture by providing sufficient planting space. • Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable neighborhood design. • Stimulate market-driven development investment. The proposed reclassification and Zoning Code Amendment would not degrade the integrity of or conflict with the PTMU Overlay Zone objectives. The Proposed Project supports all of the outlined objectives. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-13 Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy In 2004, SCAG adopted the Compass Blueprint, which is a part of the 2004 regional growth forecast policy that attempts to reduce emissions and increase mobility through strategic land use changes. The program resulted in a plan that identified strategic growth opportunity areas. The Compass Blueprint is a voluntary guidance document identifying how and where an alternative future vision for southern California’s future can be implemented. Goals for areas identified in the Compass Blueprint include locating new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing, encouraging in-fill development, promoting development with a mix of uses, creating walkable communities, providing a mix of housing types, and focusing development in urban areas. A portion of the Platinum Triangle has been designated by SCAG as a strategic area in which to focus growth. This area contains the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) that will be served by Amtrak, Metrolink commuter rail, and Orange County Transportation Authority bus services. In addition, potential high-speed rail service to San Francisco and Las Vegas, Nevada could be provided. The project is consistent with the overall Compass Blueprint in that it directs additional housing and mixed-use opportunities near to existing and future jobs Orange County subregion and locates new jobs near to transit. Table 5.4-3 describes the project’s consistency with the Compass Blueprint visioning principles. Table 5.4-3 Consistency with Compass/Growth Visioning Principles Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents GV P1.1 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. Consistent: The Platinum Triangle provides opportunities for transit-oriented development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities. GV P1.2 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. Consistent: The Proposed Project would provide additional 8,643 dwelling units, 2,645,282 square feet of commercial area, 9,284,972 square feet of office area, and 1.5 million square feet of institutional area to the project area. Although the Proposed Project would create more jobs than housing, the proposed ARTIC would improve mobility for residents beyond the Platinum Triangle boundary. GV P1.3 Encourage transit-oriented development. Consistent: The Platinum Triangle provides opportunities for transit-oriented development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities. Urban design elements of the Proposed Project have been carefully designed to achieve better traffic distribution, alternative trip routing, and smaller-sized blocks to create a more walkable pedestrian network. The Proposed Project would result in additional development opportunities for residential, commercial, and office uses, and allow existing industrial uses to continue. GV P1.4 Promote a variety of travel choices. Consistent: See response to RCP Policy GV P1.3. Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities GV P2.1 Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. Consistent: Prior to the Platinum Triangle, the project area was consisting of underutilized industrial uses. Although a number of mixed-use projects under the Adopted MLUP have been constructed, progressing, or planned, the Proposed Project would provide additional ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.4-3 Consistency with Compass/Growth Visioning Principles development opportunity for residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses, and allow existing industrial uses to continue. Therefore, regardless of market for any one use at a give time, the opportunity and value for all uses will be supported. GV P2.2 Promote developments that provide a mix of uses. Consistent: The Proposed Project would increase the development intensity in the PTMU Overlay zone by 8,643 dwelling units, 2,645,282 square feet of commercial area, 9,284,972 square feet of office area, and 1.5 million square feet of institutional area. GV P2.3 Promote “people scaled,” pedestrian-friendly (walkable) communities. Consistent: The Proposed Project envisions a higher density mixed-use community while still promoting pedestrian-oriented walkable environment. The mix of uses will provide opportunity for residents to walk to shopping, services, and employment. Development under the proposed MLUP would be required to comply with the adopted design standards and guidelines. GV P2.4 Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods. Consistent: The Proposed Project would not displace any single-family residential units. Development of high density multi-family units would reduce development pressure in other areas of the City by adding to the overall housing supply in the City. Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people GV P3.1 Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types in each community to meet the housing needs of all income levels. Consistent: The proposed increase in development density would allow more housing supply within the City, which would benefit the affordable housing market by increasing the housing availability. GV P3.2 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. Consistent: Institutional uses, including educational institutions such as schools, are permitted under the Institutional General Plan land use designation and the SP Zone; educational institutions are also allowed in the PTMU Overlay Zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. GV P3.3 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. Consistent: The Proposed Project would provide various types of jobs, housing, and entertainment opportunities for all people and would not discriminate against race, ethnicity, or income class. The increased number of employment opportunities from construction to operation of the Platinum Triangle and the increased number housing supply in the City would ensure equal opportunities for all residents. GV P3.4 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth. Consistent: Development of mixed use projects supports housing in close proximity to jobs and entertainment opportunities. ARTIC would allow regional access. GV P3.5 Encourage civic engagement. Consistent: The City would allow adequate public participation through the CEQA process. Residents are encouraged to voice their opinions in various stages during the CEQA process. Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations GV P4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. Consistent: The project site and the surrounding area are fully developed and do not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-15 Table 5.4-3 Consistency with Compass/Growth Visioning Principles GV P4.2 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. Consistent: The project area is located at the confluence of two major freeways (I-5 and SR-57) and encompasses Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, and The Grove of Anaheim. The Block and Disneyland are also located in close proximity to the project area. GV P4.3 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste. Consistent: As outlined in Mitigation Measure 11-1, the property owner/developer are required to submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. GV P4.4 Utilize “green” development techniques. Consistent: See response to RCP Policy GV P4.3. The 2008 RTP has the following goals and policies that link the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic, and commercial limitations. Table 5.4-4 Table 5.4-4 Consistency With Regional Transportation Plan RTP G1 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. Consistent: The Platinum Triangle is located at the confluence of I-5 and SR-57. The project area incorporates the existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and parking lot, and proposed ARTIC project, which is intended to provide enhanced access to existing bus, Amtak and Metrolink services as well as a link to both the proposed California High Speed Rail system and the California/Nevada maglev rail line. Implementation of the Proposed Project will facilitate high density transit oriented development in close proximity to these transit services. Furthermore, the project identifies the location of several carefully located connector streets to ensure better traffic distribution. RTP G2 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. Consistent: See response to RTP Policy G1. RTP G3 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G6 Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments and improves the cost- effectiveness of expenditures. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G7 Maximize the security of our transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies Consistent: See response to RTP G1. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 IMPACT 5.4-2 SOME DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY’S EXISTING MICROWAVE TOWER [THRESHOLD LU-2] The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) operates a microwave tower that serves a core function in the Sempra Utilities data and voice network and provides critical communication links to the transmission facility, which plays a key role in transmitting natural gas to Orange, Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego counties. The Anaheim Base tower located at the northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard currently enables voice, internet, and other data communications between various SCG and Sempra Utility regions throughout southern California. These communications are vital for SCG’s distribution and transmission activities and for providing customer service and data processing, therefore a critical part of Sempra Utility operations. The microwave tower also serves as the SCG’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for the Orange County area. Impacts to the network and voice communications at the EOC could impact the SCG’s ability to respond to emergency events in the Orange County area. The SCG has indicated in a letter dated August 27, 2007 and on file in the City of Anaheim that introduction of high-rise buildings in the line-of-sight of the microwave tower and prohibition on rooftop telecommunications towers without any shielding or covers would interfere with the proper telecommunications function of the microwave tower both at the local level and throughout southern California. According to the SCG, tall buildings south of Gene Autry Way would not interfere with the microwave tower’s operation. Therefore, the recently approved office tower with the height over 100 feet as part of The Gene Autry Experience would not conflict with the existing microwave tower operation. Potential land use conflicts are from the individual projects north of the microwave tower that may obstruct the tower’s line-of-sight. The Platinum Triangle development projects north of the microwave tower include Stadium Lofts (completed in January 2007); Stadium Park Apartments (approved/not under construction); Park Viridian (completed); Stadium Club Condos (approved/not under construction); Platinum Vista (approved/not under construction); Platinum Gateway (approved/not under construction); and Dwell @ Katella (92 units under construction). However, most developments north of the tower are approved for podium style structures that would not exceed five stories and would not interfere with the telecommunication function, except for A-Town Metro. A-Town Metro includes high-rise residential towers located north of the microwave tower that could potentially conflict with the tower’s operation. The Development Agreement for A-Town Metro allows 300 feet to 400 feet tall high-rise residential towers within designated development areas, some in the line-of- sight from the microwave tower. A-Town Metro is an approved project with a signed and recorded Development Agreement. The project was approved on October 25, 2005, and is not a part of the current project actions to increase the intensity in the Platinum Triangle. Provided that construction occurs as currently approved, relocation of the microwave tower may be necessary to prevent service disturbances. In the event that the property containing the microwave tower is redeveloped with future mixed uses, the tower could be relocated. 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts The proposed increase in development densities would require a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Reclassification, Zoning Code Amendment, and amendments to the Platinum Triangle MLUP and the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form. However, as discussed in this chapter, the Proposed Project is consistent with the overall land use goals and policies of the City and in the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.4-17 region. Furthermore, cumulative land use impacts are addressed throughout this document for land use compatibility issues including aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, recreation, traffic and circulation, and utilities and service systems. Provided that necessary improvements are made, the proposed amendments would not create adverse environmental impacts. The cumulative population and economic growth resulting from the Proposed Project is a desired and intended impact from the Proposed Project. The project’s land use and relevant planning impacts are considered less than significant, and cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project are also considered less than significant. 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • The Proposed Project shall be designed in accordance with all relevant development standards and regulations set forth by the City of Anaheim Municipal Code (as amended), including the PTMU Overlay Zone (as amended), the Platinum Triangle MLUP (as amended), the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement (as amended), and the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C. 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.4-1 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.4-2 The Proposed Project would be inconsistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 8.1. High-rise residential towers proposed as part of the A-Town Metro project north of the existing microwave tower could potentially interfere with the Southern California Gas Company’s microwave tower telecommunications function. However, A-Town Metro is an approved project with a signed Development Agreement and is not a part of the current project actions to increase the intensity in the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, the City cannot require any actions on A-Town Metro to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If the property containing the microwave tower is redeveloped with mixed uses in the future, the microwave tower could be relocated and the impacts would be mitigated. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.4-2 No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the potential conflict with the microwave tower’s telecommunication function anticipated by the high-rise towers. 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.4-1 No significant impacts have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.4-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 Impact 5.4-2 No mitigation measures are available to reduce significant impacts to operation of the Southern California Gas Company’s microwave tower. The A-Town Metro project north of the microwave tower was approved on October 25, 2005, and is not a part of the current project actions to increase the intensity in the Platinum Triangle. Unless the property containing the microwave tower is redeveloped with a future mixed use and the tower is relocated, high-rise residential towers north of the microwave tower will conflict with the tower’s operation and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-1 5.5 NOISE This section evaluates potential noise and vibration impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project compared to the impacts analyzed by FSEIR No. 332. This section discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Noise modeling and datasheets on which this analysis is based are included in the Technical Appendices to this SEIR (Appendix 5.5.1 Environmental Setting Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter. • Sound. A vibratory disturbance, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. • Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. • Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals. • A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). A frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. • Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level. • Day-Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldn and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hertz (Hz) are not heard at all and are "felt" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level deemphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear's deemphasis of these frequencies. The normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels (dB) are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound. Table 5.5-1, Change in Sound Pressure Level, presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Table 5.5-1 Change in Sound Pressure Level Change in Apparent Loudness ± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level ± 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen, Engineering Noise Control, 1988. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line-source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance. When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The energy-equivalent sound level (Leq) is the most common parameter associated with such measurements. The Leq metric is a single-number noise descriptor that represents the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, L08, and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time, or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-3 survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet-time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart, and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. A sound level of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. Table 5.5-2 shows typical noise levels from various noise sources. Table 5.5-2 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation Table 9-2136.2 1998. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with sources such as railroads, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of the project, the project occupants may be subject to levels of train- generated vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of the project structure and items within the structure. Analysis of this type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration. The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P-waves, and shear or S-waves. • Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical). • Compression or P-waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push-pull motion. P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. • Shear or S-waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. Unlike P-waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, whereas RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. All PPV and RMS velocities are in in/sec and all vibration levels in this study are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). The threshold of perception is approximately 65 VdB. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move away from the source of the vibration. Manmade vibration problems are, therefore, usually confined to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source. Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the vibration sources. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-5 differential settlement of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration of normal traffic on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads. Regulatory Framework To limit population exposure to physically and/or damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. Federal Aviation Administration Heliport Noise Standards The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular Number 150 5020 2, entitled “Noise Assessment Guidelines for New Helicopters” recommends the use of the cumulative noise measure, the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(24)), so that the relative contributions of the heliport and other sound sources within the community may be compared. The Leq(24) is similar to the Ldn used in assessing the impacts of fixed-wing aircraft. The helicopter Leq(24) values are obtained by logarithmically adding the single-event SEL values over a 24-hour period. The FAA recommends exterior noise criteria for individual heliports based on the types of surrounding land uses. These recommended noise levels are included in Table 5.5-3. The maximum recommended Leq(24) from the operations of helicopters at any new site should not exceed the ambient noise already present in the community at the site of the proposed heliport or the sound levels in Table 5.5-3, whichever is lower. Table 5.5-3 Normally Compatible Community Sound Levels for New Heliports Type of Area Leq(24) Residential Suburban Urban City 57 67 72 Commercial 72 Industrial 77 Source: FAA Advisory Circular Number 150-5020-2, 1983. California State Regulations State of California Building Code The state of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied tor new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction in 45 dBA CNEL. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 City of Anaheim Noise Standards Land Use Compatibility Cities and counties in California are preempted by federal law from controlling noise generated from most mobile sources, including noise generated by vehicles and trucks on the roadway, trains on the railroad, and airplanes. Therefore, Table 5.5-4 is used by the state as a tool to gauge the compatibility of new development in the noise environment generated by mobile sources. Table 5.5-4 identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan indicates that noise levels are to be attained in habitable exterior areas and need not encompass the entirety of the property, and that special consideration should be given in the case of infill residential development located along the City’s arterial corridors or railroad lines in order to achieve an appropriate balance between providing a quality living environment and attractive project design. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-7 Table 5.5-4 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility CNEL (dBA) Land Uses 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential-Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential- Multiple Family Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Amphitheaters, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playground, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural Explanatory Notes Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Normally Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be useable. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction/development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. Source: City of Anaheim, City of Anaheim General Plan, Chapter 9, Noise Element. Adopted May 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 Stationary Noise Nuisance The City of Anaheim regulates noise through the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding 60 dBA for extended period of time. The City applies these standards to nontransportation stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. The City’s Noise Ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, construction activity, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. The City of Anaheim also restricts noise generated by commercial uses within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone within Chapter 18.020, PTMU Overlay Zone, Section 18.20.160, Compatibility Standards, of the City’s Municipal Code. Under this ordinance, commercial uses are required to be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited, so that neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries, or late night activity. In addition, continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at commercial sites within the PTMU Overlay Zone is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Construction Noise The City of Anaheim exempts noise generated by construction or building repair from the noise limits of the City’s Municipal Code for the purpose of allowing such activities to occur. Pursuant to Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, construction is permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Emergency Vehicles The City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, exempts emergency activities and sound created by governmental units or their contractors from the noise limits of the City’s Municipal Code. Vibration Standards The City of Anaheim does not have specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration for both vibration annoyance and structural damage. The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective. As noted in the FTA manual, “although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response” (FTA 2006). This is because it takes time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Groundborne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to RMS velocity levels expressed in VdB. Construction vibration is generally assessed in terms of PPV. The relationship of PPV to RMS velocity is expressed in terms of the “crest factor,” defined as the ratio of the PPV amplitude to the RMS amplitude. PPV is typically a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity. Vibration Annoyance Groundborne noise refers to the vibration of floors and walls that may cause rattling of items such as windows or dishes on shelves, or a rumbling noise. The rumbling is created by the motion of the room surfaces; in essence, the room surfaces act like a giant loudspeaker. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event for various types of vibration-sensitive land uses (see Table 5.5-5). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-9 Table 5.5-5 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria – Human Annoyance Land Use Category Max Lv (VdB)1 Description Workshop 90 felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and nonsensitive areas Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and nonsensitive areas. Residential – Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential – Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Source: FTA, 2006 1 As measured in 1/3-octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. Vibration-Related Structural Damage The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause structural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table 5.5-6. Table 5.5-6 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria – Structural Damage Building Category PPV (in/sec) VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA, 2006 RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second. Vibration-related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building. The maximum vibration amplitudes of the floors and walls of a building will often be at the resonance frequencies of various components of the building. That is, structures amplify groundborne vibration. Resonant response is frequency dependent and 1/3-octave band charts are best for describing vibration behavior. Wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. According to Caltrans’ Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration (2002), extreme care must be taken when sustained pile driving occurs within 25 feet of any building; however, the threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal houses with plastered walls and ceilings is 0.2 inch per second. Supplemental Noise Criteria As a train approaches, passes by, and then continues into the distance the sound level rises, reaches a maximum, and then fades into the background noise. The maximum sound level reached during this passby event is referred to as single-event noise. Single-event noise is important for relating the maximum amount of noise that would result in nighttime awakenings and/or classroom speech interruptions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 Nighttime Awakenings The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) 1997 report relates the proportion of persons awakened by noise events at different Sound Exposure Levels (SEL). As some populations are more sensitive to noise events, the threshold for awakening typically used for airport analysis assumes a significant impact if 10 percent of the population is awakened. Based on the FICAN study, the interior noise level at which 10 percent of a population would be awakened is 81 dBA SEL or greater. Existing Noise Environment The Platinum Triangle is located within the City of Anaheim and, like all highly urbanized areas, is subject to a myriad of noise sources. Existing noise-generating land uses within the Platinum Triangle include Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, The Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and existing light industrial land uses, distribution facilities, hotels, offices, restaurants, and supporting retail. In addition, new residential communities have been developed as part of the Platinum Triangle. Stationary noise generated by these existing land uses; traffic on major arterials, freeways, and local roadways within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle; occasional aircraft overflights; and rail traffic contribute to the existing urban noise environment at the project site. Noise Monitoring Noise monitoring as part of the noise study for the FSEIR No. 332 was conducted on January 12, 13, and 20, 2005, to determine the existing noise levels in the project area. Noise monitoring locations are shown in Figure 5.5-1. As confirmed by noise monitoring, the existing noise environment shown in Table 5.5-7 is dominated by traffic noise on the major thoroughfares: Interstate 5 State Route 57 (SR-57), Katella Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, and State College Boulevard. Other noise sources that contribute to the secondary (background) noise environment include aircraft overflights and railroad noise (train horns). Table 5.5-7 Noise Measurements along Local Roadways Monitoring Site Lmin Leq Lmax Monitoring Site #1 – South State College Boulevard, South of Katella Avenue 57.9 69.6 78.9 Monitoring Site #2 – 350 Feet East of South State College Boulevard 57.4 54.7 76.9 Monitoring Site #3 – South State College Boulevard, South of Gene Autry Way 57.9 69.4 77.9 Monitoring Site #4 – 350 Feet West of State College Boulevard 54.7 57.7 76.9 Monitoring Site #5 – Katella Avenue, East of South State College Boulevard 56.8 68.4 95.7 Noise monitoring conducted by The Planning Center on January 12, 13, 18, and 20, 2005, during morning peak hours of hours. Noise monitoring was conducted using a Type 1 Larson Davis 820 Sound Level Meter. Monitoring Site South State College Boulevard, South of Katella Avenue. Noise measurements were conducted at the property line of site. This monitoring location is dominated by traffic noise along State College Boulevard and secondarily from traffic noise along Katella Avenue. Noise levels are characteristic of uses near a roadway arterial. Monitoring Site 350 Feet East of South State College Boulevard. Noise at this measurement location is due to semidistant traffic noise from both Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. The noise generated by these roadways is fairly low due to the distance from the noise monitor and the roadways. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: Google Earth Pro 2009 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.5-1 Noise Monitoring Locations 57 22 Orange Orange Garden Grove Garden Grove Anaheim Anaheim Orangewood Av Orangewood Av Katella Av Katella Av Cerritos Av Cerritos Av Ball Rd Ball Rd Chapman Av Chapman Av Harbor Bl Harbor Bl Lewis St Lewis St State College Bl State College Bl Sunkist St Sunkist St Anaheim Bl Anaheim Bl East St East St Batavia St Batavia St Main St Main St Gene Autry Way Gene Autry Way Angel Stadium of Anaheim Angel Stadium of Anaheim The Platinum Triangle The Platinum Triangle The Honda Center The Honda Center The Block The Block The Grove of Anaheim The Grove of Anaheim Santa Ana River Santa Ana River 1 2 5 3 4 City of Anaheim Boundary The Platinum Triangle Boundary 1. South State College Boulevard, south of Katella Locations: 2. 350 feet east of South State College Boulevard 3. South State College Avenue, south of Gene Autry Way 4. 350 feet west of South State College Boulevard 5. Katella Avenue, east of South State College Boulevard 57 5 0 2,600 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-13 Monitoring Site South State College Boulevard, South of Gene Autry Way. Noise measurements were conducted at the property line of the site. This monitoring location is dominated by traffic noise along State College Boulevard and secondarily from traffic noise along Orangewood Avenue. Noise levels are characteristic of uses near a roadway arterial. Monitoring Site 350 West of South State College Boulevard. Noise at this measurement location is due to semidistant traffic noise from State College Boulevard and secondarily from traffic noise generated by I-5. The noise generated by these roadways is fairly low due to the distance from the roadways. Monitoring Site Katella Avenue, East of South State College Boulevard. Noise measurements were conducted at the property line of site. This monitoring location is dominated by traffic noise along Katella Avenue and secondarily from traffic noise along Orangewood Avenue. Noise levels are characteristic of uses near a roadway arterial. Occasionally, distant train noise could be heard from the Metrolink rail line to the north of the measurement location. On-Road Vehicles Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1 dBA. In order to assess the potential for mobile-source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided by Parsons Brinkerhoff (December 2009). The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 62 dBA to 77 dBA CNEL as calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 5.5-8. Table 5.5-8 Existing Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Existing Year 2009 Distance to CNEL Contour (Feet from Centerline) Segment ADT Volumes CNEL (dBA @ 50 ft from centerline) 60 (dBA CNEL) 65 (dBA CNEL) 70 (dBA CNEL) Anaheim Boulevard Katella Avenue to I-5 Freeway 19,380 73.2 380 176 82 I-5 Freeway to Cerritos Avenue 33,160 75.5 544 252 117 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 26,790 74.6 472 219 102 Ball Road to Vermont Street 25,230 73.4 390 181 84 Anaheim Way State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue 3,220 66.3 132 61 29 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 18,190 73.9 420 195 90 Katella Avenue to Anaheim Boulevard 10,730 71.6 295 137 64 Ball Road Walnut Street 34,020 75.7 553 257 119 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.5-8 Existing Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Existing Year 2009 Distance to CNEL Contour (Feet from Centerline) Segment ADT Volumes CNEL (dBA @ 50 ft from centerline) 60 (dBA CNEL) 65 (dBA CNEL) 70 (dBA CNEL) Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard 44,320 76.8 660 306 142 Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard 36,890 76.0 584 271 126 Anaheim Boulevard to East Street 35,280 75.8 567 263 122 East Street to State College Boulevard 38,110 76.2 597 277 129 State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 40,500 76.4 621 288 134 Sunkist Street to SR-57 Freeway 48,400 77.2 700 325 151 SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 32,740 75.5 539 250 116 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street 11,710 71.0 272 126 59 Lewis Street to State College Boulevard 10,030 70.4 245 114 53 State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 6,180 68.3 177 82 38 Sunkist Street to Douglass Road 4,520 66.9 144 67 31 Chapman Avenue State College Boulevard to SR-57 Freeway 30,740 75.2 517 240 111 SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 27,260 74.7 477 221 103 The City Drive SR-22 Freeway to Chapman Avenue 20,980 72.6 344 160 74 Clementine Street Orangewood Avenue to Gene Autry Way NA NA NA NA NA Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue NA NA NA NA NA Katella Avenue to Manchester Avenue 7,510 69.1 202 94 44 Collins Avenue Eckhoff Street to Main Street 6,620 68.5 186 86 40 Main Street to Batavia Street 10,800 70.7 257 119 55 Batavia Street to Glassell Street 14,710 72.0 316 147 68 Disney Way Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street 7,770 68.3 178 82 38 Clementine Street to Anaheim Boulevard 13,880 70.8 262 121 56 Douglass Street Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 6,910 67.7 164 76 35 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue 10,870 70.7 259 120 56 Gene Autry Way Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street NA NA NA NA NA Clementine Street to Haster Street NA NA NA NA NA Haster Street to I-5 Freeway NA NA NA NA NA I-5 Freeway to State College Boulevard 2,220 63.8 90 42 19 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 35,560 75.8 570 264 123 Orangewood Avenue to Convention Way 35,870 75.9 573 266 123 Convention Way to Katella Avenue 40,430 76.4 621 288 134 Katella Avenue to Disney Way 38,410 75.2 516 239 111 Disney Way to Manchester Avenue 41,340 75.5 541 251 117 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-15 Table 5.5-8 Existing Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Existing Year 2009 Distance to CNEL Contour (Feet from Centerline) Segment ADT Volumes CNEL (dBA @ 50 ft from centerline) 60 (dBA CNEL) 65 (dBA CNEL) 70 (dBA CNEL) Manchester Avenue to I-5 Freeway 39,450 75.3 525 244 113 I-5 Freeway to Ball Road 44,360 75.8 568 263 122 Ball Road to Vermont Street 26,900 73.7 407 189 88 Haster Street I-5 Freeway to Ball Road 18,190 72.9 364 169 79 Ball Road to Vermont Street 19,760 73.3 385 179 83 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 4,390 65.8 121 56 26 Sunkist Street to Katella Avenue 5,830 67.0 147 68 32 Katella Avenue Euclid Street to Ninth Street 31,470 75.3 525 244 113 Ninth Street to Walnut Street 29,270 75.0 500 232 108 Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive 35,240 75.8 566 263 122 Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard 37,440 76.1 590 274 127 Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street 39,100 76.3 607 282 131 Clementine Street to Anaheim Boulevard 38,510 76.2 601 279 129 Anaheim Boulevard to I-5 Freeway 37,830 76.1 594 276 128 I-5 Freeway to Lewis Street 35,040 75.8 564 262 122 Lewis Street to Stage College Boulevard 30,260 75.1 512 237 110 State College Boulevard to Sportstown 32,800 75.5 540 251 116 Sportstown to Howell Avenue 34,240 75.7 555 258 120 Howell Avenue to SR-57 Freeway 37,990 76.1 595 276 128 SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 29,610 75.1 504 234 109 Main Street to Batavia Street 30,280 75.2 512 238 110 Batavia Street to Glassell Street 29,490 75.0 503 233 108 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 1,440 62.8 77 36 17 Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 7,680 70.1 236 110 51 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 6,460 69.4 211 98 45 Main Street Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 20,090 72.4 335 155 72 Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue 16,900 72.6 347 161 75 Collins Avenue to Katella Avenue 17,700 72.8 358 166 77 Katella Avenue to Taft Avenue 11,440 70.9 267 124 58 Manchester Avenue Compton Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 6,840 68.7 190 88 41 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 11,050 70.8 261 121 56 Katella Avenue to Anaheim Boulevard 1,410 61.8 66 31 14 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard to Haster Avenue 15,540 72.3 328 152 71 Haster Avenue to Manchester Avenue 17,950 72.9 361 168 78 Manchester Avenue to State College Boulevard 19,810 73.3 386 179 83 State College Boulevard to Rampart Street 24,490 74.2 444 206 96 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.5-8 Existing Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Existing Year 2009 Distance to CNEL Contour (Feet from Centerline) Segment ADT Volumes CNEL (dBA @ 50 ft from centerline) 60 (dBA CNEL) 65 (dBA CNEL) 70 (dBA CNEL) Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway 23,490 74.0 432 201 93 SR-57 Freeway to Eckhoff Street 27,720 74.8 483 224 104 Eckhoff Street to Main Street 14,160 71.9 308 143 66 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center to Ball Road 3,880 65.2 112 52 24 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 2,770 63.8 89 41 19 State College Boulevard Chapman Avenue to I-5 Freeway 26,980 74.7 474 220 102 I-5 to Orangewood Avenue 21,400 73.6 406 188 87 Orangewood Avenue to Gene Autry Way 22,160 73.8 416 193 90 Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 20,120 73.4 390 181 84 Katella Avenue to Howell Avenue 23,980 74.1 438 203 94 Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 3,900 66.3 131 61 28 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 23,320 74.0 430 200 93 Ball Road to Wagner 24,020 74.1 439 204 94 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue to Main Street 6,720 67.6 161 75 35 Sunkist Street Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 3,900 66.3 131 61 28 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 7,720 69.2 206 96 44 Walnut Avenue Main Street to Batavia Street 8,540 68.7 189 88 41 Batavia Street to Glassell Street 8,090 68.4 183 85 39 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, The Planning Center, based on traffic volumes and speed limits obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff, August 2010. e/o: east of; w/o: west of; n/o: north of; s/o: south of Traffic noise levels within 50 feet of the roadway centerline require site-specific analysis. Railroad Noise Noise from trains is generated by crossing bells, engines, exhaust noise, air turbulence generated by cooling fans, and other gear noise. The interaction of steel wheels with rails generates three types of noise: rolling noise; impact noise when a wheel encounters a discontinuity in the running surfaces, such as a rail joint, turnout, or crossover; and squeals generated by friction on tight curves. Noise generated by the event of a single train passing is dominated primarily by the train horn and secondarily by the train engines and cars. Train horns are required by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to sound at a minimum of 103 dBA as measured from 100 feet from the train. The Orange County Line, owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and operated and maintained by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) traverses the Platinum Triangle from the east to the northwest. The Orange County Line’s operations include Metrolink passenger service, freight ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-17 trains operated by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), and passenger trains operated by Amtrak for their Pacific Surfliner route. In addition to this major rail line, small rail spurs are used by existing businesses in the northern and northwestern portion of the Platinum Triangle for occasional freight operations. While these smaller rail spurs contribute to the ambient noise environment in the Platinum Triangle, the Orange County Line carries the majority of rail traffic within the Platinum Triangle and is therefore the dominant rail noise source. Noise modeling of railroad noise levels on the Orange County Line used the FRA’s Grade Crossing Noise Model based on train volumes and average train speed provided by the OCTA and Metrolink. Currently the Orange County Line accommodates approximately 19 Metrolink, 24 Amtrak, 2 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) trains per day and 3 to 5 BNSF trains per week (OCTA 2009). The FRA Grade Crossing Noise Modeling predicts that the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour falls at a distance of approximately 699 feet from the centerline of the tracks when the horn is sounded, which is a quarter mile from the grade crossing. When there are no at- grade railroad crossings the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour extends to 553 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks. Actual distances to these contours could be shorter where topography or structures block the line of sight to the rails. Stadium/Event Noise The Angel Stadium of Anaheim baseball stadium is located within the Platinum Triangle. Events hosted at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim generate noise from cheering, public address (PA) systems, and fireworks (when the Angels have a home run). Typical noise levels to a spectator within the stadium during a sporting event range from 94 dBA to 114 dBA, while fireworks shows are 150 dBA as measured at a distance of 10 feet (Berger, Neitzel, and Kladden 2006). Events hosted at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim typically occur in the evening hours and could last past 10:00 PM, which is considered the noise-sensitive portion of the night. The average baseball game lasts 2 hours and 47 minutes and each team plays 162 games per year during the baseball season, which lasts from April until potentially October (Wikipedia 2007). Sensitive Receptor Locations Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. Noise- and vibration-sensitive uses include residential land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Recent development in the Platinum Triangle has introduced new noise-sensitive residential developments within the project area. 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in: N-1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Based on local noise criteria as established in the City of Anaheim General Plan and Municipal Code the following would be considered significant: • Project-related on-site activities increasing the CNEL at any noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 5 dBA or more when the CNEL is less than 65 dBA or by 3 dBA or more when the CNEL is 65 dBA or greater in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. A minimum 3 dB change in noise levels is necessary for human hearing to discern a change in noise levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Stationary noise generated by the Proposed Project exceeding the stationary noise standards of the City’s Municipal Code of 60 dBA Leq at the property line of noise- sensitive land uses. • Project residential land uses would be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL (City of Anaheim land use compatibility criteria) or interior noise levels that exceed 45 dBA CNEL (CBC). N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Based on the Federal Transit Administration criteria, the following would be considered significant: • Project-related activities resulting in an exceedance of the vibration threshold of 80 VdB during construction activities for human annoyance at nearest sensitive receptors. N-3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Based on local noise criteria as established in the City of Anaheim General Plan and Municipal Code, the following would be considered significant: • Project-related on-site activities increasing the CNEL at any noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 5 dBA or more when the CNEL is less than 65 dBA or by 3 dBA or more when the CNEL is 65 dB or greater in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. A minimum 3 dB change in noise levels is necessary for human hearing to discern a change in noise levels. N-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Based on local noise criteria as established in the City of Anaheim General Plan and Municipal Code the following would be considered significant: • Project-related roadway construction activities occurring outside of the hours specified (7:00 AM and 7:00 PM) under Chapter 6.70 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code. N-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. N-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant: • Threshold N-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-19 This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. Impact threshold N-6 was eliminated in the Initial Study from further consideration. However, the analysis has been included in the SEIR to evaluate noise associated with helicopter overflights of the project site which were not analyzed in the Initial Study for the Proposed Project. 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.5-1: BUILD-OUT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL, PERMANENT INCREASE IN AMBIENT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEPTORS. [THRESHOLDS N-1 AND N-3] Impact Analysis: Traffic noise was considered a significant unavoidable impact in FSEIR No. 332. The traffic noise analysis for the Proposed Project analyzed traffic impacts on a larger circulation system network compared to FSEIR No. 332. Consequently, roadway segments for both the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project were analyzed in this SEIR. The analysis below evaluates changes to the traffic noise modeling between the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. Traffic noise modeling is based on average daily traffic volumes on roadway segments from the analysis conducted by Parson Brinckerhoff Associates. Traffic noise modeling was compiled for build-out year 2030 Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project conditions, as shown in Table 5.5-9. Table 5.5-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Year 2030 Adopted MLUP Year 2030 Proposed Project Location Existing CNEL1 CNEL ADT CNEL ADT Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing Increase in CNEL (dBA) Between Projects Anaheim Boulevard Katella Avenue to I-5 Freeway 73.2 75.2 30,590 75.3 31,080 2.1 0.1 I-5 Freeway to Cerritos Avenue 75.5 77.6 53,130 77.8 55,320 2.2 0.2 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 74.6 76.8 43,930 77.0 46,190 2.4 0.2 Ball Road to Vermont Street 73.4 75.1 37,690 75.3 39,160 1.9 0.2 Anaheim Way State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue 66.3 72.5 13,360 73.1 15,130 6.7 0.5 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 73.9 75.3 25,230 75.5 26,650 1.7 0.2 Katella Avenue to Anaheim Boulevard 71.6 73.2 15,650 73.8 18,110 2.3 0.6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-20 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.5-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Year 2030 Adopted MLUP Year 2030 Proposed Project Location Existing CNEL1 CNEL ADT CNEL ADT Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing Increase in CNEL (dBA) Between Projects Ball Road Walnut Street 75.7 76.5 41,120 76.6 42,390 1.0 0.1 Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard 76.8 77.9 56,710 78.0 58,690 1.2 0.1 Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard 76.0 76.9 45,610 77.1 47,460 1.1 0.2 Anaheim Boulevard to East Street 75.8 76.8 44,140 77.0 46,390 1.2 0.2 East Street to State College Boulevard 76.2 76.8 44,720 77.1 47,540 1.0 0.3 State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 76.4 77.0 46,630 77.2 48,590 0.8 0.2 Sunkist Street to SR-57 Freeway 77.2 78.0 58,790 78.3 61,800 1.1 0.2 SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 75.5 78.1 59,090 78.1 60,250 2.6 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street 71.0 74.6 26,370 75.1 30,130 4.1 0.6 Lewis Street to State College Boulevard 70.4 74.5 26,010 75.0 29,510 4.7 0.5 State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 68.3 72.5 16,380 73.3 19,870 5.1 0.8 Sunkist Street to Douglass Road 66.9 73.8 22,300 74.6 26,820 7.7 0.8 Chapman Avenue State College Boulevard to SR-57 Freeway 75.2 76.0 37,220 76.2 38,400 1.0 0.1 SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 74.7 75.5 32,610 75.6 33,930 1.0 0.2 The City Drive SR-22 Freeway to Chapman Avenue 72.6 74.4 31,710 74.5 33,030 2.0 0.2 Clementine Street Orangewood Avenue to Gene Autry Way NA 69.4 8,070 69.9 9,010 NA 0.5 Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue NA 67.8 5,530 67.9 5,720 NA 0.1 Katella Avenue to Manchester Avenue 69.1 69.6 8,400 69.6 8,470 0.5 0.0 Collins Avenue Eckhoff Street to Main Street 68.5 73.4 20,280 73.5 20,830 5.0 0.1 Main Street to Batavia Street 70.7 74.0 23,270 74.1 23,650 3.4 0.1 Batavia Street to Glassell Street 72.0 73.6 21,360 73.7 21,820 1.7 0.1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-21 Table 5.5-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Year 2030 Adopted MLUP Year 2030 Proposed Project Location Existing CNEL1 CNEL ADT CNEL ADT Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing Increase in CNEL (dBA) Between Projects Disney Way Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street 68.3 71.3 15,600 71.7 17,040 3.4 0.4 Clementine Street to Anaheim Boulevard 70.8 73.3 24,690 73.6 26,660 2.8 0.3 Douglass Street Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 67.7 73.3 24,550 73.9 28,540 6.2 0.7 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue 70.7 74.7 27,340 74.8 27,760 4.1 0.1 Gene Autry Way Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street NA 73.9 22,960 74.3 24,940 NA 0.4 Clementine Street to Haster Street NA 74.8 27,890 75.2 30,800 NA 0.4 Haster Street to I-5 Freeway NA 75.4 32,420 76.2 38,780 NA 0.8 I-5 Freeway to State College Boulevard 63.8 75.5 32,850 76.9 45,660 13.1 1.4 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 75.8 77.2 48,780 77.4 50,300 1.5 0.1 Orangewood Avenue to Convention Way 75.9 77.1 46,890 77.1 47,440 1.2 0.1 Convention Way to Katella Avenue 76.4 77.3 49,980 77.4 50,350 1.0 0.0 Katella Avenue to Disney Way 75.2 76.8 55,020 76.9 56,730 1.7 0.1 Disney Way to Manchester Avenue 75.5 76.6 53,490 76.7 54,500 1.2 0.1 Manchester Avenue to I-5 Freeway 75.3 76.8 55,420 76.9 57,240 1.6 0.1 I-5 Freeway to Ball Road 75.8 77.0 57,660 77.1 59,290 1.3 0.1 Ball Road to Vermont Street 73.7 75.1 37,440 75.2 38,240 1.5 0.1 Haster Street I-5 Freeway to Ball Road 72.9 76.0 36,460 76.1 38,010 3.2 0.2 Ball Road to Vermont Street 73.3 76.0 37,170 76.3 39,830 3.0 0.3 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 65.8 71.3 15,580 72.8 22,000 7.0 1.5 Sunkist Street to Katella Avenue 67.0 67.4 6,380 68.3 7,910 1.3 0.9 Katella Avenue Euclid Street to Ninth Street 75.3 77.3 49,450 77.4 50,900 2.1 0.1 Ninth Street to Walnut Street 75.0 77.1 47,260 77.2 48,170 2.2 0.1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-22 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.5-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Year 2030 Adopted MLUP Year 2030 Proposed Project Location Existing CNEL1 CNEL ADT CNEL ADT Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing Increase in CNEL (dBA) Between Projects Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive 75.8 77.8 55,400 77.9 56,930 2.1 0.1 Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard 76.1 78.5 64,920 78.6 67,110 2.5 0.1 Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street 76.3 77.9 57,480 78.1 59,070 1.8 0.1 Clementine Street to Anaheim Boulevard 76.2 77.9 57,500 78.1 59,650 1.9 0.2 Anaheim Boulevard to I-5 Freeway 76.1 77.8 55,320 77.9 57,520 1.8 0.2 Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way2 75.8 78.0 58,160 78.9 71,090 3.1 0.9 Anaheim Way to Lewis Street2 75.8 78.0 58,160 78.9 71,090 3.1 0.9 Lewis Street to Stage College Boulevard 75.1 77.2 48,820 78.0 57,860 2.8 0.7 State College Boulevard to Sportstown 75.5 77.2 47,980 77.5 51,920 2.0 0.3 Sportstown to Howell Avenue 75.7 77.7 54,380 78.3 62,310 2.6 0.6 Howell Avenue to SR-57 Freeway 76.1 78.2 60,860 78.9 71,190 2.7 0.7 SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 75.1 77.7 54,600 78.3 62,900 3.3 0.6 Main Street to Batavia Street 75.2 77.1 47,690 77.5 51,570 2.3 0.3 Batavia Street to Glassell Street 75.0 77.0 46,060 77.3 49,250 2.2 0.3 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 62.8 73.5 16,800 75.4 25,710 12.5 1.8 Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 70.1 74.8 22,360 76.4 32,900 6.3 1.7 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 69.4 74.5 20,870 74.9 22,950 5.5 0.4 Main Street Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 72.4 75.3 39,050 75.4 40,550 3.1 0.2 Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue 72.6 74.9 28,730 75.0 29,410 2.4 0.1 Collins Avenue to Katella Avenue 72.8 75.2 30,920 75.3 31,360 2.5 0.1 Katella Avenue to Taft Avenue 70.9 73.7 21,540 73.7 21,730 2.8 0.0 Manchester Avenue Compton Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 68.7 72.5 16,590 72.4 16,050 3.7 -0.1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-23 Table 5.5-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Year 2030 Adopted MLUP Year 2030 Proposed Project Location Existing CNEL1 CNEL ADT CNEL ADT Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing Increase in CNEL (dBA) Between Projects Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 70.8 73.7 21,540 74.1 23,810 3.3 0.4 Katella Avenue to Anaheim Boulevard 61.8 70.9 11,500 72.0 14,740 10.2 1.1 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard to Haster Avenue 72.3 73.4 20,130 73.7 21,480 1.4 0.3 Haster Avenue to Manchester Avenue 72.9 74.2 24,480 74.5 25,910 1.6 0.2 Manchester Avenue to State College Boulevard 73.3 74.9 28,530 75.7 34,410 2.4 0.8 State College Boulevard to Rampart Street 74.2 76.1 38,080 77.4 50,380 3.1 1.2 Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway 74.0 76.4 40,050 77.1 47,660 3.1 0.8 SR-57 Freeway to Eckhoff Street 74.8 76.8 44,670 77.3 49,090 2.5 0.4 Eckhoff Street to Main Street 71.9 72.8 17,750 73.3 19,610 1.4 0.4 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center to Ball Road 65.2 69.5 13,530 69.5 13,510 5.4 0 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 63.8 71.5 16,510 72.9 22,510 9.1 1.3 State College Boulevard Chapman Avenue to I-5 Freeway 74.7 76.6 42,370 77.0 45,860 2.3 0.3 I-5 to Orangewood Avenue 73.6 76.7 43,240 77.2 48,060 3.5 0.5 Orangewood Avenue to Gene Autry Way 73.8 76.3 39,670 77.1 46,900 3.3 0.7 Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue 73.4 75.3 31,040 75.8 34,920 2.4 0.5 Katella Avenue to Howell Avenue 74.1 76.3 39,840 77.0 46,470 2.9 0.7 Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 66.3 67.0 4,640 67.5 5,180 1.2 0.5 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 74.0 74.5 4,640 74.9 5,180 0.9 0.4 Ball Road to Wagner 74.1 75.5 25,880 75.8 28,570 1.6 0.3 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue to Main Street 67.6 70.8 14,100 71.3 15,500 3.6 0.4 Sunkist Street Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 66.3 70.3 9,950 71.3 12,610 5.1 1.0 Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 69.2 70.8 11,240 71.1 12,000 1.9 0.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-24 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.5-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Year 2030 Adopted MLUP Year 2030 Proposed Project Location Existing CNEL1 CNEL ADT CNEL ADT Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing Increase in CNEL (dBA) Between Projects Walnut Avenue Main Street to Batavia Street 68.7 69.2 9,630 69.2 9,710 0.6 0.3 Batavia Street to Glassell Street 68.4 69.3 9,870 69.3 9,860 0.9 0.2 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, The Planning Center, based on traffic volumes and speed limits obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Parsons-Brinkerhoff, August 2010. Notes: e/o: east of; w/o: west of; n/o: north of; s/o: south of Bold/Italicized = Significant Impacts Traffic noise levels within 50 feet of the roadway centerline require site-specific analysis. 1 dBA CNEL measured at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 Under existing conditions, segment is listed as from I-5 Freeway to Lewis Street. Based on the criteria used in the 2005 SEIR to determine level of significance a 5 dBA increase in an ambient noise environment of less than 65 dBA CNEL or a 3 dBA noise increase in an ambient noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or more), the Proposed Project would result in new significant noise increases along multiple roadway segments as shown in the above table. As shown in the table, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase noise dB) beyond the noise levels shown in FSEIR No. 332. However, because FSEIR No. 332 identified significant increases in the ambient noise environment from existing conditions that exceed the thresholds outlined above, noise impacts along the roadway segments (bolded in the Table 5.5-9) in the vicinity of the project site would occur under the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project; and therefore, impacts would remain significant. IMPACT 5.5-2: BUILD-OUT OF THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE WOULD NOT GENERATE SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF STATIONARY-SOURCE NOISE THAT EXCEEDS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM’S NOISE STANDARDS FROM TRUCK LOADING/UNLOADING ACTIVITIES AND OPERATION OF HVAC SYSTEMS. [THRESHOLDS N-1 AND N-3] Impact Analysis: FSEIR No. 332 did not evaluate for the following stationary sources of noise: heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems; on-site recreation; and truck deliveries and idling. The City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, regulates noise generated at a property within the City of Anaheim to prevent in a noise nuisance at noise-sensitive receptors. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding 60 dBA for an extended period. In addition, land uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone must adhere to additional restrictions within Chapter 18.20.160, Compatibility Standards, to minimize noise to ensure compatibility within the mixed-use districts. These standards do not evaluate the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. The City’s Noise Ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, construction activity, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. Compliance with City’s Noise Ordinance ensures noise compatibility between existing and proposed development so that on-site noise sources do not constitute a noise nuisance. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-25 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Condition Systems Noise generated by residential, retail, and office land uses are typically associated with landscape maintenance and operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Build-out of the Platinum Triangle would entail additional residential, commercial, retail, and office development within the City of Anaheim. HVAC units for new residential, commercial, retail, and office uses are required to be constructed to meet the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code (60 dBA Leq) so that noise levels are not intrusive to noise-sensitive uses. As a result, noise impacts from these sources associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant. On-Site Recreation Pocket parks are a permitted use in residential areas associated with the Platinum Triangle. Urban parks may contain passive recreational amenities such as open lawns, piazzas, barbeque areas, and children’s play areas. Noise generated at pocket parks would be primarily from voices. Noise levels from a person shouting at 100 feet are measured at 55 dBA (USEPA 1971). Thus noise levels from 10 people shouting at 100 feet would be 65 dBA Leq. Because all roadways modeled within the Platinum Triangle generate substantially greater noise levels, and use of the recreational areas is typically restricted to daytime hours, noise generated by pocket parks would not generate substantial levels of stationary-source noise at existing noise- sensitive receptors. As a result, noise impacts from these sources associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Truck Deliveries and Idling Commercial land use designations within the Platinum Triangle may involve retail truck deliveries. FSEIR No. 332 did not specifically evaluate noise impacts from truck delivery operations and idling. Noise from truck loading/unloading activities would be primarily from the back-up warning bells and truck engine noise when backing up to the truck bays of the retail building. While stationary equipment would be required to adhere to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance, truck noise is not governed under the City’s Municipal Code because it is mobile. However, a nonmoving truck, such as an idling vehicle, is considered to be a stationary source of noise generation. Noise levels from actual unloading and loading activities would be minimal, as the truck interior would be shielded from the exterior environment and unloading and loading activities would occur in the interior of the building after the truck is docked at the truck bay. However, if cold-storage transportation is required, then trucks at the Proposed Project site would require the use of transport refrigeration units (TRUs). TRUs are typically diesel-powered engines located at the top of the truck cab. If truck bays for the proposed facilities are located in close proximity to the existing or future residences, then potential stationary noise impacts could occur. Under the City’s Municipal Code, commercial uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone are required to be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited, so that neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries, or late night activity. In addition, continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at commercial sites within the PTMU Overlay Zone is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Furthermore, all commercial trucks are prohibited from idling longer than five minutes under CARB’s In-Use Idling Airborne Toxics Control Measure Rule 2485.Therefore, noise impacts from truck deliveries and idling would result in a less than significant impact to noise sensitive uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-26 • The Planning Center August 2010 IMPACT 5.5-3: NOISE-SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED WITHIN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MAY BE EXPOSED TO MOBILE- AND STATIONARY-SOURCE NOISE LEVELS THAT EXCEED STATE AND/OR CITY STANDARDS. [THRESHOLDS N-1 AND N-3] Impact Analysis: Both stationary and mobile sources were determined in FSEIR No. 332 to result in potentially significant impacts to noise-sensitive residential units proposed within the Platinum Triangle. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan indicates that noise thresholds are to be attained in habitable exterior areas and need not encompass the entirety of a property, and that special consideration should be given in the case of infill residential development along the City’s arterial corridors or railroad lines in order to achieve an appropriate balance between providing a quality living environment and attractive project design. Residential, office, institutional, and commercial land uses should be considered in light of achieving this type of balance. It should be noted that the City of Anaheim does not regulate noise levels for balconies less than six feet in depth. However, ground-floor patios at future residences facing major arterials and within the vicinity of rail lines would be exposed to high noise levels that exceed the City’s normally acceptable compatibility criterion. Numerous major arterials, highways, railroads, and other noise-generating land uses are located within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle and could affect future noise-sensitive land uses. The primary sources of noise within the Platinum Triangle are traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the project and locations near at- grade rail crossings where railroad traffic (and train horns) generates substantial noise. Major transportation sources within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle include I-5, SR-57, Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, Orangewood Boulevard, State College Boulevard, and the Orange County Line. In addition to transportation noise sources, existing industrial and entertainment land uses can generate high levels of stationary-source noise that can affect proposed land uses if new noise-sensitive residential developments were within close proximity. Transportation-Source Noise Table 5.5-9 above show that that noise from roadways within the Platinum Triangle can exceed 65 dBA CNEL, resulting in noise levels that exceed the City’s conditionally acceptable noise compatibility criterion for noise-sensitive residential uses. Noise from SR-57, I-5, and the Orange County Line also contributes to the exterior noise environment. FSEIR No. 332 identified potentially significant noise impacts for noise-sensitive uses placed in proximity to freeways and major arterials, as they may fall within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Similarly, under the Proposed Project, because not all noise-sensitive areas constructed under individual development proposals under the Platinum Triangle may meet the City’s noise compatibility standards and impacts would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, any siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of major arterials and freeways represents a potentially significant impact and would require a separate noise study through the development review process to determine the level of impact and required mitigation. Consequently, impacts under the revised plan would be similar to those identified in FSEIR No. 332. Adjacent Industrial-Source Noise Residences within the Platinum Triangle could be exposed to stationary-source noise from activities conducted at the adjacent industrial areas. Noise from industrial uses could occur during the nighttime hours when residences are most sensitive to extraneous noise sources. As no manufacturing occurs within this area, the primary noise generators from these types of industrial/commercial uses include truck idling, loading, and unloading activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-27 As part of the Noise Study for the FSEIR No. 332, noise measurements were taken at the Consolidated Volume Transfer Station and Recycling Facility (CVT) located at 1071 North Blue Gum Street in Anaheim. Noise sources during 15 minutes of noise monitoring included yard activities (truck engine starts, idling, bucket loader) from a green waste processing area. Noise measurements were taken at a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest portion of the truck the side with the engine exposed), which resulted in noise levels of 73 dBA Leq. The use of multiple trucks could generate noise levels on the order of 80 dBA Leq, as measured at a distance of 50 feet. Process equipment and the use of pneumatic tools could also generate elevated noise levels, but this equipment is typically housed within the facilities and would not be expected to exceed the 80 dBA Leq projected for exterior trucks. If it is assumed that the 80 dBA Leq level were produced continually for eight hours during the day, the calculated CNEL is 75 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet. The 65 dBA CNEL contour would fall at a distance of 158 feet. FSEIR No. 332 identified potentially significant impacts for any noise-sensitive uses sited in close proximity or adjacent to industrial uses. The Proposed Project would increase residential density within the City that may be developed in close proximity or adjacent to industrial or entertainment uses. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be similar to those identified in FSEIR No. 332. Impacts for both are considered potentially significant. Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) The Institutional General Plan land use designation currently assigned to properties within the proposed ARTIC District includes a wide range of public and quasi-public uses including government office, transportation facilities, public or private colleges and universities, public utilities, hospitals, large assisted living facilities, community centers, museums, and public libraries. The proposed ARTIC District would allow up to 1.5 million square feet of institutional uses in addition to up to 520 residential units, 358,000 square feet of commercial uses and 2,202,803 square feet of office development. The current proposed use of the site is for the ARTIC project, which would be accommodated by both the existing Institutional land use designation and the proposed ARTIC District. The ARTIC project is a major regional intermodal transit center proposed under a partnership between the City of Anaheim and the OCTA. The ARTIC project would link rail, ground, and transit services in Orange County and would serve as a gateway for high speed and conventional rail, bus, and automobile travelers. Stationary sources of noise within the ARTIC District would include HVAC systems for the proposed ARTIC project and future land uses. As stated, installation of HVAC systems would be required to comply with the City’s stationary noise standard of 60 dBA Leq. In addition, bus terminals and/or similar types of institutional development may generate substantial stationary-source noise bus engine idling, back-up warning bells, parking lot activities, helipads). An intermodal facility with a bus and commuter train transit station in addition to a park and ride facility can generate noise levels of 86 dBA Ldn at a distance of 50 feet (FTA 2007). The 65 dBA Ldn noise contour would fall at a distance of 350 feet. There are no residential uses currently located in close proximity to the proposed ARTIC District. However, siting of noise sensitive land uses within this distance would exceed the City’s normally acceptable noise compatibility standard and result in potentially significant noise impacts. Railroad Noise The Proposed Project would replace the existing General Plan Institutional land use designation for properties within the proposed ARTIC District with the Mixed Use land use designation. This designation would allow for transit oriented mixed-use development that would complement the proposed ARTIC project that would link rail, ground, and transit services in Orange County and would serve as a gateway for high speed and conventional rail, bus, and automobile travelers. Development of land uses in the Platinum Triangle, including in the ARTIC District, could result in demand for additional train trips on the Orange County Line (Metrolink and Amtrak). An increase in train trips would increase noise levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-28 • The Planning Center August 2010 Placement of project-related noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of Orange County Line or major rail transportation centers, such as the proposed ARTIC project or the existing Metrolink/Amtrak station, could expose noise-sensitive receptors to substantial levels of noise from train activities. Noise modeling of railroad noise levels on the Orange County Line was modeled using the FRA’s Grade Crossing Noise Model based on future train volumes and average train speed provided by the OCTA and Metrolink. Future rail projections on the Orange County Line are estimated at approximately 52 Metrolink, 36 Amtrak, and 12 freight trains operated by the UPRR or BNSF on a worst-case day (OCTA 2007; SCRRA 2007). The FRA Grade Crossing Noise Modeling predicts that the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour would fall at a distance of approximately 951 feet from the centerline of the tracks when the horn is sounded, which is a quarter mile from the grade crossing. When there are no at-grade railroad crossings the 65 Ldn noise contour would be 765 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks. Actual distances to these contours could be shorter where topography or structures block the line of sight to the rails. SEIR No. 332 evaluated noise impacts of the Orange County Line at Anaheim Stadium Metrolink/Amtrak Station, located adjacent to Angel Stadium south of Katella Avenue. According to FSEIR No. 332, operation along this line would put the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour at approximately 630 feet. Residential developments within 65 dBA Ldn noise contour with outdoor noise sensitive areas ground floor patios and recreation areas) would exceed the City’s normally acceptable noise compatibility criterion. Consequently, noise impacts associated with train activity on the Orange County Line under the Proposed Project would be similar to those identified in FSEIR No. 332 and considered potentially significant. Stadium/Event Noise Placement of noise-sensitive land uses within the vicinity of Angel Stadium of Anaheim would also expose residents to temporary increases in ambient noise environment during a stadium event. During a game day, cheering, PA systems, and fireworks (when the Angels have a home run) would be audible at residential areas surrounding the stadium. These events typically occur in the evening hours and could last past 10:00 PM, which is considered the noise-sensitive portion of the night. The average baseball game lasts 2 hours and 47 minutes and each team plays 162 games per year (Wikipedia 2007). Temporary increases in the ambient noise environment during the baseball season, which lasts from April until potentially October, could result in nighttime awakenings for future residents. Typical noise levels within the stadium during a sporting event range from 94 dBA to 114 dBA for spectators within the stadium, while fireworks shows are 150 dBA as measured at a distance of 10 feet (Berger, Neitzel, and Kladden 2006). The FICAN 1997 report gives the proportion of persons awakened by noise events at different SEL. Because some populations are more sensitive to noise events, the threshold for awakening typically used for airport analysis assumes impacts if 10 percent of the population is awakened. Based on the FICAN study, the interior noise level at which 10 percent of population is awakened by a loud event is when interior noise levels exceed 81 dBA SEL. For interior noise levels to exceed 81 dBA SEL, the exterior noise level would have to exceed 105 dBA SEL (based on standard construction). Without acoustically upgraded windows and doors, noise from sporting events at the stadium could result in a significant number of nighttime awakenings for projects located within the vicinity of the stadium. Any siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of the stadium that would be exposed to interior noise levels of 81 dBA SEL due to the stadium would result in a potentially significant noise impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-29 IMPACT 5.5-4: BUILDING FAÇADES THAT ARE EXPOSED TO NOISE LEVELS THAT EXCEED 69 dBA WOULD REQUIRE ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED 45 dBA CNEL INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL LIMITS. [THRESHOLDS N-1 AND N-3] Impact Analysis: Interior noise impacts would be considered significant if the Proposed Project would place sensitive receptors in a noise environment that exceeds the land use noise compatibility criteria or interior noise standards of the California Building Code of 45 dBA CNEL. Noise-sensitive portions of the project site include the interior of hotel, office and medical buildings, and residential units. Commercial, retail, and other ancillary uses are not considered noise-sensitive uses. Interior Noise Pursuant to the California Building Code, noise-sensitive habitable rooms would be required to be designed to achieve an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. In general, exterior-to-interior transmission loss from standard building construction results in a minimum attenuation of 24 dBA (SAE 1971). While the exact location of the office structures have not yet been determined, building facades that are exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would require architectural improvements, such as Sound Transmission Class (STC)-rated windows and doors, to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level limits. Because noise levels along major arterials could exceed these noise levels, the office buildings could require additional noise insulation to meet the 45 dBA CNEL standard. Compliance with the California Building Code would ensure that interior noise levels meet the required limits. Table 5.5-9 above shows that noise from roadways within the Platinum Triangle can exceed 69 dBA CNEL, resulting in elevated interior noise levels that do not meet the state’s noise standards. Due to the high volumes of traffic and proximity of new noise- sensitive developments adjacent to the major arterials, freeways, and railroads, it may be necessary to provide architectural acoustic upgrades in the form of STC-rated windows and doors in new residential units. Therefore, siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of major arterials, freeways, railroads, or industrial uses that would result in building facades being exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would represent a potentially significant interior noise impact. IMPACT 5.5-5: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL LEVELS OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION AND GROUNDBORNE NOISE IN THE VICINITY OF VIBRATION-SENSITIVE LAND USES. [THRESHOLD N-2] Impact Analysis: Construction activities can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedures and equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings near the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibration from construction activities rarely reaches levels that can damage structures, but it can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. Groundborne vibration would be generated by the Proposed Project during construction activities, primarily during the demolition, grading, and foundation phases. Unless there are extremely large generators of vibration, such as pile drivers, or receptors in close proximity to construction equipment, vibration is generally only perceptible at structures when vibration rattles windows, picture frames, and other objects. Table 5.5-10 lists the maximum levels of vibration that would be experienced at vibration-sensitive structures located 25 feet from the construction equipment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-30 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.5-10 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate Velocity Level at 25 Feet (VdB) Approximate RMS1 Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) Pile Driver (impact) – Upper Range 112 1.518 Pile Driver (impact) – Lower Range 104 0.644 Pile Driver (sonic) – Upper Range 105 0.734 Pile Driver (sonic) – Lower Range 93 0.170 Clam Shovel Drop (Slurry Wall) 94 0.202 Hydromill (Slurry Wall) – In Soil 66 0.008 Hydromill (Slurry Wall) – In Rock 75 0.017 Vibratory Roller 94 0.210 Hoe Ram 87 0.089 Large Bulldozer 87 0.089 Caisson Drilling 87 0.089 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 Jackhammer 79 0.035 Small Bulldozer 58 0.003 Source: Federal Transit Administration, USDOT, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. 1 RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 microinch per second. Vibration Annoyance Construction of individual land uses pursuant to the implementation of the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately 20 years. However, there would be considerable overlap in construction of individual development projects. While the majority of heavy construction equipment would not be in operation exactly at the property line, residences within and surrounding the Proposed Project site would be exposed to construction-related vibration during development. Vibration is typically not perceptible in outdoor environments, but sensed at nearby structures when objects within the structure generate noise from the vibration, such as rattling windows or picture frames. Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are evaluated against the FTA’s significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 78 VdB for barely perceptible levels of vibration during the daytime. Vibration would primarily occur during the grading and foundation phases of construction. Construction activities would be restricted to daytime hours when people are the least sensitive to noise intrusions. However, as shown in Table 5.5-10, heavy construction equipment has potential to generate substantial levels of vibration that would cause annoyance at the on-site and off-site vibration-sensitive receptors. Vibration-Induced Structural Damage In addition to vibration-induced annoyance, project-related construction vibration was evaluated for its potential to cause structural damage in comparison to the FTA’s structural damage criteria (see Table 5.5-6). The FTA threshold of 0.2 inch per second is the threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal houses with plastered walls and ceilings. The nearest sensitive uses for vibration-induced structural damage assessment are the on-site and the adjacent off-site residences. Typically, only construction equipment generating extremely high levels of vibration, such as pile drivers, has the potential for vibration- induced structural damage. Construction of buildings taller than 12 stories may require use of an impact pile driver, which generates substantial levels of vibration that can be perceived at even farther distances and could result in structural damage. Construction activities related to build-out of the Proposed Project could ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-31 result in vibration levels exceeding the FTA’s criteria for vibration-induced structural damage within the Platinum Triangle, and would be considered significant. IMPACT 5.5-6: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD EXPOSE VIBRATION- SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL LEVELS OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION AND GROUNDBORNE NOISE IN THE VICINITY OF THE AMTRAK/METROLINK LINE. [THRESHOLD N-2] Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Proposed Project could potentially expose people to the impacts of groundborne vibration or noise levels from transportation and industrial activities. On-Road Mobile-Source Vibration Impacts Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses. Caltrans notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborne vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along the freeways and state routes. Their study finds that vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inch per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks. This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings). Typically, trucks do not generate high levels of vibration because they travel on rubber wheels and do not have vertical movement which generates ground vibration. Vibrations from trucks may be noticeable if there are any roadway imperfections such as potholes (FTA 1995). Vibration-sensitive structures are not and will not be sited within five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane of I-5 or SR-57. Consequently, no significant impacts related to on-road mobile-source vibration impacts are anticipated. Orange County Line Railroad Vibration Impacts New vibration-sensitive land uses, including residential land uses, would be exposed to groundborne vibration from train operations along the Orange County Line. Vibration levels within the City from train- induced vibration are dependant on specific site conditions including geology and the condition of the railroad track and train wheels. In addition, wood-framed structures could amplify vibration levels felt by occupants (FTA 2006). Vibration impacts from the Orange County Line are based on the potential for rail operations to cause perceptible levels of vibration. If current levels at the residential structure are less than perceptible to residents, future increases in rail traffic would not generate levels of vibration perceptible to residents, as the intensity of vibration would not increase, only the frequency of occurrence. However, vibration-sensitive land uses located in close proximity to the Orange County Line have the potential to be impacted by perceptible levels of vibration from rail operations. Vibration-sensitive land uses would be exposed to light rail and locomotive trains on the Orange County Line during both daytime and nighttime hours. Levels of vibration produced by construction equipment are evaluated against the FTA’s frequent events significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 72 VdB for residential land uses.1 Based on the FTA’s generalize ground surface vibration curve, light rail trains would generate a vibration level of 72 VdB at a distance of 60 feet. Locomotive powered passenger or freight trains traveling at 50 miles per hour would generate a vibration level of 72 VdB at a distance of 200 feet (FTA 2006). Vibration-sensitive land uses located within 200 feet of the Orange County Line would result in a potentially significant impact. 1 Frequent events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-32 • The Planning Center August 2010 IMPACT 5.5-7: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE COULD RESULT IN A SUB- STANTIAL TEMPORARY INCREASE IN NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. [THRESHOLD N-3] Impact Analysis: Short-term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, grading, and building construction of the proposed land uses. Construction of individual land uses under the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately 20 years in the 820-acre area. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated at the job site during demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. However, despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Construction-Related Vehicles Construction Worker Vehicles and Material Delivery Trucks The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. However, the amount of construction traffic is typically small in relation to the total daily traffic volumes on those roadway segments. Additionally, the truck trips would be spread throughout the workday and would primarily occur during nonpeak traffic periods. Therefore, these impacts are less than significant at noise receptors along the construction routes. Soil Haul Trucks Development of individual projects within the Platinum Triangle could require import and export of soil from the sites. The number of daily haul trips would typically be dependant on the amount of soil to be hauled, the duration of haul operations, and capacity of the haul trucks. Haul operations could generate a high number of daily truck trips that would occur throughout the entire workday. A doubling of traffic volumes is necessary to increase noise by 3 dB or more. Similar to material delivery trucks, the amount soil haul trips would be small relative to the total daily traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways. While haul trucks would result in a noise impact, they would not cause a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels along the roadways. Therefore, soil haul operations would not result in potential significant noise impacts along the designated haul routes. Construction Equipment Noise The other type of short-term noise impact is related to demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Table 5.5-11 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise-impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-33 Table 5.5-11 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from the Source Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from the Source Air Compressor 81 Pile-Driver (Impact) 101 Backhoe 80 Pile-Driver (Sonic) 96 Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85 Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 76 Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90 Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 98 Concrete Pump 71 Roller 74 Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76 Crane, Derrick 88 Scarifier 83 Crane, Mobile 83 Scraper 89 Dozer 85 Shovel 82 Generator 81 Spike Driver 77 Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84 Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80 Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85 Loader 85 Truck 88 Paver 89 Source: FTA 2006 Composite construction noise is best characterized by Bolt, Beranek and Newman. In their study, construction noise for development ranges from 77 to 89 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. These values take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of the heavy equipment used in the construction effort. In later phases during building assembly, noise levels are typically reduced from these values and the physical structures further break up line-of-sight noise propagation. Construction of individual developments associated with build-out of the Proposed Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment. As more residential projects are built within the Platinum Triangle, it is probable that development of the Proposed Project would involve construction activities that occur within 50 feet of existing noise-sensitive uses. Project-related construction would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment. In addition, construction of buildings that are taller than 12 stories may require use of an impact pile driver, which can generate extremely high levels of noise. According to Section 6.70 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, excluding federal holidays. Based on the 89 dBA Leq value, and assuming that construction would occur for eight hours a day, FSEIR No. 332 calculated the CNEL at 84 dBA at 50 feet (83 dBA CNEL for residential construction) from construction activities. Furthermore, it identified that the 65 dBA CNEL contour would fall at a distance of about 446 feet (397 feet for residential construction). Construction noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be similar to those identified in FSEIR No. 332 because construction intensity (mass grading, utility installation, etc.) would be similar. In addition, while the City of Anaheim restricts the hours of construction activities to the least noise-sensitive portions of the day (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, excluding federal holidays), construction activities would occur over an extended period of time (approximately 18 years). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-34 • The Planning Center August 2010 However, construction impacts would result in temporary exceedances of 65 dBA up to 446 feet from the construction site and impacts would be significant. IMPACT 5.5-8: HELIPORTS/HELIPADS WITHIN AND SURROUNDING THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY EXPOSE FUTURE RESIDENTS AND/OR WORKERS TO SUBSTANTIAL LEVELS OF AIRPORT-RELATED NOISE. [THRESHOLDS N-6] Impact Analysis: Helicopter noise is unique in terms of noise generated by aviation activities. Unlike fixed- wing aircraft, helicopter noise not only emanates from the engine, but is also generated by the main rotor. This sound modulation is referred to as blade slap. Blade slap is more pronounced during low-speed descents and high-speed cruise. To a listener on the ground, it is most audible as the aircraft approaches (Caltrans 2002). For helicopter noise, the significance of noise exposure depends on both the loudness of the event and how often the event occurs. Helicopters typically take off and land into the wind and fly approximately 500 to 1,000 feet above ground level when in flight. When helicopters land, they descend at a rate of approximately 1,000 feet per minute. North Net Fire Training Center One heliport/helistop is at the North Net Fire Training Center (Heliport ID No. CL45), located southeast of the intersection of Orangewood Avenue and Rampart Street at 2400 East Orangewood Avenue. The North Net Fire Training Site is privately owned and operated by the Orange Joint Powers Authority (Airnav 2007). The North Net Fire Training Center averages approximately two flights per day. The primary flight path for helicopters approaching and departing the North New Fire Training Center is along the Santa Ana River Channel (City of Anaheim 2005). Due to the infrequent use of this helistop and distance of the project site from the flight path along the Santa Ana River Channel, noise from helicopters arriving and departing during an emergency event would not significantly affect noise-sensitive land uses within the Platinum Triangle. UCI Medical Heliport The second heliport is located at the UCI Medical Center Heliport (Heliport ID No. 1CL4), southwest of the project near the intersection of Chapman Avenue and The City Drive. This heliport is privately owned and operated by the Regents of the University of California (AirNav 2007). This heliport is located 3,400 feet south of the project site. The typical flight path to the UCI Medical Center Heliport follows the Santa Ana River Channel from the northeast. The UCI Medical Center averaged four to six flights per month in 2004 (City of Anaheim 2005). Due to the infrequent use of this helistop and the flight pattern along the Santa Ana River Channel, noise from helicopters arriving and departing would not significantly affect noise-sensitive land uses at the Platinum Triangle. Anaheim Police Department – Anaheim Stadium The Anaheim Police Department (APD) uses the Anaheim Stadium to conduct helicopter training exercises five to eight times per week for a maximum of 15 minutes. Training exercises consist mainly of touch-and-go landings and takeoffs. However, occasionally the APD simulates emergency procedures, including hover exercises during training operations. The APD owns one McDonnell Douglas/Hughes MD 500 helicopter and one Eurocopter 350B2 for its air operations. The MD 500 helicopter is equipped with an Allison 250-C20B Turboshaft 420 horsepower engine while the Eurocopter is equipped with a Turbomeca ARRIEL 1B turbo 732 horsepower engine. These are both lightweight helicopters. Training exercises formerly occurred in the west side of the parking lot to simulate a tight-landing training exercise. However, as a result of development within the Platinum Triangle, the APD no longer uses the west side of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot for ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-35 training activities. Instead, training exercises are now located in the southern parking lot, just west of SR-57 and north of Orangewood Boulevard. Noise levels at the project site from helicopters were estimated from noise measurements from a typical landing-takeoff (LTO) cycle of the Bell 412 helicopters, which are equipped with dual engines (two propellers) and have a horsepower rating approximately five times that of the MD 500 series. Noise levels from a LTO of a Bell 412 helicopter were measured at 80.4 dBA at a distance of 326 feet to determine baseline noise volumes. New developments within the vicinity of the Anaheim Stadium may be exposed to noise from training operations. While helicopter training exercises at the stadium may be audible to new development constructed in close proximity to the facility, there would be a low frequency in occurrence of training activities (five to eight times per week for 15 minutes). New Heliports High-rise structures within the Platinum Triangle may require construction of a rooftop helistop for emer- gency use for fire and medical safety. Development of new heliports must be submitted through the City to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, the ALUC, and by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Because emergency helistops would not be frequently used and would require approval by Caltrans to evaluate noise compatibility consistent with the recommendations of the FAA Advisory Circular Number 150 5020 2, noise generated by new helicopter activities would not significantly affect existing or future noise-sensitive land uses within the Platinum Triangle. Summary As analyzed above, while noise-sensitive uses could be potentially placed in proximity to heliports and areas of helicopter activity, use of these heliports and occurrence of helicopter activity would be infrequent. As a result, noise impacts from heliport use and helicopter activity under the Proposed Project would be less than significant. 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise impacts occur when multiple sources of noise, though individually not substantial, combine and lead to excessive cumulative noise exposure at noise-sensitive uses. Construction Noise and Vibration Cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. Because the project would be constructed in phases and the proposed development phases may overlap with construction of adjacent developments, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts may occur. Therefore, construction associated with the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project would result in significant cumulative noise impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-36 • The Planning Center August 2010 Long-Term Operational Phase Activities Stationary Noise Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise generated by the project is limited to impacts to noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site. Stationary noise sources are confined to the immediate area of noise generation. As no significant stationary noise impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project were identified after the implementation of mitigation, and the City of Anaheim restricts stationary noise generated on a property from creating a nuisance to other noise-sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary source noise generation would result in less than significant noise impacts. Traffic Noise Cumulative development in the project area plus development of the Proposed Project would increase the ambient noise environment as a result of additional traffic on local roadways affected by the project (see Chapter 5.9, Transportation and Traffic). Table 5.5-8 describes the cumulative condition for the project and is based on full build-out of the City of Anaheim General Plan and other cumulative projects. The difference in traffic noise between the existing noise environment and build-out year 2030 conditions represents cumulative noise impacts and the project’s contribution to the cumulative noise increases. Project-related cumulative noise impacts may occur if the project results in substantial (3 dBA or more) cumulative noise increases when the ambient noise environment is above 65 dBA CNEL under the Proposed Project. Thus, where individual project-related impacts are identified in Impact 5.5-1, the project would also significantly contribute to cumulative traffic noise increases on local roadways for build-out year conditions. Table 5.5-9 shows the roadway segments where significant cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were identified (see bold). Based on the analysis above, significant traffic noise was identified at the following locations: • Anaheim Way o State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue • Cerritos Avenue o Anaheim Boulevard to Lewis Street o Lewis Street to State College Boulevard o State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street o Sunkist Street to Douglass Road • Collins Avenue o Eckhoff Street to Main Street o Main Street to Batavia Street • Disney Way o Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street • Douglass Street o Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue • Eckhoff Street o Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue • Gene Autry Way o I-5 Freeway to State College Boulevard • Haster Street o I-5 Freeway to Ball Road o Ball Road to Vermont Street ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-37 • Howell Avenue o State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street • Katella Avenue o Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way o Anaheim Way to Lewis Street • Lewis Street o Gene Autry Way to Katella Avenue o Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue o Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road • Main Street o Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue • Manchester Avenue o Compton Avenue to Orangewood Avenue o Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue o Katella Avenue to Anaheim Boulevard • Orangewood Avenue o State College Boulevard to Rampart Street o Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway • Phoenix Club Drive o Honda Center to Ball Road • Rampart Street o Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue • State College Boulevard o I-5 Freeway to Orangewood Avenue o Orangewood Avenue to Gene Autry Way • Struck Avenue o Katella Avenue to Main Street • Sunkist Street o Howell Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 5.5.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are incorporated into the California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California. • Community noise standards adopted by the City of Anaheim in the General Plan, Noise Element. • City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.20, Sound Pressure Levels: Stationary Noise Standards. • City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.20, Construction Noise • City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20.160, Compatibility Standards • FTA groundborne vibration and noise impact criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-38 • The Planning Center August 2010 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.5-2 and 5.5-8. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.5-1 Build-out of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial, permanent increase in ambient traffic noise levels within the vicinity of existing noise-sensitive receptors. • Impact 5.5-3 Noise-sensitive residential units proposed within the Platinum Triangle may be exposed to mobile- and stationary-source noise levels that exceed state and/or City standards. • Impact 5.5-4 Building façades that are exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would require architectural improvements to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level limits. • Impact 5.5-5 Construction of the Proposed Project would generate substantial levels of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise in the vicinity of vibration-sensitive land uses. • Impact 5.5-6 Implementation of the Proposed Project could expose vibration-sensitive receptors to substantial levels of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise in the vicinity of the Orange County Line. • Impact 5.5-7 Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels in the vicinity of existing noise-sensitive land uses during construction activities. 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.5-1 Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-1 Prior to approval of street improvement plans for any project-related roadway widening, the City shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to design project acoustical features that will limit traffic noise at noise sensitive uses to levels that are below the City’s noise ordinance. These treatments shall be noted on the street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and may include, but are not limited to, the replacement of windows and doors at existing residences with acoustically rated windows and doors. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-39 Impacts 5.5-3 and 5.5-4 Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the SEIR No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 5-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any project generating over 100 peak hour trips, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound- attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary sources industrial, commercial, stadium, etc.), and railroad, to meet City interior standards as follows: (5.7-2) a) The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential design will result in compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations). b) The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential design shall minimize nighttime awakening from stadium event noise and train horns such that interior single-event noise levels are below 81 dBA Lmax. The property owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project. Additional Mitigation 5-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding the potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during a stadium event will be provided to all future tenants in the Stadium District. 5-4 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during sounding of train horns will be provided to all future tenants facing an at-grade crossing of the Orange County Line. Impact 5.5-5 Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures from MMP No. 106A apply. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-40 • The Planning Center August 2010 Additional Mitigation 5-5 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, to reduce noise and vibration impacts from the impact pile driver, the construction contractor shall evaluate the feasibility of using auger cast piles or a similar system to drill holes to construct cast-in-place piles for a pile-supported transfer slab foundation system. This alternative construction method would reduce the duration necessary for use of the impact pile driver and/or eliminate the need to use pile drivers altogether. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the Planning Department in the form of a letter from the construction contractor. Impact 5.5-6 Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-6 Prior to approval of any Final Site Plan, if new vibration-sensitive land uses are located in close proximity to the Orange County Line, the project applicant shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rail line. If perceptible levels of vibration are detected, the acoustic analysis shall recommend site design features, such as setbacks and trenches, and/or required building improvements, such as harder building materials steel framing vs. wood framing), to eliminate the potential for train operations to result in perceptible levels of vibration that cause human annoyance to future project residents. The site design features shall be identified on the Final Site Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Impact 5.5-7 Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the SEIR No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers are shown in (italics). 5-7 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction- related noise: (5.7-1) a) Noise generated by construction shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries, before 7:00 AM and after 7:00 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.7, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. b) Limit the hours of operation of equipment that produces noise levels noticeably above general construction noise levels to the hours of 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. c) All internal combustion engines on all of the construction equipment shall be properly outfitted with well-maintained muffler systems. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.5-41 Additional Mitigation 5-8 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. 5-9 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to locate all stationary noise sources generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from occupied noise-sensitive receptors as is feasible. 5-10 Ongoing during construction activities, material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall also be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 6.70. 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.5-1 Mitigation Measure 5-1 will reduce impacts related traffic noise increases to the extent feasible. However, some areas may experience noise levels in exceedance of the City’s noise ordinance prior to implementation of roadway improvements and associated noise attenuation. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.5-3 Mitigation Measures 5-2 through 5-4 would reduce exterior noise levels at noise-sensitive exterior areas from roadway source noise, railroad noise, and from stadium events. However, the exterior noise environment may still exceed the goals for noise compatibility established by the City and would require evaluation of individual project compatibility with the exterior noise environment on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, Impact 5.5-3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.5-4 Mitigation Measures 5-2 through 5-4 would ensure that the interior environment of noise-sensitive residents would not be exposed to intrusive noise levels from roadway source noise, railroad noise, and stadium events. Therefore, with implementation of these mitigation measures, Impact 5.5-4 would be less than significant. Impact 5.5-5 Mitigation Measure 5-5 would reduce vibration impacts from pile driving, but would not eliminate vibration generated by heavy construction equipment operating within close proximity to existing or proposed units within the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, Impact 5.5-5 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.5-6 Mitigation Measure 5-6 would ensure that occupants of proposed structures within close proximity to the Orange County Line would not experience perceptible levels of vibration from rail activities. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, Impact 5.5-6 would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.5-42 • The Planning Center August 2010 Impact 5.5-7 Mitigation Measures 5-7 through 5-10 would reduce noise levels from construction activities to the extent feasible. Construction noise impacts would be temporary as they would only occur when construction activities are occurring and would cease by evening. However, due to the proximity of occupied units within the Platinum Triangle to construction activities and potential overlap in the construction schedule from individual development projects constructed within the Platinum Triangle, Impact 5.5-7 would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.6-1 5.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING This section examines the potential socioeconomic effects of the Proposed Project, including alteration in population, employment generation, and demand for housing, including housing within cost/rental ranges defined as “affordable.” The Proposed Project is reviewed in relationship to the regional housing and jobs policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the adopted General Plan for the City of Anaheim, with a particular emphasis on jobs/housing relationships in the general vicinity of the Proposed Project. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on these sources: • City of Anaheim General Plan, City of Anaheim, May 25, 2004 (and as amended thereafter). • Orange County Projections 2006, Center for Demographic Research, November 30, 2006. 5.6.1 Environmental Setting Local and Regional Planning Projections The project area’s demographics are best examined in the context of existing and projected population for the Orange County region and the City of Anaheim. Information on population, housing, and employment for the project area is available from several sources, as discussed below. Orange County Projections Orange County jurisdictions and public agencies develop demographic estimates and projections to provide a common foundation for regional and local planning, policymaking, and infrastructure provision. Orange County agencies have executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) to contract with the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, to develop and periodically update demographic projections for Orange County. OCCOG approved the most recent update to the Orange County Projections, OCP-2006, in November 2006. Table 5.6-1 provides a summary of the forecasts for population, housing, and employment for Orange County and the City of Anaheim between 2003 and 2035 that are included in the OCP-2006 projections. Orange County projections are updated every three to four years to incorporate general plan amendments and changes in land use policy at the jurisdiction level, as well as the effects of broader demographic and economic trends. Although OCP-2006 is based on the best available data, it cannot always predict economic fluctuations. As a result, near-term 2010 and 2015 projections overestimated growth and demographic changes because it did not account for the current economic downturn. OCP-2006 was approved in November 2006 by OCCOG, and is used as a reference point for discussing population, housing, and employment growth throughout this Draft EIR. Cal State Fullerton’s Center for Demographic Research has collected the latest information on land use and policy changes in each local jurisdiction since OCP-2004 was adopted in Mach 2004. This information was used to update population, housing, and employment projections based on land use plans and policies as of November 30, 2006, as well as land use adjustments that were expected in the immediate future. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.6-1 OCP-2006 Projections for Orange County and the City of Anaheim, 2003–2035 2003 2035 Change, 2003–2035 % Change, 2003–2035 Total Population Orange County 2,999,319 3,653,988 654,669 21.8% City of Anaheim 334,561 439,635 105,074 31.4% Total Dwelling Units Orange County 997,614 1,151,587 153,973 15.4% City of Anaheim 100,172 126,721 26,549 26.5% Total Employment Orange County 1,568,407 1,981,901 413,494 26.4% City of Anaheim 202,630 224,138 21,508 10.6% Source: CDR 2007. As shown in the above table, between 2003 and 2035 the population of the City of Anaheim is projected to increase by approximately 105,074 persons, or 31 percent of its 2003 population; the number of residential units is forecast to increase by approximately 26,549 units, or 27 percent of the unit count in 2003; and employment in the City is projected to increase by approximately 21,508 jobs, or 11 percent of 2003 employment. Population: Historic Trends, Existing Population, and Current Projections Orange County Population Population growth in Orange County has shown a diminishing but strong pace in recent decades. From 1980 to 1990, population increased by an annual average of 47,785, slowing to an average annual increase of 43,573 people during the 1990s. Orange County’s population was 2,846,289 as reported by the 2000 Census. Based on Orange County’s historical share of California’s and the region’s employment growth, migration and immigration trends, birth rates, and local general plans and zoning, OCP-2006 projects that this trend will continue at a diminished rate, with the County growing by an average of 20,458 people per year from 2003 to 2035. The total projected increase between 2003 and 2035 is 22 percent of the 2003 population. Population growth will be fueled in large part by natural increase. Births are expected to account for two-thirds of the County’s future population growth. City of Anaheim Population Growth in the City of Anaheim mirrors that of the County. Between 1990 and 2000, the City’s population grew by approximately 23 percent from 266,406 to 328,014 and the County population grew by approximately 18 percent from approximately 2.4 million to 2.8 million. Between 2000 and 2005, the City’s population increased by 4 percent and the County’s population increased by 8 percent. Based on the 2000 Census the population of Anaheim was 328,014. This is an increase of 23 percent over 1990’s population. The California Department of Finance estimates that the City’s population was 353,643 as of January, 2010. OCP-2006 forecasts that by 2035 the City’s population will increase to 439,635, about 24 percent (85,992 people) increase above its 2010 population. Thus, the City’s average population increase per year during this period is forecast to be about 3,400. Based on the probable dwelling unit allowance and General Plan population factors included in the City’s 2004 General Plan Update, inclusive of subsequent amendments, the City’s housing units were anticipated ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.6-3 to generate an estimated 410,515 residents at build-out. By comparison, OCP-2006, reflective of the subsequent amendments of the General Plan but utilizing different assumptions for persons per housing, anticipates a 2035 population of 439,635. Project Area Population The Platinum Triangle area of the City has historically been used for commercial, industrial, and recreational uses. The 2000 Census shows a population of only six persons within the Platinum Triangle boundary. Based on the City of Anaheim’s adopted population growth standard for the Platinum Triangle at 1.5 residents per unit, if all residential units were occupied, the current estimated population would be 2,365 people within the Platinum Triangle. Housing: Historic Trends, Existing Housing, and Current Projections Orange County Housing Housing-unit growth in Orange County has not matched the pace set by population growth. From 1990 to 2000, countywide households increased approximately 11 percent at an annual average rate of 9,441 units. According to the 2000 Census, Orange County had 969,484 households, with an average of 2.9 persons per household. A household refers to an occupied dwelling unit. Of the County housing stock, 61.5 percent are single-family units. The Census measured the April 2000 countywide vacancy rate at 3.5 percent. OCP-2006 projects that the County’s housing stock will increase by 153,973 units (15 percent) by 2035, an average rate of 4,812 dwelling units per year. Thus, the number of persons per household is projected to rise to accommodate a population that is growing faster than the housing stock. City of Anaheim Housing According to the DOF estimates, there were 103,242 housing units in the City as of January 1, 2010, an increase of 3,523 units or 3.5 percent increase from 2000. Table 5.6-2, compares the City’s housing stock by type and size for 2000 and 2010. As shown, the distribution by housing type essentially remained constant between these years: single-family detached or attached structures comprising the majority (approximately 51 percent) of the housing stock in Anaheim and about one-third of the housing stock consists of multifamily structures of more than five units. Table 5.6-2 Housing Units – City of Anaheim 2000 2010 Unit Type Number of Units Percent Number of Units Percent 1 unit detached 42,929 43% 43,733 42.4% 1 unit attached 8,923 8.9% 9,064 8.8% 2 to 4 units 10,393 10.4% 10,436 10.1% 5 + units 33,090 33.2% 35,624 34.5% Mobile homes, etc 4,384 4.4% 4,385 4.2% Total 99,719 100% 103,242 100% Source: California Department of Finance, Table E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2010 2000 Average Household Size = 3.34 2010 Average Household Size = 3.48 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 In 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 48 percent were owner occupied, 46.8 percent were renter occupied, and 5.2 percent were vacant. This vacancy rate is an improvement over the rate of 2.76 percent reported by the 2000 Census. A low vacancy rate is often correlated to households having difficulty finding housing for purchase within their price range; a high vacancy rate may indicate either the existence of a high number of desired units or simply an oversupply of units. The City’s vacancy rate closely mirrors the County’s vacancy rate of 5 percent OCP-2006 forecasts that the number of housing units in the City will increase to 11 percent of the County total by 2035. In the 32 years between 2003 and 2035, OCP-2006 projects a 27 percent increase in the number of housing units within Anaheim an increase of 26,520 units at an average of 830 units per year). The Platinum Triangle With the adoption of the comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update in May 2004, the City Council adopted a new vision for the Platinum Triangle, which included mixed-used and residential uses. The adopted General Plan allowed 9,175 housing units not previously accommodated in the land use plan and zoning for the area. A subsequent General Plan Amendment in 2005 increased the total allowable housing units within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500 and additional amendments in the Gene Autry District and the Gateway District in 2007 increased the adopted maximum allowed units to 10,266. Housing units permitted by the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Adopted MLUP) constitutes approximately 10 percent of the City’s total housing stock. Housing proposals and development within the project area is summarized in Table 5.6-3, Approved and Pending Housing Units. As shown, as of May 2010, 9,142 housing units are currently within some stage of proposal or development in the Katella, Gene Autry, and Gateway Districts of the Platinum Triangle: 1,577 units have been completed, 343 units are undergoing building construction; 6,445 units have been approved and are awaiting construction, and 777 units are pending approval. As such, approximately 89 percent of the total 10,266 permitted units have been allocated and only 1,124 units or 11 percent remain. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.6-5 Table 5.6-3 Approved and Pending Housing Units Project Name District Units Status (May 2010) 1 Stadium Lofts Katella 390 Completed 2 Park Viridian Katella 320 Completed 3 Stadium Club Condos Katella 284 196 units approved/not under construction 88 units pending approval 4 Stadium Park Apartments Katella 250 Approved/not under construction 5 1818 Platinum Triangle Katella 265 Completed 6 Platinum Vista Katella 327 Approved/not under construction 7 Platinum Gateway Katella 320 Approved/not under construction 8 Dwell @ Katella Katella 336 244 units approved/not under construction 92 units under construction 9 Avalon Anaheim Stadium Katella 251 Under Construction Katella 2,190 10 A-Town Metro Gene Autry 491 Approved, not under construction 11 Experience at Gene Autry Way Gene Autry 1,208 Approved/not under construction 12 Gateway Gateway 352* Completed 13 Anavia Gateway 250 Completed 14 A-Town Stadium Gateway 878 Approved/not under construction 15 Orangewood Condominiums Gateway 341 Approved/not under construction 16 Alexan Orangewood Gateway 689 Pending approval Total 9,142 Source: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, May 2010. Gateway – 884 total units, only 352 units are constructed within the City of Anaheim and the remaining 532 units are within the jurisdiction of the City of Orange. Employment: Historic Trends, Existing Employment, and Current Projections Orange County Employment OCP-2006 projects that the number of jobs will increase from approximately 1.57 million in 2003 to a little over 1.98 million in the year 2035. This represents an increase of 413,500 jobs. On an annual basis, it is projected that there will be an average increase of approximately 22,400 jobs per year up to the year 2015 and then an increase of just over 7,200 per year for the last 20 years of the current forecast. This latter expected activity is the result of the anticipation of a number of regional employment centers coming online during this time. Also, it is predicted that most of this employment growth will occur in the existing and currently planned employment centers. The 2008 unemployment rate was estimated to be 6.5 percent (EDD 2008). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 City of Anaheim Employment The City’s employment base ranges from small service-oriented businesses to large-scale industrial and research/development land uses. According to the 2000 Census, the City of Anaheim contained an employed civilian labor force (16 years and older) of 152,255. The largest occupational category is sales and office occupations, in which 28.3 percent of the workforce is employed, followed by management, professional and related occupations, in which 27.5 percent of the workforce is employed. The largest industry category is manufacturing (20.2 percent), followed by educational, health and social services (14.2 percent). Currently, Anaheim’s workforce comprises approximately 11 percent of the County’s workforce. OCP-2006 projects that employment within the City of Anaheim will grow from 202,630 jobs in 2003 to 224,138 jobs in 2035, for a total increase of 21,508 jobs representing 11 percent growth. This represents an annual growth rate of approximately 672 jobs or 0.34 percent. Project Area Employment The Platinum Triangle offers a wide range of industrial, manufacturing, entertainment and service industries, including home improvement suppliers, Angel Stadium, and Honda Center. As of November 2008, the City estimated the total commercial and office square footage in the Platinum Triangle to be 2,627,782 square feet. Based on an employment generation factor of 500 square foot per employee, total employment is estimated to be approximately 5,255 jobs. Jobs/Housing Ratio The jobs/housing ratio is a general measure of the balance between the number of jobs and number of housing units in a geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. Jobs/housing ratio is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. No ideal jobs/housing ratio has been adopted in state, regional, or city policies; any jobs/housing ratios are considered advisory only and fluctuate based on the types of jobs and populations in an area. Currently in the City of Anaheim and Orange County as a whole, there are more jobs than housing units. According to OCP-2006, the County provided 1.59 jobs per household. In the future, the County of Orange is expected to remain jobs-rich as a result of economic and demographic forces expected within the planning period. OCP-2006 projects the County’s jobs/housing ratio at 1.72 in 2035. Orange County and the City of Anaheim have exhibited similar historical growth trends, with both County and City housing growth lagging population and employment growth. OCP-2006 projects that Anaheim will outpace the County’s housing and employment growth rate between 2005 and 2035. Employment will continue to grow as Orange County captures a steady portion of the region’s growth due to its business and educational resources, and coastal location. However, according to OCP-2006, the jobs/housing ratio within the City is anticipated to decrease from 2.02 in 2003 to 1.77 in 2035. Related Planning Programs The following adopted projections, plans, and policies address the future of the project area and provide benchmarks for evaluating the potential population, housing, and employment impacts of the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.6-7 OCP-2006 Projections OCP-2006 growth projections present the most updated demographic projections for Orange County cities and unincorporated areas, for five-year intervals from 2005 through 2035. OCP-2006 is a consensus forecast that incorporates the latest land use, population, housing, and employment information provided by local jurisdictions and their general plans, public agencies, and service providers as of November 2006. OCP-2006 generally reflects the City of Anaheim General Plan at that time. OCP-2006 allows the Proposed Project’s potential impact on population, housing, and employment to be viewed in a county, subregional, and city context. This capability is particularly important when examining the project’s likely impact on the relationship between jobs and housing. OCCOG formally adopted OCP-2006 at the County and subregional, levels. For planning and modeling purposes, the projections have also been split into city, census tract and traffic analysis zone estimates with the assistance of the County and cities, as well as, State, Regional, and Local Plans and Policies While OCP-2006 provides one method of evaluating the Proposed Project’s socioeconomic impacts, state, regional, and local plans and policies provide guidance that should be considered and balanced with a purely quantitative comparison of the project to adopted OCP projections. Thus, the Proposed Project has also been evaluated in light of the following key state, regional, and local plans, policies, and requirements that address various aspects of future population, housing, and employment growth. Regional Housing Needs Assessment California housing law calls upon local jurisdictions to shoulder their fair share of very low, low, and moderate income housing. In implementing this law, HCD assigns housing targets to each jurisdiction’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), such as SCAG, which the MPO then allocates to its member jurisdictions, and ultimately each local jurisdiction. Each local jurisdiction’s General Plan Housing Element must address how its housing targets can be achieved during the specified time frame, given local demographics, land use, and zoning. State law requires local jurisdictions to submit Housing Elements for HCD review and approval. SCAG has prepared the final draft 2006 to 2014 allocation for the City of Anaheim along with all other jurisdictions in its six-county region. HCD approved SCAG’s submitted allocation in September 2007, which calls for Anaheim to build or identify opportunities for the development potential of 9,498 units by 2014, 57.5 percent of them very low, low or moderate income units. Regional Growth Management Policies: SCAG Compass Blueprint As discussed in Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning, SCAG is recognized by the state and federal governments as the regional planning agency for the six-county south coast region that includes Orange County. In 2004, SCAG adopted a voluntary regional growth strategy known as the Compass Blueprint. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint is an advisory or voluntary plan to accommodate population growth in the SCAG region by altering current growth trends in a small fraction of the region. The program promotes mixed-use development, better access to jobs, conservation of open space, public/private partnerships and user-fee infrastructure financing, improving the capacity and efficiency of movement of goods, reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving air quality, improving housing availability and affordability, renovating urban cores, and creating over 500,000 high paying jobs (SCAG 2007). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 The program was reflected in the 2004 regional growth forecast policies that attempted to reduce emissions and increase mobility through strategic land use changes. It is driven by four key principles: mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability, and emphasizes the following strategies for improving coordination between land use and transportation decision making: • Focus growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors • Create significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable communities • Target growth around existing and planned transit stations • Preserve existing open space and stable residential areas A portion of the Platinum Triangle has been designated by SCAG as a growth opportunity area. This area contains the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) that will be served by Amtrak, Metrolink commuter rail, and Orange County Transportation Authority bus services. In addition, potential high-speed rail service to San Francisco and Las Vegas, Nevada could be provided. The project is consistent with the overall Compass Blueprint in that it directs additional housing and mixed-use opportunities to the jobs-rich Orange County subregion. SB 375 Signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in September 2008, SB 375 requires reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts. Emissions reductions are anticipated through reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In essence, SB 375's goal is to control GHGs by curbing urban sprawl and through better land use planning. SB 375 essentially represents the land use component of the GHG reduction requirements of AB 32, California's heralded global warming bill enacted in 2006. SB 375 focuses on regional and subregional land use and transportation planning performed as part of the federally required regional transportation planning process already undertaken by MPO’s nationally. A "Sustainable Communities Strategy" (SCS) is to be included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by the MPO and is intended to achieve GHG reduction targets assigned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCS will describe a plan for reducing GHGs from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation and land use planning. If the SCS is unable to reduce GHGs to achieve CARB's assigned emissions target, the MPO is required to prepare an "Alternative Planning Strategy" (APS) which demonstrates how the MPO can achieve the CARB GHG targets. Under SB 375, CARB will establish a regional GHG reduction target for each of the State's 18 MPOs, including SCAG, to use as the baseline for development of the SCS. CARB is required to set GHG emissions reduction targets by September 30, 2010. The Proposed Project is consistent with the goals of SB 375. The City of Anaheim General Plan The City of Anaheim General Plan provides the latest information on growth and development within the City's corporate boundaries and Sphere of Influence. While OCP-2006 projects the distribution of population, housing, and employment growth between 2003 and 2035, the City’s General Plan focuses on the amount of growth at build-out. Consistency of the project with goals and policies outlined in the City’s General Plan is discussed in Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning, with the exception of the General Plan Housing Element, which is discussed in this section. Housing Element ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.6-9 The City of Anaheim’s Housing Element is a required component of the City’s General Plan that addresses the City’s provision of adequate housing opportunities for present and future Anaheim residents through 2014. The Housing Element provides the primary policy guidance for local decision-making related to housing. Housing Elements are the only general plan element that requires review and certification by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City of Anaheim Housing Element provides a detailed analysis of the city’s demographic, economic and housing characteristics as required by California Government Code Section 65583, et. seq. (“State Law”). It also provides a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s progress in implementing the past policy and action programs related to housing production, preservation and conservation. Based on the community’s existing housing needs, available resources, constraints and opportunities for housing production and preservation and past performance, the element identifies goals, objectives and action programs that address the housing needs of present and future residents. The 2006-2014 Housing Element of the City's General Plan provides a long-term blueprint for housing in the context of local and regional trends and housing production goals. It addresses new production targets set by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development to encourage each jurisdiction in the state to provide its fair share of very low, low, moderate, and upper income housing needed during 2006- 2014. These numerical housing production goals are known as Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets. Reflective of the RHNA targets, the Housing Element analyzes housing needs in the City’s demographic context; reviews potential market, governmental, and other constraints to meeting the City’s housing needs; evaluates the resources available to meet housing needs; and finally, establishes policies and objectives to make progress in meeting housing needs during the five-year period. The HCD found the City's Housing Element to be in compliance with State law in 2009 and the HCD’s approval letter is included in Appendix K of this document. The Anaheim City Council certified its Housing Element on August 11, 2009, incorporating the RHNA target and the Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan goals (discussed below). Anaheim’s Housing Element contains goals, objectives, and policies designed to meet its 2006-2014 RHNA targets as well as other housing needs in the City. Table 5.6-4 presents the City of Anaheim’s RHNA targets for each income level, with an overall housing production target of 9,498 new units. Table 5.6-4 City of Anaheim Regional Housing Needs Assessment Targets, 2006–2014 Household Income Category Target (units) Very Low Income1 1,971 Low Income2 1,618 Moderate Income3 1,874 Upper Income4 4,035 Total 9,498 Source: City of Anaheim 2007. 1 0–50 percent of County Area Median Family Income (AMI) 2 51–80 percent of AMI 3 81–120 percent of AMI 4 Greater than 120 percent of AMI ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan In August 2005 the City of Anaheim adopted the Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan), which established a goal of 1,200 new affordable family rental housing units to be developed in the City of Anaheim over a four-year period. This goal has been amended three times since its adoption – once in October 2006 to 1,328 units; in July 2008 to 1,338 units; and, again in August 2008 to 1,349 units. At the end of the four year period, the City identified 1,562 housing units in the pipe-line, exceeding the revised goal of 1,349 units. The Strategic Plan also requires the City to enhance zoning and building practices to develop additional affordable housing, including comprehensively amending the density bonus ordinance in 2006 to further encourage low and very low income housing development, exploring opportunities to convert or replace motel units with affordable rental units, and pursuing the creation and implementation of an affordable housing overlay zone to allow residential development when affordable units are included and on sites in areas of the city previously designated for non-residential uses or lower density residential uses. On October 13, 2009, the City Council approved an extension of the Strategic Plan though 2014. While the emphasis will continue to be on new rental construction, the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan will include homeownership; rental rehabilitation; and preservation of at-risk units. In anticipation of the State of California’s Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) payments, the Council approved the following alternative goals: The 2009-2014 Strategic Plan includes the following objectives: 1. Complete the 2005-2009 Strategic Plan construction goals. 2. Extend the Strategic Pan through 2014. 3. Alternative Production Goal 1 a. Establish a production goal of 1,550 units to be added to the 1,562 units currently in the pipe-line for a total of 3,112 units to be underway prior to 2014 in the following areas: i. New construction rental: 2,412 units. ii. Homeownership: 400 units. iii. Rehabilitation of existing structures and preservation of At-Risk units: 300 units. 4. Alternative Production Goal 2 (based on SERAF payment) a. Establish a production goal of 830 units to be added to the 1,562 units currently in the pipe- line for a total of 2,392 units to be underway prior to 2014 in the following areas: i. New construction rental: 2,112 units. ii. Homeownership: 220 units. iii. Rehabilitation of existing structures and preservation of At-Risk units: 60 units. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.6-11 Due to the SERAF payment, made on May 10, 2010, the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan will have a modified production goal of 2,392 units as outlined by Alternative Goal 2. Housing affordability is achieved if a household spends no more than 30% of its gross income on housing, including utilities. Household income is determined by household size based on the annual median income (AMI). The 2009 Orange County AMI for a family of four is $86,100. Based on the AMI, the income limits are as follows: $46,500 for very-low income; $74,400 for lower income; and $100,900 for moderate income (California Department of Housing and Community Development 2009). Therefore, a housing expense of $1,163 would be affordable for very low income households, $1,860 would be affordable for lower income households and $2,523 would be affordable for moderate income households. The income limits for household sizes other than four persons are calculated using the four-person income limit as the base. As shown in Table 5.6-5, the City has produced, or has selected developers to produce, a total of 956 affordable units, of which 746 units have been or are expected to be completed by 2010. In addition, the City has released a Request for Proposal for the South Street site for the development of approximately 93 units. The City is well underway in meeting its production goal of 2,392 housing units by 2014. Table 5.6-5 Affordable Housing Summary Project Name Very Low Low Moderate Total Affordable Total Market Grand Total Rental Projects: Project Completed The Vineyard 33 26 1 60 0 60 Monarch Pointe 50 12 1 63 0 63 CIM Projects (moderately priced) 0 0 277 277 0 277 Elm Street Commons 36 15 1 52 0 52 Broadway Village 34 11 1 46 0 46 Diamond Street 24 0 1 25 0 25 Sub Total 177 64 282 400 0 523 Rental Projects: Developer Selected/Under Construction Pradera Apartments (CHOC) 101 43 2 146 0 146 Greenleaf 16 3 1 20 0 20 Arbor View Apartments 34 11 1 46 0 46 Integrity House 48 0 1 49 0 49 Sub Total 199 57 5 261 0 261 Rental Projects: Project Underway – Signed Agreements Projects with Signed Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENA) or in Negotiations Cherry Orchard 35 9 1 45 Manchester & Orangewood 85 32 2 119 0 119 Sub Total 120 41 3 164 0 164 Rental Projects: New Construction – Agency-Owned Parcels South Street 54 54 1 93 0 93 Colony Park Apartments 50 50 300 400 0 400 Anaheim/Midway (Matrix) 38 33 1 72 0 72 CIM – Parcel C 0 0 80 80 0 80 Reel Lumber Site 15 15 1 31 0 31 Lemon/Santa Ana 10 9 1 20 0 20 Midway/Palm 7 6 1 14 0 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.6-5 Affordable Housing Summary Project Name Very Low Low Moderate Total Affordable Total Market Grand Total Sub Total 203 122 385 617 0 710 For-Sale Projects: Underway Colony Park I/II 1 42 33 76 194 270 Harbor Lofts 0 14 20 34 95 129 Sub Total 1 56 53 110 289 399 For-Sale Projects: Pending Colony Park III 0 46 0 46 136 182 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel B 0 0 13 13 39 52 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel C 0 9 0 9 27 36 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel F 0 2 0 2 12 14 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel G 0 1 0 1 8 9 212 S. Beach 0 0 0 0 36 36 Melrose/Santa Ana 0 4 0 4 0 4 2415 Manchester 0 3 5 8 13 21 Sub Total 1 65 18 83 271 354 Rental Rehabilitation Projects Colette’s Children’s Home 4 0 0 0 0 4 Casa Del Sol 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sub Total 8 0 0 0 0 8 Grand Total 709 405 746 1,635 560 2,419 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: P-1 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). P-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. P-3 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold P-2 • Threshold P-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.6-13 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.6-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN DIRECT POPULATION GROWTH DUE TO NEW HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PROJECT AREA. [THRESHOLD P-1] Impact Analysis: The Proposed Project would directly induce population growth through allowing additional residential development and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional non-residential development in the Platinum Triangle. As shown in 5.6-6, build-out of the Proposed Project is anticipated to add 12,965 residents and 26,860 employees in the project area, increasing the total Platinum Triangle population to 28,364 and employees to 41,500. The jobs/housing balance is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. Jobs/housing goals and ratios are advisory only and no ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies. As shown in Table 5.6-6, build-out of the Adopted MLUP would create 1.43 jobs per one housing unit produced, compared to 2.19 jobs created for one housing unit with the Proposed Project. However, this is a significant improvement over the existing jobs/housing ratio within the Platinum Triangle, which is 13.47. Table 5.6-6 Estimated Population, Housing, and Employment Generation for the Platinum Triangle Adopted Platinum Triangle MLUP Increase Proposed Project Housing 10,266 DU 15,399 population 8,643 DU 12,965 population 18,909 DU 28,364 population Office 5,055,550 sf 9,284,972 sf 14,340,522 sf Commercial 2,264,400 sf 2,645,282 sf 4,909,682 sf Institutional 0 14,640 employees 1,500,000 sf 26,860 employees 1,500,000 sf 41,500 employees Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.43 — 2.19 Notes As described previously in Section 5.6.1, the Platinum Triangle is currently developed with 1,577 units, and 2,627,782 square feet of commercial and office uses. Based on an employment generation factor of 500 square foot per employee, total employment is estimated to be approximately 5,255 jobs. Therefore, the current jobs/housing ratio within the Platinum Triangle is 3.3. Table 5.6-7 shows the growth forecast for the City and for the County without the Proposed Project. By build- out year 2035, the City is projected to grow by approximately 27 percent in housing, 31 percent in population, and 11 percent in employment. With strong growth in the number of households, the forecast shows the City becoming increasingly balanced with time from 2.02 jobs/housing ratio in 2003 to 1.77 by 2035. Unlike the City, the County is anticipated to become more jobs-rich as a whole, changing from 1.57 jobs/housing ratio in 2003 to 1.72 by 2035. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.6-7 2003–2035 Growth Forecast 2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Growth (2003– 2030) City of Anaheim Population 334,561 340,284 366,351 387,951 402,301 415,496 426,162 439,635 31.4% Employment 202,630 206,703 204,708 211,526 215,859 220,219 222,401 224,138 10.6% Housing Units 100,172 100,672 105,920 111,060 115,861 120,705 123,219 126,692 26.5% Jobs/Housing Ratio 2.02 2.05 1.93 1.90 1.86 1.82 1.80 1.77 — County of Orange Population 2,999,319 3,059,950 3,314,948 3,451,757 3,533,935 3,586,285 3,629,540 3,653,988 21.8% Employment 1,568,407 1,615,936 1,755,167 1,837,771 1,897,352 1,933,058 1,960,633 1,981,901 26.4% Housing 997,614 1,014,331 1,073,751 1,106,607 1,122,905 1,136,564 1,144,314 1,151,587 15.4% Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.57 1.59 1.63 1.66 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.72 — Source: Center for Demographic Research, Orange County Projections, 2006 Table 5.6-8 compares the existing build-out statistics to the adjusted build-out statistics for the City with the build-out of the Proposed Project. The most significant change is the increase in employment by 13 percent from 224,138 jobs without the project to 250,998 jobs with project condition. Creating more jobs than housing would result in an increased jobs/housing ratio: 1.76 without the project to 1.85 with the project in 2035. With or without the project, the City of Anaheim is anticipated to have a higher jobs/housing ratio compared to the County (1.71) and the southern California (1.33) area. However, the projected jobs/housing ratio for the City with the Proposed Project shows a decrease from the 2.02 ratio in 2003. Table 5.6-8 Projected Growth 2003 Projected 2035 Growth (2003–2035) Proposed Increase Adjusted 2035 Adjusted Growth (2003–2035) Difference Population 334,561 439,635 31.4% 12,965 452,600 35.3% 3.9% Employment 202,630 224,138 10.6% 26,860 250,998 23.9% 13.3% Housing Units 100,172 126,692 26.5% 8,643 135,335 35.1% 8.6% Jobs/Housing Ratio 2.02 1.77 — — 1.85 Sources: Center for Demographic Research, Orange County Projections, 2006 Build-out of the Proposed Project would result in a jobs/housing ratio that remains significantly more balanced compared to the existing conditions in the area. Providing a more balanced, mixed-use community within the Platinum Triangle will promote alternative transportation choices and is anticipated to reduce per- capita vehicle miles travelled. Regional Planning Policies The City certified its Housing Element in 2009. The additional housing units proposed for the Platinum Triangle would contribute toward the City’s effort to meet RHNA’s fair share allocation goal of 9,498 units by ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 5.6-15 2014. In addition, development of the Proposed Project will generate additional redevelopment funds which can be used by the City in the future to develop additional affordable housing opportunities. The Proposed Project would result in direct and indirect growth in the area and, at build-out, contribute towards a higher jobs/housing ratio for the City. Although a balanced jobs/housing growth is encouraged, SCAG also encourages job growth to be concentrated near transit services and transit nodes, and near existing freeways to facilitate existing and new residents’ use of transit to get to their places of employment. The Platinum Triangle, due to its unique location with two freeways and ARTIC in close proximity, lends itself as an ideal candidate for a high employment center. Build-out of the Proposed Project would increase the projected jobs/housing ratio in the City from 1.77 to 1.85. However, the Proposed Project would be consistent with regional growth management policies that facilitate future job growth at strategic points along the commuter rail, transit systems, and freeway corridors. Although build-out of the Proposed Project would increase the jobs/housing ratio numerically, the Proposed Project would be consistent with many of SCAG’s growth management policies. The policies aim to better coordinate infrastructure development with projected population, housing, and employment growth. 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts In addition to housing development previously approved for the Platinum Triangle, this project would accommodate an additional 8,643 additional housing units within the Platinum Triangle with an estimated population increase of 12,965. The adopted General Plan contains a population projection of 410,515 for the City at build-out. Implementation of the Proposed Project would increase the City’s General Plan built-out population to 423,480. The imbalance of job generation to housing permits in Orange County in the late 1990s and between 2000 and 2004 has contributed to a housing shortage and an increase in housing prices (Orange County 2006 Community Indicators). Cumulative development of the Platinum Triangle in accordance with the Adopted MLUP and Proposed Project would substantially increase both employment and housing opportunities within the Platinum Triangle and Orange County as a whole. Table 5.6-8 illustrates the adjusted 2035 statistics for the City with the Proposed Project. The largest increase is shown in employment, which is projected to increase by 13 percent. The projected number of jobs for the City would increase from 224,138 jobs without the project to 250,998 jobs with build-out of the Proposed Project. Creating more jobs in the already jobs rich city would result in an increased jobs/housing ratio. In 2035, it is projected that the City’s jobs/housing ratio would be 1.77 without the Proposed Project and 1.85 with build-out of the Proposed Project. With or without the project, the City of Anaheim is anticipated to have higher jobs/housing ratio compared to the County (1.72) and the southern California area (1.33). However, the projected jobs/housing ratio for the City with the Proposed Project is an improvement from the 2.02 ratio in 2003. As a result, cumulative population and housing impacts are not considered significant. 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions There are no existing regulations and standard conditions related to population and housing. 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impact 5.6-1 would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Page 5.6-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-1 5.7 PUBLIC SERVICES This section addresses public services including: Fire Protection, Police Protection, School, Library, and Child care Services. Public and private utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, and solid waste services and systems; are addressed in Section 5.10 and parks are addressed in Section 5.8. Recreation. 5.7.1 Fire Protection Services 5.7.1.1 Environmental Setting The City of Anaheim Fire Department (AFD) currently provides fire protection and emergency services to the project area. As shown in Table 5.7-1, there are 11 fire stations throughout the City plus one station in the Disneyland Resort. The AFD employs a total of 230 sworn officers and 60 support personnel and staffs 11 engine companies, 10 of which are designated paramedic companies, 5 truck companies; 1 contract paramedic company providing service to the Disneyland Resort; 1 hazardous-materials unit; 1 technical rescue unit; and 2 battalions. Fire stations are strategically located to ensure an efficient response to all risk hazards. Figure 5.7-1 displays the location of AFD’s existing and proposed fire stations. Response times for AFD require first engine response within 5 minutes to 90 percent of all incidents and 8 minutes to the remaining 10 percent. The Department requires a maximum of 10 minutes for truck company response to 100 percent of all incidents. Table 5.7-1 Fire Protection Facilities Station Station Location Equipment 1 Downtown Station #1 500 E. Broadway Street Paramedic engine truck & ambulance #1 2 Brookhurst Station #2 2141 W. Crescent Avenue Paramedic engine #2 & truck #2 3 Resort Station #3 1717 S. Clementine Paramedic engine #3 & truck ambulance #3 & USAR #3 4 West Anaheim Station #4 2736 W. Orange Avenue Paramedic engine #4 5 Kraemer Station #5 1154 N. Kraemer Boulevard Paramedic engine #5 6 Euclid Station #6 1330 S. Euclid Street Paramedic engine truck battalion & ambulance #6 7 Stadium Station #7 2222 E. Ball Road Paramedic engine #7 & ambulance #7 8 Riverdale Station #8 4555 E. Riverdale Paramedic engine battalion truck #8 & Hazmat #8 9 Anaheim Hills Station #9 6300 E. Nohl Ranch Road Paramedic engine #9 & ambulance #9 10 Weir Canyon Station #10 8270 E. Monte Vista Paramedic engine #10 11 Twila Reid Station #11 3078 W. Orange Paramedic engine #11 AFD has a plan to construct three new fire stations serving the project area. The first station, the Battalion Headquarters Station (approximately 14,000 square feet), is going to be located along Santa Cruz Street north of Orangewood Avenue and would be comprised of three companies, an ambulance and a company officer facility. The second station would be located in the north central area of the Platinum Triangle (staff is in the process of exploring potential locations). That station would be 8,000 square feet in size and would house one company. Fees for the fire facilities are currently being collected in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 17.36 and as a part of the Development Agreements entered into between the City and each of the developers of the Platinum Triangle mixed- use projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 In addition to fire protection services, AFD provides emergency rescue and medical services to Anaheim residents and visitors. The majority of calls placed to AFD are requests for medical aid. AFD maintains a Paramedic Membership Program, which guarantees that participants pay no out-of-pocket expenses for emergency medical services provided by the Fire Department. The program also covers the uninsured portion of the emergency medical service bill. The City of Anaheim is also part of a regional coordinating system with other firefighting agencies. Fire units are dispatched through the Metro Cities Fire Authority. The Metro Cities Fire Communications Center currently serves the people of seven cities: Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Orange. The communication center, commonly referred to as Metro Net, is located in the City of Anaheim and dispatches fire and medical services for more than 1.2 million people residing in 188 square miles within Orange County. AFD manages the day-to-day operations of the communication center. AFD also has a code enforcement division named the Fire Prevention Bureau, which consists of two operational sections: the Hazardous Materials Section (HMS) and the Life Safety Section (LSS). The HMS administers and implements a comprehensive hazardous materials management program within the City of Anaheim as a Certified Unified Program Agency authorized by the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since July 1, 2001. Program elements include Above Ground Petroleum Storage Tanks, California Accidental Release Response Plans (Hazardous Materials Business Plans), Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Treatment and Underground Storage Tanks. The HMS also administers the countywide hazardous materials response team joint powers agreement under the Orange County-City Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Authority and implements the Small Hydrocarbon Acquisition and Recovery Program. The LSS of the Fire Preventions Bureau provides services to the community such as fire safety inspections; annual fire code permits; plan reviews for new construction and fire protection systems. The LSS also coordinates the Knox program, the private hydrant testing program and responds to citizen complaints. Other activities include providing advanced planning reviews and consultations for major projects and establishing mitigation measures for EIRs; coordinating the citywide Weed Abatement program and Hazard Reduction inspections for the Wildland Urban Interface area of the city designated as the Special Protection Area. In April 2005, the Anaheim Fire and Police Departments prepared the Public Safety Services Master Facilities and Development Fee Calculation and Nexus Report to study the needs to serve the growing and expanded development in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The purpose of establishing the new Public Safety Impact Fees is to finance improvements and additions to facilities and equipment to support fire suppression and emergency and law enforcement and crime prevention services made necessary by new development within the PTMU Overlay Zone. Table 5.7-2 indicates the Public Safety Impact Fees that apply to the PTMU Overlay as of June 20, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis The Planning Center • Figure 5.7-1 Fire and Police Facilities SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim General Plan The Platinum Triangle Boundary Project Area Proposed Fire Stations Fire Station FS1. Downtown FS2. Anaheim Resort FS7. Stadium FS-D Disney Planned Fire Station Expansion Relocation North Net Fire Training Center Metro Cities Fire Communications Center Proposed Fire Stations P1. Central P3. South South Central Police Districts Police Facility The Platinum Triangle Boundary City Boundary Sphere-of-Influence 0 3,100 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-5 Table 5.7-2 Public Safety Impact Fees for Fire and Safety The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone Dwelling Fee* Per Detached $2,493 Unit Attached $1,321 Unit Mobile Home (Parks) $2,493 Unit Commercial Lodging $891 Unit Commercial/Office KSF $1.44 Square foot City Entertainment Group N/A N/A Private Amusement Area $5.563 Square foot Industrial / Manufacturing $0.199 Square foot * Resolution No. 2006-149, Chapter 17.36, City of Anaheim: Public Safety Facilities and Vehicle and Equipment Impact Fees for new and expanded development in the PTMU Overlay Zone. This is the required fee as of June 20, 2006. The actual fee will be the fee in effect at the time building permits are issued for the Proposed Project. 5.7.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: FP-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions 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 fire protection services. 5.7.1.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.7-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FIRE FACILITIES TO SERVE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. [THRESHOLD FP-1] Impact Analysis: Additional population, density and usage generated by the Proposed Project would increase the demand for emergency medical services, ambulance transportation, and rescue operations for the City. Standard response times for the first engine are within five minutes to 90 percent of all incidents and 8 minutes to the remaining 10 percent. AFD also requires a maximum of ten minutes for truck company response to 100 percent of all incidents. The Proposed Project would delay AFD’s response times for first engine response and increase demand for other operational sections of the AFD. Therefore, additional fire facilities, including new building construction and related infrastructure and staffing would be necessary to provide adequate fire protection services. As described in project description, three fire stations, first station (Battalion Headquarters Station) on Santa Cruz Street, second station in the north central area of the Platinum Triangle, and third station in an undetermined location, are anticipated by the project. However, the exact locations and the estimated timeframe for construction of the second and third stations have not been determined and would be dependent upon the level of development completed within the project area. Development of new fire stations would be required to ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 comply with the standard environmental review process at the time of development and is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse physical impact. It is anticipated that the overall increase in property tax revenue from the Proposed Project would be used to cover the additional staffing needs. The Public Safety Impact Fee will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for the Proposed Project to provide for construction of new fire facilities. Provided that all buildings are equipped with fire sprinklers and appropriate fire facilities fees are paid, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse fire impact. An amendment to the fee is required to provide for the full purchase price of the land, construction and equipment costs associated with the two planned fire stations plus the additional station needed to serve the Proposed Project. Fire flow requirements for the Proposed Project will be determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code at the time building construction plans are submitted for permit. Therefore, while specific fire flow requirements cannot be determined at this time, maximum fire flow is anticipated to be 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to the project site. 5.7.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project will substantially affect the fire departments’ ability to serve the Platinum Triangle if additional facilities, vehicles and equipment are not provided. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Impact Fee would provide for the two planned fire stations and associated equipment plus the additional station and equipment needed to serve the Proposed Project. This will ensure that as the Platinum Triangle is developed, adequate fire and emergency/medical services will be provided. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are expected to occur related to fire and emergency/ medical services. 5.7.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • For new construction projects, the Anaheim Fire Department provides both building inspections and fire protection systems inspections. The Fire Department’s Life Safety Section conducts final inspections for all building permits within the City, except those for block walls, patios, and signs. All new developments are constructed to meet the requirements of the State Fire Marshal, such as building standards relating to fire, published in the latest California Building Standards Code and the California Fire Code. These standards include safe access in an emergency and location and placement of fire protection services and systems, including water supply, guidelines for the use and storage of combustible materials, and building construction for fire safety. These Standards also include compliance and monitoring inspections. • Resolution No. 2006-149, Chapter 17.36, City of Anaheim. Public Safety Facilities and Vehicle and Equipment Impact fees for new and expanded development in the PTMU Overlay Zone Projects that develop within the PTMU Overlay Zone are required to pay a fire facilities fee. The current fees are detailed in Table 5.7-2. This fee is proposed to be updated in connection with the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-7 5.7.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.7-1 The Proposed Project would require additional facilities and staff to serve the project development. 5.7.1.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-1 Applicable Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-1 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, plans Plans shall indicate that all buildings shall have fire sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed by the property owner/developer prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection. (5.9-1) Additional Mitigation 7-2 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for fire facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36. 5.7.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Upon implementation of the mitigation measures, existing regulations and standard conditions, potential impacts associated with fire protection would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to fire protection remain. 5.7.2 Police Protection 5.7.2.1 Environmental Setting Law enforcement and crime prevention services are provided by the Anaheim Police Department (APD). Police services provided include patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist oriented policing, and detention facilities. The City of Anaheim is divided into four districts and one police heliport as shown in Table 5.7-3. The four districts are subdivided into six areas and are used in assigning patrol officers and determining which officers are dispatched for calls for service. The four police districts also serve as the geographic base for the Anaheim Neighborhood Improvement Program. This program, dedicated to improving the livability of Anaheim’s neighborhoods, targets neighborhoods that are already deteriorated or are showing signs of deteriorating, and seeks improvement through comprehensive interdepartmental projects and integrated public participation. Additional programs offered by APD include the Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 Police Activities League, which provides recreational and educational opportunities to the young people of Anaheim; the Tourist Victim Program, which provides assistance to tourists who have been the victim of a crime; and the Anaheim Ambassador Program, which provides assistance to tourists and visitors in The Anaheim Resort. Through its Crime Prevention Specialists, APD offers crime prevention assistance, as well as coordinating the Neighborhood Watch Program. Furthermore, crime prevention recommendations are provided for all major residential, commercial, and industrial construction projects. Table 5.7-3 Police Protection Facilities Station Station Location Distance from Project Area Main Station 425 S. Harbor Boulevard 3.5 miles South Station 1520 S. Disneyland Drive 3.6 miles West Station 320 S. Beach Boulevard 9.8 miles East Station 8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road 12.6 miles Police Heliport 4011 W. Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton1 7.8 miles 1 Temporary facility at the Fullerton Municipal Airport APD is currently authorized for 400 sworn officers and the ratio of sworn police officers is approximately 0.91 officers per 1,000 population. As of July 1, 2010, authorized sworn police officers will be reduced to 370. Response times for the specific project area are not available. However, APD has the following method for calls. • Priority One- (Units dispatched immediately) If all units are busy, need for units to clear for Emergency call will be broadcast. If no units clear, nearest unit from another area will be dispatched • Priority Two- (Units sent immediately, if available) The goal is to send the beat units so he/she is aware of the problems in their assigned area. If the area unit is not available, the nearest unit will be dispatched. If no units clear after 5 minutes, the need to clear will again be dispatched. If call is violent and text indicates imminent threat of injury, and no units clear after second broadcast, nearest unit will be dispatched. • Priority Three- Calls may be held by dispatch up to 15 minutes. If after 15 minutes and there are no units available, the dispatcher will send the closest available unit. • Priority Four- Calls may be held up to 1 hour. • Priority Five- Calls may be held up to 2 hours Locations of police facilities are shown on Figure 5.7-1. 5.7.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: PP-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-9 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. 5.7.2.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.7-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN POLICE FACILITIES AND STAFFING NEEDS. [THRESHOLD PP-1] Impact Analysis: The Proposed Project will add to the number of service calls received and to the number of patrols and staff necessary to service the area. According to APD, Proposed Project will result in an annual increase of 36,216 calls for service. This will require an additional 108.5 Officers, 56.7 full- time and 25.9 part-time civilian support personnel. This increased staff will require an additional 43,189 square feet of office space, 48 vehicles and $554,218 for assigned equipment. In April 2005, the Fire and Police Departments prepared the Public Safety Services Master Facility Plan and Development Fee Calculation and Nexus Report to study the needs of the Fire and Police Departments to serve the growing and expanded development in the PTMU Overlay Zone. The purpose of establishing new Public Safety Impact Fees is to finance improvements and additions to facilities and equipment to support fire suppression and emergency and law enforcement and crime prevention services made necessary by new development and the expansion of and additions to existing develop- ment within the PTMU Overlay Zone (Resolution 2006-149). As of June 20, 2006, the Public Safety Impact Fees that apply to the PTMU Overlay Zone are shown in Table 5.7-4. Table 5.7-4 Public Safety Impact Fees for Police The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone Dwelling Fee* Per Detached $747 Unit Attached $623 Unit Mobile Home (Parks) $385 Unit Commercial Lodging $726 Unit Commercial/Office KSF $0.839 Square foot City Entertainment Group N/A N/A Private Amusement Area $0.263 Square foot Industrial / Manufacturing $0.106 Square foot * Resolution No. 2006-149, Chapter 17.36, City of Anaheim: Public Safety Facilities and Vehicle and Equipment Impact Fees for new and expanded development in the PTMU Overlay Zone. This is the required fee as of June 20, 2006. The actual fee will be the fee in effect at the time building permits are issued for the Proposed Project. It is anticipated that the overall increase in property tax revenue from the Proposed Project would be used to cover the additional staffing needs. The Public Safety Impact Fee will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for the Proposed Project and levied fees would be used to provide for construction of new police facilities and procurement of necessary equipments. In addition, development within the Platinum Triangle would apply the principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) as described in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines, prepared by APD. CPTED guidelines include topics such as security measures, addressing, signage, doors, windows, rooftops and openings, lighting, landscaping, line of sight/natural ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 surveillance, stairways/elevators, parking lot/structures, fencing/barriers, and access control. APU would evaluate a project based on CPTED concepts to help reduce criminal opportunity. Implementation of CPTED concepts would relieve some of the police protection challenges. 5.7.2.4 Cumulative Impacts Table 5.7-5 shows the total Cumulative Impacts created by the Adopted General Plan and the Proposed Project. The purpose of establishing Public Safety Fees is to finance the facilities and equipment needs associated with new development such as in the Platinum Triangle. Payment of required impacts fees to compensate for the above cumulative impacts will reduce impacts of police protection services relative to facilities and equipment to less than significant. The Proposed Project and associated regulatory requirements and mitigation measures have been designed to ensure that as the area is developed, adequate police protection services will be provided. Each year, in conjunction with the city’s annual budget process, the Police Department will submit an analysis of service delivery levels citywide compared to existing and projected development in the area. This information will be used to determine the necessary level of police department staffing. Through this process, the Police Department’s needs will be assessed and budget allocations revised accordingly to ensure that adequate levels of police service are maintained throughout the City. There are no long lasting adverse physical impacts associated with providing adequate police service to the project site. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are expected to occur related to police protection facilities. Table 5.7-5 Police Staffing Needs for the Platinum Triangle Adopted General Plan Additional Demand Total Proposed Project Officers 44.6 53.5 98.1 Full-time civilian personnel 23.2 27.8 51 Part-time civilian personnel 8.9 10.7 19.6 Facility space (sq. ft.) 17,754 21,297 39,051 Vehicles 40 48 88 Funds for Assigned Equipment $227,817 $273,278 $501,095 5.7.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • Resolution No. 2006-149, Chapter 17. 36, City of Anaheim. Public Safety Facilities and Vehicle and Equipment Impact Fees, requires future projects within the PTMU Overlay Zone to comply with the applicable provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code relevant to crime prevention and police services. Projects that develop within the PTMU Overlay Zone are required to pay police facilities fee. The current fee is detailed in Table 5.7-3. This fee is proposed to be updated in connection with the Proposed Project. 5.7.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.7-2 The Proposed Project would require an increase in police facilities and staffing to meet the projected build-out demands. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-11 5.7.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-2 Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the SEIR No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-3 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including implementation of Ordinance 6016 and the concept of crime prevention through environmental design building design, circulation, site planning and lighting of parking structure and parking areas). Rooftop addresses shall be provided for all parking structures (for the police helicopter). Minimum size for numbers shall be four feet in height and two feet in width. The lines for the numbers shall be 6 inches thick and spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. All numbers shall have a contrasting color to the parking structure and shall face the street to which the structure is addressed. (5.9-2) 7-4 Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit for a parking structure, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Anaheim Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final Building and Zoning inspections. (5.9-3) 7-5 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the The property owner/developer shall submit design plans that shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Anaheim Police Department. (5.9-4) 7-6 Ongoing during project operation, if If the Anaheim Police Department of Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services. (5.9-5) Additional Mitigation 7-7 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for police facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 5.7.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Upon implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and compliance with the existing regulations and standard conditions, potential project impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to police protection remain. 5.7.3 School Services 5.7.3.1 Environmental Setting The project site is within the boundaries of the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) and the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). The project site is currently within the attendance boundaries of Paul Revere Elementary School, South Junior High School, and Katella High School. Anaheim City School District As shown in Figure 5.7-2, ACSD operates 24 elementary schools within the City of Anaheim, the largest elementary district in Orange County. Although there has been decline in enrollment, many schools in ACSD operate at over capacity. In 2008–09 school year, ACSD served approximately 19,263 students, where approximately 5,000 of these seats were in portable classrooms. Portable classrooms are designed to provide interim housing and do not represent a good long-term solution because the portable life cycles are typically not as long as permanent buildings. Furthermore, portable buildings take up playground space in overcrowded areas. Without the portable classrooms, ACSD has a facility capacity of 14,855 seats. Anaheim Union High School District The AUHSD operates eight high schools, eight junior high schools, seven alternative schools, and adult education programs within the City of Anaheim. The AUHSD covers approximately 46 square miles, including the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, Garden Grove, La Palma, Orange and Stanton. The AUHSD student enrollment in the 2008–09 school year increased to 33,719 students from 33, 343 in 2007–08. South Junior High School’s enrollment decreased from 1,579 pupils in 2008–09 to 1,487 and Katella High School’s enrollment increased from 2,511 to 2,749 pupils. Both schools are operating beyond their existing capacities and are severely overcrowded. Figure 5.7-3 shows the nearby school locations for the AUHSD. 5.7.3.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on he environment if the project would: SS-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions 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 school services. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis The Planning Center • Figure 5.7-2 ACSD School Locations SEIR No. 339 Source: Anaheim City School District 57 PROPOSED PONDEROSA SITE The Platinum Triangle 5 0 3,600 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis The Planning Center • Figure 5.7-3 AUHSD School Locations & Libraries SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim General Plan South Junior High School Katella High School The Platinum Triangle Boundary The Platinum Triangle 0 1.5 Scale (Miles) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-17 5.7.3.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.7-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE NEW STUDENTS AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SCHOOL FACILITIES IN THE AREA. [THRESHOLD SS-1] Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate new students within the ACSD and AUHSD boundaries and necessitate the need for new school facilities. The project site is located with in the general attendance area of Paul Revere Elementary School, South Junior High School, and Katella High School. Table 5.7-6 shows the anticipated number of additional students generated by the Proposed Project. At build out, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate additional 3,119 elementary school students, 899 middle school students, and 1,549 high school students. These students are in addition to the demand created by the adopted 10,266 dwelling units. Table 5.7-6 ACSD & AUHSD Student Generation Rates Proposed Additional Dwelling Units Type Generation Rates Additional Students Adopted GP (10,266 DU) Platinum Triangle Elementary 0.3609 3,119 3,704 6,823 Jr. High 0.1040 899 1,068 1,967 8,643 DU High 0.1790 1,549 1,838 3,387 Total 0.7479 6,464 7,677 12,177 However, it should be noted that the generation factors used above are based on the number of students expected to be generated from the traditional housing types in the City such as single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family, and mobile homes development, and therefore may not accurately reflect the probable number of students that would be generated by the type of housing to be offered by the Proposed Project. The type of high-density urban housing projects tends to generate fewer students for a number of reasons, including: the majority of homes are one- and two-bedroom units; the sizes of the units are generally smaller than the typical single-family detached homes with an equivalent number of bedrooms; and there are other housing types in the area that are similar in cost but are more family-oriented, providing better choices for families with children. For instance, the ACSD, through its demographic consultant conducted a survey of the current student generation rates for residential projects in Southern California that might be similar to the type of residential development that may occur in the Platinum Triangle in terms of cost, scale, first occupancy, and unit structure. The elementary school (K–6) student generation rate based on this study is 0.011, which would result in an additional 95 students. Although such data is very new and its validity not verified, it still emphasizes the point that the Platinum Triangle would generate fewer students than the number of students expected to be generated from the traditional housing types. The ACSD considers this number an absolute minimum of students which may be generated by the Proposed Project and is planning for a far greater number of students. Currently, there are no elementary schools in the limits of the Platinum Triangle; therefore, students from the Platinum Triangle would be sent to the school with available capacity. Prior to opening of a school within the Platinum Triangle, the District would have to bus all students generated from the Platinum Triangle to other District sites, therefore create the need for additional buses and supporting services. Development and operation of a new school would require a separate CEQA review and approval by the California Department of Education for impacts to students and the environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 Similar to the elementary school student generation rate, student generation rates for middle school and high school students are also expected to be lower than the traditional generation rates. South Junior High and Katella High Schools are currently overcrowded and would not be able provide adequate school services to the project. Therefore, in order to mitigate the school-related impacts, the developer is required to pay school impact fees levied by ACSD and AUHSD. ACSD’s Fee Justification Report for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development (Report) set forth the school impact fees to $2.97 per residential square foot and $0.47 per commercial/industrial square foot. This funding program, established by Senate Bill 50 (Government Code [GC] Section 65995 as amended) (SB 50), has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school facilities (GC 65995(h)). The SB 50 establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. ACSD and AUHSD qualify for imposing the level one fee, where this amount is typically allocated 50 percent to AUHSD and 50 percent to ACSD. SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to demand mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code 17620. Although the increased demand for school facilities would result in substantial impact, payment of impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the AUHSD, in compliance with SB 50, would reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. 5.7.3.4 Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project will increase the demand on school facilities, staffing, and bus transportation capability. The project area is already approved for development of 10,266 units and development of additional 8,643 units for the Proposed Project would cumulatively impact the school districts’ ability to provide adequate educational services. However, compliance with the fee program established by SB 50 would ensure that adequate mitigation is provided. The program under SB 50 has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The fees authorized for collection under District’s Fee Justification Report for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development (Report), where the actual fee will be the fee in effect at the time building permits are issued for the Proposed Project, therefore are conclusively deemed full and adequate mitigation of impacts on the AUHSD and ACSD. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are expected to occur to school services. 5.7.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) (SB 50). SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability require on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code 17620. It establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. Level one is the general school facilities fees imposed in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 as amended. Level two and three fees are alternate fees that are intended to represent 50 percent or 100 percent of a school district’s school facility construction costs per new residential construction as authorized by GC Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7. As described in the impact analysis, SB 50 establishes a current level one fee of $2.97 per square foot for residential development and $0.47 per square foot for commercial/industrial projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-19 5.7.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.7-3 The Proposed Project will create additional school services needs in the project area. 5.7.3.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-3 Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-8 Ongoing, theThe City of Anaheim will work cooperatively with school districts to identify opportunities for school facilities sites for new schools and school expansions in the Platinum Triangle. (5.9-6) Additional Mitigation 7-9 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the school impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Anaheim Union High School District and Anaheim City School District in compliance with Senate Bill 50 (Government Code [GC] Section 65995 as amended). 5.7.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Upon implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and compliance with the existing regulations and standard conditions, potential project impacts to schools would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. 5.7.4 Other Public Facilities 5.7.4.1 Environmental Setting Library The Anaheim Public Library system consists of a central library, five branches, and two bookmobiles. The library system provides a total of 139,000 square feet of library space in various sized facilities throughout Anaheim to serve 345,556 citizens. The closest physical library facility to the Proposed Project is the Sunkist Branch Library at 901 South Sunkist Avenue. The Sunkist Branch Library is a 10,000-square-foot facility built in 1976. It provides library services six days a week to a local population of 47,530 residents. Additionally, a joint use library facility with the Anaheim City School District at 2135 S. Mountain View Avenue is in construction phase. This library will function as a school library during the day and a public library during evenings and weekends. The population in the project area is also served ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-20 • The Planning Center August 2010 by virtual Anaheim Library services through the network at the Central Library at 500 West Broadway. These services include Internet-based library catalog, book reserves, and full text printable/downloadable databases including Business and Company Resource Center, health and wellness resources, magazines, local and national newspapers, and practice tests for school, jobs, and the military. Live on-line reference service from a librarian is available from the library’s website 24/7. The Sunkist Branch Library has seating for 106 patrons, including seating for 16 public access computer workstations. The facility currently provides good library services but is undersized to meet library service indicators in comparison to the National Library Norms (HALPR’s Index). Table 5.7-7 shows the existing library services at Sunkist Branch compared to the National Library norms. Table 5.7-7 Library Service Indicator Factor National Library Norms (HALPR’s index) Anaheim Library System (Sunkist Branch) Square Feet per capita 0.3–0.5 square feet 0.2 square feet Volumes per square feet owned per capita 4.0–6.2 volumes 4.5 volumes Circulation per capita 4.5 4.04 Electronic Resource Use per capita 0.9 1.1 Information Assistance per capita 1.1 0.79 Figure 5.7-3, AUHSD School Locations & Libraries, shows the nearby locations of Anaheim’s libraries. On-line catalogs and databases are available at each library location and are also accessible to library patrons via the Internet. The Central Library is the largest library in the system and contains the most comprehensive collections of fiction and nonfiction books. It also maintains collections in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean. An extensive calendar of programs, tours, and other activities for library patrons, particularly for children, is available year-round. Day Care Center Day care centers and child care centers in the City of Anaheim are privately owned and operated and are located throughout the City. Three day care centers are located within or in close proximity to the Platinum Triangle including: 1) Tara Hill Montessori School located at 2130 W. Crescent Ave, Anaheim; 2) Childtime Learning Center located at 1000 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim; and, 3) Kinder Care Learning Center located at 2515 East South Street, Anaheim. 5.7.4.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on he environment if the project would: OS-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govern- mental 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 other public facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-21 5.7.4.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.7-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE SERVICE NEEDS FOR LOCAL LIBRARIES. [THRESHOLD OS-1] Impact Analysis: The increase in population due to the Proposed Project will increase demand for library collections, staff, space, and services from this area of Anaheim. The quality and adequacy of library services are measured on a per capita basis. A growth in population reduces the overall availability, per capita, of books, media, computers, and space. Factors determining the service levels of a public library include: total population; children – not school age; student population; language of households; income level of households; and educational level of households. Based on the Public Library Facilities Plan for the East Santa Ana Canyon (East Anaheim), the general schedule for development of public library facilities was as follows: the Library Division will begin expending funds to accumulate books, educational resources, and computers when the population in the Area of Benefit reaches 15,000 and an architect will be hired and the building process will begin when the population in the Area of Benefit reaches 23,000. Implementation of the Proposed Project will require building of physical space for library services. The projected demographics for the new residential population in the Platinum Triangle area indicate a computer literate user base who will most likely utilize remote/virtual resources and delivery/pickup of physical collection items. These electronic resources are impacted by population growth, as licensing fees, are generally linked to the population of the library’s service area. Increases in population increase the licensing costs of electronic resources and reduce the per capita availability of virtual as well as physical collections, computers, programs, and space. To maintain current per capita levels and licensing agreements, additional physical and virtual resources need to be added to the Anaheim library system. Therefore, additional funds to support increased demand for library services are required to maintain the current level of community support. Initially, service will be provided by the Sunkist Branch Library, which will require additional materials and computers. As the population intensifies and usage expands, space in the immediate area will be identified for focused service to the residents. Developer fees are assessed to allow a community to establish a financing mechanism to help to offset the increased service needs that occur when new housing units are built. The Anaheim City Council approved a developer fee for new residential units for the Platinum Triangle in November 2004. However, the current library service impact fees pursuant to the Standardized Development Agreement do not include the cost for land acquisition and/or construction, and it does not differentiate between dwelling types. An updated fee will be added to the Standardized Development Agreement. This fee is anticipated to be reviewed annually and adjustments will be made based upon the inflation/deflation costs for library construction, land, library materials, and computers. Provided that appropriate library impact fees are assessed to fund the added library facilities, the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. IMPACT 5.7-5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE SERVICE NEEDS FOR LOCAL DAY CARE FACILITIES. [THRESHOLD OS-1] Impact Analysis: As described above, three day care centers are located within or in close proximity to the Platinum Triangle including: 1) Tara Hill Montessori School located at 2130 W. Crescent Ave, Anaheim; 2) Childtime Learning Center located at 1000 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim; and, 3) Kinder Care Learning Center located at 2515 East South Street, Anaheim. The increase in population due to the Proposed Project will increase demand for day care centers and child care facilities in the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-22 • The Planning Center August 2010 project area. Day care and child care facilities are privately owned and operated in the City of Anaheim. No specific areas have been designated for such uses in the City. However, these facilities are considered non-residential classes of uses and are a permitted primary use in the PTMU Overlay Zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. Day care use also has GF (ground floor) designation, therefore is considered ground floor commercial for the PTMU Overlay Zone. Provision of day care facilities is not required by the MLUP and no such requirements or standards exist in the City, including the Platinum Triangle. However, as with the rest of the City, permitting the uses in the PTMU Overlay Zone as primary and accessory uses would allow development of day care centers where necessary to serve the Platinum Triangle residents. Therefore, the Platinum Triangle would not result in any adverse impact to local day care facilities and there are no long lasting adverse physical impacts associated with providing adequate day care services to the project area. 5.7.4.4 Cumulative Impacts Increased development intensity would result in added services demand in the current library system. However, provision of added materials and facilities would alleviate the increased pressure placed on the City’s library system. The existing development agreement and payment of developer fees would allow the City to provide necessary library resources. No significant cumulative impacts are expected to occur related to library services. Increased development intensity would create the need for quality day care and child care services for working families. Day care/child care centers are privately owned and operated and no fees will be collected. However, the PTMU Overlay Zone allows primary and accessory uses of large and small day care centers. Resident supporting services are located throughout the City and it is anticipated that other facilities would be constructed in the project area where appropriate by private developers. 5.7.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • Projects that develop under the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone are required to pay a Library Fee per the Standard Platinum Triangle Development Agreement. 5.7.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.7-5 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.7-4 The Proposed Project would generate additional population thereby increasing service needs for local libraries. 5.7.4.7 Mitigation Measures 7-10 Prior to approval of the first Development Agreement with residential units within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan following certification of SEIR No. 339, an update to the library facilities fee program included in the Standardized Development Agreement shall be submitted to the City Council for review and consideration to reflect the proposed project intensities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.7-23 5.7.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Upon implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and compliance with the existing regulations and standard conditions, potential project impacts to libraries would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Page 5.7-24 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.8-1 5.8 RECREATION 5.8.1 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Parks and other recreational facilities provide a multitude of benefits to the community, such as open space, conservation of natural and significant resources, buffers between land uses, preservation of scenic views, trails, and other recreational uses. Citywide Recreational facilities in the Anaheim area include public and private parks, public trails, baseball/softball fields, recreation centers, nature centers, and private facilities such as golf courses, swimming pools, and tennis courts. Figure 5.8-1 shows the location of parks and trails in the City. To meet the recreational needs of the City, a hierarchy has been established that classifies parks based on park type, size, service area, use, and facilities. Park classifications include: • Mini-parks • Neighborhood parks • Community parks • Special Use Park Facilities • Additional Recreation Opportunities Mini-Parks Often called pocket parks, these are the smallest type of park and are typically less than five acres in size. They often consist of passive recreational uses (although basketball, children’s play areas, and other active uses can be included), provide little or no parking and only serve the immediate area. George Washington Park, Walnut Grove Park, and Little People’s Park are good examples of this type of park. The City of Anaheim owns or operates seven mini-parks, listed in Table 5.8-1. A 0.77-acre public mini-park has been recently constructed within the Platinum Triangle, north of Katella Avenue at Auburn Way and Wright Circle. The Magnolia Park is the first public park constructed in the Platinum Triangle. The construction of the park was required per the PTMU Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement in conjunction with the adjacent residential development and is privately maintained by the property owner. Table 5.8-1 Mini-Park Facilities in the City of Anaheim Park Size (Acres) Location 1 Citrus 1.5 Central Anaheim 2 Colony 0.2 Central Anaheim 3 Little Peoples 1.0 Central Anaheim 4 George Washington 3.0 Central Anaheim 5 Julianna 0.1 Central Anaheim 6 Walnut Grove 3.0 Central Anaheim 7 Cottonwood 0.5 Central Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Page 5.8-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 Neighborhood Parks This is the most common type of park in Anaheim. These are parks to which people walk or bike and are located within the neighborhood they serve. They are typically 5 to 15 acres in size and have a service radius of one-half mile. Neighborhood parks are located on separate properties and provide amenities determined through public participation, often including picnic areas, unlighted athletic fields, children’s play areas, open green space, restrooms, recreation and neighborhood center buildings, and off-street parking. If possible, these are located adjacent to elementary or middle schools to facilitate joint use with local school districts. The City of Anaheim owns or operates 22 neighborhood parks, listed in Table 5.8-2. In addition, the Colony Park is currently under construction at the intersection of Melrose Street and South Street in the historic Anaheim Colony Historic District. It would feature a small citrus grove of Valencia Orange trees, covered picnic areas, a playground for children, and would become the 25th attraction along the “Art in Public Places” art walk. Table 5.8-2 Neighborhood Parks in the City of Anaheim Neighborhood Park Size (Acres) Location 1 Barton 4.8 West Anaheim 2 Canyon Rim 5.5 East Anaheim 3 Chaparral 10.0 West Anaheim 4 Edison 7.5 Central Anaheim 5 Eucalyptus 10.0 East Anaheim 6 Hansen 7.0 West Anaheim 7 Imperial 7.4 East Anaheim 8 Juarez 9.5 Central Anaheim 9 Lincoln 5.1 Central Anaheim 10 Manzanita 7.5 Central Anaheim 11 Palm Lane 7.0 Central Anaheim 12 Peter Marshall 5.0 West Anaheim 13 Ponderosa 9.0 Central Anaheim 14 Rio Vista 12.8 Central Anaheim 15 Riverdale 8.5 East Anaheim 16 Ross 5.5 Central Anaheim 17 Sage 8.6 Central Anaheim 18 Schweitzer 11.5 West Anaheim 19 Stoddard 9.4 Central Anaheim 20 Sycamore 8.0 East Anaheim 21 Willow 8.8 Central Anaheim 22 Fairmont 11.8 East Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: City of Anaheim General Plan 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.8-1 Location of Parks within the City of Anaheim Central Anaheim Park Facilities 1. Downtown Community Center (Acres N/A) 2. Boysen (24.6 Acres) 3. Citrus (1.5 Acres) 4. Colony (0.2 Acres) 5. Cottonwood (0.5 Acres) 6. Edison (7.5 Acres) 7. Juarez (9.5 Acres) 8. Julianna (1.0 Acres) 9. La Palma (21.0 Acres) 10. Lincoln (5.1 Acres) 11. Little Peoples (1.0 Acres) 12. Manzanita (7.5 Acres) 13. Palm Lane (7.0 Acres) 14. Pearson (19.0 Acres) 15. Pioneer (15.8 Acres) 16. Ponderosa (9.0 Acres) 17. Rio Vista (12.8 Acres) 18. Ross Park (9.5 Acres) 19. Sage (8.6 Acres) 20. Stoddard (9.4 Acres) 21. Walnut Grove (3.0 Acres) 22. George Washington (3.0 Acres) 23. Willow (8.8 Acres) East Anaheim Park Facilities 1. Anaheim Wetlands (5.0 Acres) 2. Canyon Rim (5.5 Acres) 3. Deer Canyon (130.0 Acres) 4. Eucalyptus (10.0 Acres) 5. Fairmont (11.8 Acres Undeveloped) 6. Imperial (7.5 Acres) 7. Nohl Ranch (4.5 Acres) 8. Oak (4.0 Acres) 9. Oak Canyon Nature Center (58.0 Acres) 10. Olive Hills (10.7 Acres) 11. Pelanconi (27.0 Acres) 12. Peralta Canyon (21.4 Acres) 13. Riverdale (8.5 Acres) 14. Sycamore (8.0 Acres) 15. Toyon (16.0 Acres) 16. Walnut Canyon (3.0 Acres) 17. Yorba Ballfields (16.0 Acres) West Anaheim Area Park Facilities 1. Barton (4.8 Acres) 2. Brookhurst (27.0 Acres) 3. Chaparral (10.0 Acres) 4. Delphi (2.0 Acres) 5. Hansen (7.0 Acres) 6. John Marshall (15.0 Acres) 7. Maxwell (16.2 Acres) 8. Modjeska (23.5 Acres) 9. Peter Marshall (5.0 Acres) 10. Reid (27.2 Acres) 11. Schweitzer (11.5 Acres) Specialized Recreation Mini-Park City Boundary Nature Center Sphere-of-Influence Neighborhood Park Community Park Knott Ave Western Ave Beach Blvd Dale St Magnolia Ave Gilbert St Brookhurst St Muller St La Palma Ave Crescent Ave Lincoln Ave Broadway Orange Ave Ball Rd Cerritos Ave Katella Ave Orangewood Ave Chapman Ave Euclid S t Nutwood St 9th St Walnut St Disneyland Dr Harbor Blvd Douglass Rd S Haster St Disney Way Gene Autry Way West St Harbor Blvd Anaheim Blvd Olive St East St South St Vermont Ave Santa Ana St Broa way Lincoln Ave Sycamore St North St Ball Rd Wagner Ave South St La Palma Ave Romneya Dr Orangethorpe Ave Euclid S t Lemon St Raymond Ave Harbor Blvd Acacia Ave State College Blvd Placentia Ave Sunkist St Rio Vista St Crowther Ave Orangethorpe Ave Miraloma Ave La Palma Ave Red Gum St Kraemer Blvd Miller St T u s tin A v e Van Buren St N Lakeview A ve Kellogg Dr Esp eran z a R d Orangethorpe Ave La Palma Ave Imperial Hwy Santi a g o B l Meat s A ve Impe r ia l Hwy N o h l Ra nc h R d Santa Ana Canyon Rd Fairmont B lvd Ca ny on R i m Rd S e r r a n o A ve Weir C any o n Rd O a k Ca ny o n D r Metrolink Blue Gu m S t Cerrito s A ve 1 2 3 6 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 11 2 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 13 1 2 3 5 7 8 13 9 16 10 11 20 4 18 1 23 5 7 3 Loara St Romneya Dr An ah ei m H i lls R d Lewis St State College Blvd 241 91 91 55 57 90 5 22 4 d 21 The Platinum Triangle NOT TO SCALE ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Page 5.8-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.8-5 Community Parks Community parks are located near major arterial streets and serve several neighborhoods within a one- to two-mile radius. Their sizes range from 15 to 30 acres. Park amenities generally include lighted ball fields, tennis courts, and community centers or recreation buildings. Community parks are also designed for vehicular as well as pedestrian access. They are located adjacent to middle or high schools, when possible, in an attempt to facilitate joint use with local school districts. Table 5.8-3 shows the Community Parks located within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.8-3 Community Parks in the City of Anaheim Community Park Size (Acres) Location 1 Boysen 24.6 Central Anaheim 2 Brookhurst 27.0 West Anaheim 3 John Marshall 15.0 West Anaheim 4 La Palma 21.0 Central Anaheim 5 Maxwell 18.5 West Anaheim 6 Modjeska 23.5 West Anaheim 7 Pearson 19.0 Central Anaheim 8 Peralta Canyon 21.4 East Anaheim 9 Pioneer 15.8 Central Anaheim 10 Toyon 16.0 East Anaheim 11 Twila Reid 27.2 West Anaheim Special Use Park Facilities These facilities serve a specialized, citywide need and tend to focus on one particular activity, such as an educational/nature center or natural area, tennis, or golf complex. Some special use facilities include meeting/conference areas intended to generate revenue for the City through the rental of rooms for conferences or special events. The City of Anaheim owns and/or operates nine special use parks, listed in Table 5.8-4. Table 5.8-4 Special Use Park Facilities in the City of Anaheim Community Park Size (Acres) Location Delphi 2.0 West Anaheim Downtown Community Center N/A Central Anaheim Anaheim Wetlands 5.0 East Anaheim Deer Canyon 130.0 East Anaheim Oak Canyon Nature Center 58.0 East Anaheim Oak 4.0 East Anaheim Olive Hills 10.7 East Anaheim Pelanconi 27.0 East Anaheim Walnut Canyon 3.0 East Anaheim Yorba Regional Park 13.0 East Anaheim Hill Site #1 4.3 (Undeveloped) East Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Page 5.8-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project: R-1 Would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. R-2 Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.8-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCREASE DEMANDS ON EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. [THRESHOLDS R-1 AND R-2] Impact Analysis: The Proposed Project would result in substantial population increase in the area. An increase of an additional 8,643 units in the PTMU Overlay Zone would require approximately 26 acres of park land, assuming an average of 1.5 persons per dwelling unit, based upon the City’s goal of providing two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Development of up to 10,266 units, as currently permitted, requires approximately 31 acres of park area. According to the City of Anaheim Parks Division, the existing parks facilities are already impacted with overuse and additional demand created by the Proposed Project would further exacerbate the current deficiency. Existing users of the parks and recreational facilities are being turned away from joining a sports group or making a picnic reservation due to lack of availability. Therefore, any added demand will cause the recreational facilities to be reserved above capacity without resting the fields or allowing adequate time for renovation and repair. Additional population would also accelerate the normal wear and tear process and increase the likelihood of graffiti and vandalism. Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.20.110.010, establishes the requirements for recreational spaces for development within the PTMU Overlay Zone. A developer of a project that includes over 325 residential units on a parcel that is eight acres or larger, is required to construct an on-site, privately maintained public park. This requirement ensures that small parks are distributed throughout the residentially developed portions of the Platinum Triangle. These mini-parks are required to be a minimum size of 44 square feet per each dwelling unit. In addition, developers of residential units are required to pay a park-in-lieu fee that is higher than the fee paid for development in other areas of the City. This fee is used to provide the funding necessary for the development of future parks and is based upon the land value of property located within the Platinum Triangle. For developers that include a public park as part of their development, the value of the parkland dedication is credited against the overall park-in-lieu fees paid for the project. This credit is given for park land dedication only and does not include improvements to the park. Every developer is also required to provide 200 square feet of recreational-leisure area for each dwelling unit within private and/or common areas. Recreational facilities developed in association with the Platinum Triangle would primarily be mini urban parks, and therefore would not alleviate the need for larger neighborhood parks or community parks with recreational amenities such as turf ball fields. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis The Planning Center • Figure 5.8-2 Existing Green Plan SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim Lewis St State College Blvd Douglass Rd Gene Autry Way Cerritos Ave Katella Ave Orangewood Ave 5 57 Sunkist St Howell Ave Dupont Dr Rampart St Towne Centre Pl Santa Cruz St 0 500 1,000 250 Feet *Residential areas outside half-mile radius of Neighborhood or Community Park or quarter- mile radius of a Mini Park. Public Parks Open Space Water Uses City Boundary Park Deficiency Areas* Platinum Triangle Boundary Riding/Hiking, Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail 0 1,600 Scale (Feet) 5 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Page 5.8-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis The Planning Center • Figure 5.8-3 Proposed Green Plan SEIR No. 339 Source: City of Anaheim 0 500 1,000 250 Feet *Residential areas outside half-mile radius of Neighborhood or Community Park or quarter- mile radius of a Mini Park. Public Parks Open Space Water Uses City Boundary Park Deficiency Areas* Platinum Triangle Boundary Riding/Hiking, Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail 0 2,000 Scale (Feet) Lewis St State College Blvd Douglass Rd S Haster St Disney Way Gene Autry Way Cerritos Ave Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 5 57 Sunkist St Howell Ave Dupont Dr Rampart St Towne Centre Pl Santa Cruz St 0 500 1,000 250 Feet 5 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Page 5.8-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.8-11 The Proposed Project includes revisions to the General Plan’s Green Plan as indicated in Figures 5.8-2 Existing Green Plan and 5.8-3 Proposed Green Plan. The Proposed Green Plan reflects the recently constructed Magnolia Park, located north of Katella Avenue, and several additional parks that are required to be constructed as a part of approved development agreements. The areas that are shown as park deficient reflect portions of the Platinum Triangle that are designated for mixed use development and are not within a specified distance of an existing or proposed park site. With the proposed amendments to the Green Plan and the proposed expansion of mixed use development within the Platinum Triangle, properties on the eastern portion of the Platinum Triangle are shown as park deficient on the Proposed Green Plan. These areas do not include any proposed or approved development projects with residential units. The areas that are not shown as park deficient include all of the areas with approved residential development projects; the parks within these areas are a result of compliance with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement. The dedication of property to the City for park and recreation facilities, development and maintenance of pocket parks by the developer or homeowners’ associations, and the payment of enhanced park-in-lieu fees as required under the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.20.110, would reduce impacts to park facilities. IMPACT 5.8-2: DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WOULD NOT HAVE ADVERSE PHYSICAL EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. [THRESHOLD R-2] Impact Analysis: Some of major physical impacts relating to development and operation of recreational facilities include light and glare, noise, and traffic. The current Standardized Development Agreement stipulates that developers of parcels eight or more acres with residential development totaling more than 325 dwelling units shall construct an on-site public park at a minimum size of 44 square feet per unit. If the number of residential development totals 325 units or less, then construction of a park is not required and payment of park-in-lieu fees is required. Every developer is also required to provide 200 square feet of recreational-leisure area for each dwelling unit within private and/or common areas. These mini parks would be less than 5 acres in size and would provide passive recreational uses (although basketball, children’s play areas, and other active uses can be included) with little or no parking and only serve the immediate area. As shown in Figure 5.8-3, Proposed Green Plan, there are eight mini and neighborhood public parks constructed or planned within the Platinum Triangle. Neighborhood parks and mini-parks do not typically include nighttime lighting fixtures that may create adverse nighttime light and glare impacts or bleachers for hosting spectator sporting events that could generate loud cheering noise. Although an offsite parking maybe provided, the majority of a neighborhood park users are anticipated to either walk or bike; therefore, no adverse traffic impacts would result from development of a neighborhood park. Development and operation of a mini-park or a neighborhood park in the project would not result in significant physical impact. While development and operation of a mini-park or a neighborhood park would result in less than significant physical effects, development of a community park may result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors. Community parks are located near major arterial streets and serve several neighborhoods, and generally include lighted ball fields, tennis courts, and community centers or recreation buildings. A conceptual community park location is proposed beyond the limits of the Platinum Triangle boundaries, at the confluence of the Platinum Triangle and I-5. The proposed community park is adjoined by properties designated by the General Plan for Industrial and General Commercial land uses. Therefore, potential impacts from lighting, noise, parking, and traffic would be minimal, since there would be no sensitive receptors nearby. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Page 5.8-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts Recreational needs of future residents of the Proposed Project and other cumulative development in accordance with the Adopted MLUP would add to citywide and regional demand for parks and recreation opportunities. However, the Proposed Project creates development opportunities in an under- utilized industrial area, thereby alleviating development pressures in other open space areas that could be developed for parks or other recreational purposes. In addition, each project within the Platinum Triangle would be required to satisfy the City’s park dedication standards and conditions. The Proposed Project’s impacts on parks and recreational opportunities would be cumulatively considerable but not adverse. 5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.20.110.010. Authorized by the Quimby Act, the City of Anaheim requires new development to pay a fee or dedicate land for park and recreation facilities. Developers of parcels eight acres or larger with more than 325 residential units shall provide and construct an on-site public park at a minimum size of 44 square feet per unit. Said park shall be bounded on at least one side by a public street with on-street parking. This requirement is in addition to the payment of park-in-lieu fees; however, the value of the parkland dedication will be credited against overall park-in-lieu fees paid for the project. This credit will be given for park land dedication only. No credit will be given for improvements to the park or for required recreational-leisure areas. Parcels less than eight acres in size shall pay park-in-lieu fees. If the number of residential development totals 325 units or less, that construction of a park is not required. Park Fees. All residential dwelling unit development within the PTMU Overlay Zone requires payment of the Platinum Triangle Park In Lieu Fees as adopted by the City Council and as amended from time to time. If the property is eight or more acres in size, the property owner will dedicate, develop and maintain a mini-park substantially in conformance with an approved final site plan for the project. 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.8-2 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.8-1 The Proposed Project would result in substantial increase in park facilities demand. 5.8.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.8-1 8-1 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to seek property acquisition opportunities for parkland in and adjacent to the project area. 8-2 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to work with developers to seek alternative means of providing recreational amenities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.8-13 8-3 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue fostering partnerships with other public entities and private organizations to seek alternative means of providing various types of recreational opportunities. 5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Upon implementation of mitigation measures and existing regulations would ensure that adequate recreation facilities are provided. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Page 5.8-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-1 5.9 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report: • Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010. This traffic study is included in the Technical Appendices to this SEIR (Volume II, Appendix In addition, street improvement plans for all circulation improvements identified in the mitigation section are included as Appendix J. The traffic analysis contained in this section was performed based on the Proposed Project in addition to the previously approved developments for the Platinum Triangle. The traffic analysis for the Adopted MLUP is provided in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 (State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED]) and the Traffic Study for The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 5, 2005 and is hereby incorporated by reference. The Adopted MLUP represents build-out conditions of the Platinum Triangle per the City’s General Plan for Year 2025. The following analysis has been prepared to determine if the revised project would result in any new significant traffic impacts as compared to the Adopted MLUP, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and relevant case law. Methodology Model Background The analysis was performed by application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to develop future traffic forecast volumes throughout the Platinum Triangle and surrounding study area. ATAM is the traffic forecasting modeling tool for the City of Anaheim and has been certified as consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) developed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). ATAM relies on OCTAM for the regional component of traffic activity and OCTAM is based on and consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional transportation model, and therefore, incorporates adopted regional growth projections. In order to identify trips generated for use in the City of Anaheim’s model ATAM, an employment conversion rate is utilized for office and retail land uses. The rate is based on regional demographic information and converts land use quantities to number of employees. The total trip generation or number of trips is then calculated based on the trip purpose for each employee. Residential units do not require a conversion rate as they translate directly to dwelling units and residential based trips are calculated based on the trip purpose for each dwelling unit. Based on the citywide land use data and regional socioeconomic growth projections, future trip activity is estimated and assigned to the roadway circulation system. The internal trip capture is performed within the model and the outputs post- processed based on established post-processing methodologies. The post-processor applies the model’s projected growth to each turning movement of the existing counts for both 2030 No Project and 2030 With Project scenarios, forecasting a value that reflects future growth. Model Assumptions Roadway Network The base highway network used in this analysis remains consistent with networks adopted for various other traffic studies previously carried out for the City of Anaheim within the Platinum Triangle. The ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 existing and future year local circulation system was refined to provide further detail within the Platinum Triangle to accurately forecast travel activity. In addition, traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were refined and added to more accurately reflect traffic patterns and access of future development throughout the study area, as shown on Figure 5.9-1. Zonal connectors were reviewed and updated as appropriate to reflect appropriate development access to the surrounding circulation system. The TAZ and zonal connector refinements were incorporated into the No Project and Project alternatives for consistency purposes. The baseline 2030 No Project network is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan circulation network and includes the following key assumptions within the immediate project study area: • Orangewood Avenue, widen from State College Boulevard to SR-57 to 6-lane divided facility • Howell Avenue, improve to 4-lane secondary facility • Katella Avenue, widen to 8-lane facility between Sportstown and Walnut Street • Walnut Street (Orange), maintain existing classification • Glassell Street/Chapman Avenue (Orange), maintain existing classification through Historic Orange Plaza • Metropolitan Drive (Orange), provide connection between The City Drive and Chapman Avenue at Rampart Street • Main Street (Orange), improve to 6-lane major facility between Collins Avenue and Chapman Avenue • Taft Avenue (Orange), improve to 6-lane major facility between Tustin Avenue and City of Anaheim • Ball Road, improve to 6-lane major facility between Sunkist Street and State College Boulevard • Lewis Street, improve to 4-lane secondary facility between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way • Cerritos Avenue, improve to 4-lane primary facility between State College Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard • Gene Autry Way, extend from current terminus at I-5 HOV ramps westerly to Harbor Boulevard To account for planned projects throughout the study area as development occurs, the localized circulation system was refined to incorporate further network assumptions as appropriate. The following specific circulation system assumptions were incorporated into the network to account for buildout of the study area: • Provision of a connection between Dupont Drive and Rampart Street parallel to Orangewood Avenue to provide additional access throughout the study area • Access provision from the Stadium District to State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way, Orangewood Avenue, and Douglass Road • SR-57 direct connection with ARTIC • SR-57 HOV drop ramps at Cerritos Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: PB 2010 5. Environmental Analysis Traffic Analysis Zone in The Platinum Triangle SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.9-1 0 1,700 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-5 Internal Trip Capture Due to the nature of the mixed use developments incorporated into the City’s vision for the Platinum Triangle and consistent with other traffic studies in the area, mixed use internal capture rates for each District with the exception of the Office District were incorporated into the trip generation. The internal capture rates were estimated based on the recommended Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Multi-Use Development Trip Generation and Internal Capture Summary Methodology documented in Chapter 7 of the Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition (ITE, 2004). ITE trip generation rates and ATAM trip generation rates are derived and applied for stand alone facilities. These rates are generally developed for suburban settings with limited transit service and free parking. Internally captured trips have the potential to be a significant component in the travel patterns associated with multi-use developments. The internal trip-making characteristics of multi-use sites are directly related to the mix of on-site land uses. The combination of residential, retail and office uses increases the interaction between the various on-site uses, hence reducing the amount of external site vehicular traffic generated as compared to each land use evaluated independently. ITE considers multi-use developments as developments consisting of two or more ITE land use classifications between which trips can be made without using the off-site road system. The internal capture rate methodology was applied in ATAM to more accurately account for vehicular trip generation throughout the Platinum Triangle due to the close proximity of residential, commercial, and office uses. The typical trip rates do not account for these internal trips, so an internal capture rate has been defined based on the methodology documented by ITE. Internal capture rates were determined for each individual District based on the proposed land uses within each district. Rates were determined at a District level because internal capture rates generally apply to land uses that promote walking trips, and many of the mixed use Districts are not within walking distance of each other. The methodology evaluates the reasonable share of internal trips that will be attracted between the various District developments to determine district-wide internal capture percentages. These percentages are applied to daily trip generation activity to reflect reduced vehicular trip activity within each District. Table 5.9-1 presents the percent trip reduction rate for each District. The capture rates range from 5.0 percent to 19.9 percent. Table 5.9-1 Internal Trip Capture Rates PTMU District Internal Trip Capture Rate Katella District 14.5% Gene Autry District 15.7% Gateway District 5.0% Orangewood District 8.1% Stadium District 16.6% Arena District 19.9% ARTIC District 7.8% Office District 0% Several projects have recently applied internal capture rates for mixed-use developments throughout the County. The Huntington Beach Downtown Parking Master Plan concluded that the downtown experienced a 30 to 40 percent overall trip reduction due to mixed use development. The Anaheim GardenWalk (formerly Pointe Anaheim project) in the City of Anaheim includes hotel, restaurant, retail and entertainment uses totaling 1.5 million square feet. The traffic analysis presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Anaheim, 1999) applied internal capture rates ranging from 20 to 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 percent as well as mode shift ranges from 45 to 55 percent. Practical experience following project approval has demonstrated that applying these capture rates has been sound. Based on internal capture rates applied in other studies, a 5 to 20 percent reduction in vehicle activity seems reasonable based on the mix of uses expected to be implemented within the Platinum Triangle. Additionally, recent national studies have developed appropriate internal capture rates for use in transportation projects. One study, the Urban Land Institute’s, “Growing Cooler” has identified internal trip capture advantages to certain types of mixed-use development of up to 20-30 percent. Another study by the Transit Cooperative Research Program of the Transportation Research Board studied the effects of transit oriented development (TOD) on housing and travel. The characteristics of certain districts in the Platinum Triangle are above and beyond criteria established in the ITE Guidelines and the internal capture percentages applied to each district are reasonable, and even conservative by some standards. Transit Trip Reduction Transit trip reductions were applied to land use data in select TAZs to account for future transit activity associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project and increased transit accessibility throughout the Platinum Triangle. Metrolink and Amtrak have daily service at the existing Metrolink/Amtrak Station, located within the Stadium District. This station is proposed to be relocated to the ARTIC District as part of the ARTIC project. Metrolink service is anticipated to expand to more frequent headways throughout the day in the coming years under the Metrolink Service Expansion Program. In addition, the implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) has been approved on State College Boulevard with a stop at ARTIC. The State College Boulevard line will be one of the first three BRT lines deployed by OCTA and is tentatively scheduled for implementation in late 2010. Additional routes have been proposed for future approval, including a line on Katella Avenue. In addition to these transit services, the Platinum Triangle is also served by Anaheim Resort Transit and OCTA local bus lines. The transit reduction methodology applied to the Proposed Project is outlined in Appendix B of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The ARTIC project is proposed as a world class transit center, as it is anticipated to serve local buses, express buses, BRT routes as well as commuter and intercity rail. As such, the ARTIC District qualifies for a 20 percent vehicle trip reduction as the entire District is within walking distance of the facility. All Mixed Use Districts are within walking distance of a proposed BRT corridor, and some are within walking distance of ARTIC. Based on the distance from the high capacity transit, trips generated from certain TAZ’s have received a 3 to 7 percent reduction dependent upon the density of the zone, as outlined in Table B.2 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Although all districts are in relatively close proximity to major transit facilities, the distance between specific developments and transit opportunities do not fall into the 1/4 mile assumed walking distance between the development and the BRT or other high capacity transit opportunities. Figure 5.9-2 shows transit trip reduction by TAZ. Other proposed transit connections within the Platinum Triangle include the Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC, formerly referred to as Anaheim Fixed Guideway) and high speed rail/maglev trains. The proposed ARC is intended to provide connectivity between the Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle with a proposed station at or in close proximity to ARTIC. In addition, ARTIC is designed to accommodate potential future transit services, which include high speed rail/maglev train service to Los Angeles and Ontario. These projects are not fully funded and are therefore not included in the transit reduction estimates. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: PB 2010 5. Environmental Analysis Transit Trip Reduction SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.9-2 0 1,700 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-9 The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone strive to achieve the promotion of accessibility between mixed uses through non-vehicle related trip- making. Co-locating job and housing centers along transit corridors promote sustainable growth. Reducing transportation costs and impacts to the environment result from shorter trips to work and other destinations, opportunities to travel conveniently without having to drive, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, and amenities like restaurants, entertainment and shops within walking distance. Research has documented that mixed-use community residents’ drive as little as one-fifth the distances of their counterparts in conventional sprawl developments. (“Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio- Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco”, John Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David Goldstein, and Peter Haas, Transportation Planning and Technology Journal, Volume 25, Number 1, March 2002). California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) TOD database documents a 29 percent reduction in vehicles per household and a 31 percent reduction in average annual auto mileage per household. The Caltrans website documents five transit oriented development station areas in Los Angeles County and four TOD station areas in San Diego County, with zero TOD station areas in Orange County. The trip reduction strategy used for the Platinum Triangle is based on the recommended ITE Multi-Use Development Trip Generation and Internal Capture Summary Methodology. Level of Service Analysis In order to evaluate traffic impacts within the Platinum Triangle and its immediate vicinity, the following level of service (LOS) analyses were performed: • Peak hour arterial signalized intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis • Arterial segment daily analysis • Arterial segment peak hour analysis • Peak hour ramp-termini intersection analysis • Freeway ramp merge-diverge analysis • Freeway mainline segment analysis • Freeway mainline weaving analysis Intersection ICU Analysis The City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90, or LOS D, as the lowest acceptable service level at intersections. Intersections that operate at a level of service below LOS D are deemed to be operating at insufficient levels. The City requires study area intersections to be evaluated through an ICU analysis which compares forecast peak hour traffic volumes to intersection capacity. A minimum clearance interval of 0.05 in association with lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes was assumed for the ICU calculations. The City of Orange ICU analysis is consistent with the City of Anaheim analysis as are the LOS thresholds, therefore the same assumptions were applied for intersection in both jurisdictions. Table 5.9-2 presents the ICU level of service thresholds utilized in this traffic study. A project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the LOS to an unacceptable LOS or an increase in the ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection currently operates at LOS E or F under without project conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds LOS ICU A < 0.60 B 0.61 – 0.70 C 0.71 – 0.80 D 0.81 – 0.90 E 0.91 – 1.00 F > 1.00 Source: City of Anaheim, City of Orange As shown in Figure 5.9-3, peak hour ICU and LOS analyses were performed for 103 study intersections (67 intersections in the City of Anaheim, 5 shared intersections between Anaheim and Orange, and 31 in the City of Orange). Coordination with the City of Orange identified the preferred intersections for analysis within the City of Orange. For purposes of the traffic analysis, intersections identified for mitigation are those that are operating at a deficient level of service of LOS E or LOS F. Arterial Segment V/C Analysis The arterial roadway criteria for the City of Anaheim involve the use of average daily traffic (ADT) V/C ratios. LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim. If a road segment exceeds this daily threshold, then the peak hours are analyzed for this segment. If the peak hour v/c is greater than 0.90, then a deficiency exists on that segment. The City of Orange has utilized LOS D as the performance standard for arterials. The City of Orange applies a V/C analysis for daily traffic conditions similar to Anaheim although daily capacities for Orange arterials differ from those recognized by the City of Anaheim due to differences in the capacity assumptions contained in each city’s traffic study guidelines. City of Anaheim methodology was applied to all segments located in Anaheim, and City of Orange methodology was applied to all segments located in Orange. Although the arterial segment V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance, the performance is measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands. To identify deficient arterial segments, the segments that are identified as deficient under daily conditions are evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate the capability of serving forecast peak hour throughput. Arterial segments that operate deficiently under peak hour conditions are candidates for mitigation improvements. It should be noted that the City of Orange does not provide provisions for peak hour segment analysis but rather uses daily V/C analysis as the basis for improvement requirements in accordance with their adopted traffic study guidelines. The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis identified in Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine LOS under peak hour traffic volumes on deficient daily segments. The peak hour link analysis determines directional AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for each link that exceeds the daily LOS threshold. The peak hour capacity is determined by using Equation 15-7 of the HCM, multiplying the mid-block number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, then multiplied by the percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersection for that arterial segment. The percentage of green time is estimated by dividing the directional V/C ratios by the total V/C ratio at signalized intersections along the arterial segment. The highest resulting percentage is the estimated percentage of green time for that arterial segment. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements should be considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.9-3 Existing (2008) Peak Hour Intersection LOS Source: PB 2010 0 2,800 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-13 LOS analysis of forecast daily traffic volumes was applied for the arterial segments throughout the Platinum Triangle and adjacent facilities. The segment analysis assumes roadway capacities for each jurisdiction as applied in the current General Plans for each City as noted in Table 5.9-3. The capacities in Table 5.9-3 reflect LOS E capacities and are consistent with those that are applied in daily V/C analysis, consistent with methodologies adopted for each jurisdiction. The City of Orange takes advantage of a capacity enhancement for Smart Streets as designated by the OCTA. For Katella Avenue, Orange increases daily capacity by five percent to account for Smart Street related improvements that enhance throughput along these key corridors. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS or coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily “without project” conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS or or causes an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. Table 5.9-3 Arterial Segment Daily Capacity Assumptions Facility Type Anaheim Orange 8-lane Divided 75,000 75,000 6-lane Divided 56,300 56,300 4-lane Divided 37,500 37,500 4-lane Undivided 25,000 24,000 2-lane Undivided 12,500 12,000 Source: City of Orange Traffic Study Guidelines, City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines Caltrans Intersection Analysis Freeway ramp termini intersections were analyzed in (version 7.0) through the application of HCM 2000 methodology per Caltrans requirements. Lane configurations and various other parameters such as signal timing were based on current operating characteristics and future lane configurations were assumed per Anaheim General Plan build-out conditions. Table 5.9-4 presents Caltrans intersection delay and LOS standards. Table 5.9-4 Caltrans Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Intersection Delay (in Seconds) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 35.0 D > 35.0 and ≤ 55.0 E > 55.0 and ≤ 80.0 F ≥ 80.0 Source: Caltrans, HCM 2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 Caltrans Freeway and Ramp HCM Analysis The freeway mainline and freeway ramp segment criteria are based on peak hour HCM density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing count data was provided by Caltrans for the freeway mainline volumes. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software (HCS), the electronic version of the HCM for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influential area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps: • Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge; • Determination of the capacity for the segment; and • Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and its level of service The LOS for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM. Freeway mainline levels of service are similarly determined from segment density. Table 5.9-5 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. LOS D (density not to exceed 35.0 pc/mi/ln for mainline segments and freeway ramps), has been established by Caltrans District 12 as the operating standard for freeway mainline segments and freeway ramps. Caltrans has determined that freeway segments and ramps that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify project related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Table 5.9-5 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp HCM LOS Criteria LOS Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 Source: HCM 2000, Exhibit 25-4, Exhibit 23-2 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Weaving analysis uses the most current version of the HCM and provides a density for the weaving area within the freeway segment and corresponding LOS. Table 5.9-6 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. Caltrans operating standard is LOS ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-15 Table 5.9-6 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM LOS Criteria LOS Freeway Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) Multilane and Collector-Distributor Weaving Segments Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 12.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 > 12.0 and ≤ 24.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 > 24.0 and ≤ 32.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 > 32.0 and ≤ 36.0 E 35.0 and ≤ 43.0 >36.0 and ≤ 40.0 F >43.0 >40.0 Source: HCM 2000, Exhibit 24-2 5.9.1 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis (Existing 2008) Previous Figures 5.9-1 and 5.9-3 show the updated TAZ boundaries and the 103 study intersections. Table 5.9-7 shows ICU and LOS for 103 study area intersections under existing conditions. Two intersections operate at an unacceptable LOS under existing conditions. 1) Euclid Street at Katella Avenue (PM Peak hour)/ I-1 2) Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road (PM Peak hour)/ I-19 Table 5.9-7 Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection City ICU LOS ICU LOS I-1 Euclid Street/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 1.02 F I-2 Ninth Street/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A I-3 Walnut Street/Ball Road Anaheim 0.57 A 0.55 A I-4 Walnut Street/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.44 A 0.53 A I-5 Disneyland Drive/Ball Road Anaheim 0.70 B 0.77 C I-6 Disneyland Drive/West Street/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.57 A I-7 Harbor Boulevard/Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.56 A 0.58 A I-8 Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road Anaheim 0.73 C 0.68 B I-9 Harbor Boulevard/I-5 NB Ramps Anaheim 0.54 A 0.54 A I-10 Harbor Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramps Anaheim 0.32 A 0.34 A I-11 Harbor Boulevard/Disney Way Anaheim 0.33 A 0.41 A I-12 Harbor Boulevard/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.63 B I-13 Harbor Boulevard/Convention Way Anaheim 0.29 A 0.35 A I-14 Harbor Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.57 A I-15 Clementine Street/Disney Way Anaheim 0.19 A 0.23 A I-16 Clementine Street/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.60 A I-17 I-5 SB Off Ramp/Disney Way Anaheim 0.20 A 0.24 A I-18 Anaheim Boulevard/Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.61 B I-19 Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road Anaheim 0.63 B 0.91 E ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-7 Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection City ICU LOS ICU LOS I-20 Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.71 C I-21 Anaheim Boulevard/I-5 NB Ramps Anaheim 0.44 A 0.59 A I-22 Anaheim Boulevard/Disney Way Anaheim 0.44 A 0.49 A I-23 Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.47 A 0.58 A I-24 Haster Street/Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-25 Haster Street/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.65 B I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 SB Ramps)/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.52 A I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramps)/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.46 A 0.50 A I-28 East Street/Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.58 A I-29 East Street/Ball Road Anaheim 0.51 A 0.67 B I-30 Lewis Street/Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.53 A I-31 Lewis Street/Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.31 A I-32 Lewis Street/North Connector Road (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-33 Lewis Street/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.62 B I-34 Lewis Street/Anaheim Way Anaheim 0.09 0.25 A I-35 Lewis Street/Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-36 Lewis Street/Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-37 I-5 HOV Ramps/Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.07 A I-38 Lewis Street/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.48 A I-39 Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.52 A 0.37 A I-40 Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.36 A 0.50 A I-41 Market Street/Katella Avenue (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-42 Market Street/Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-43 Orange Center Drive/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.30 A 0.38 A I-44 State College Boulevard/Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.47 A 0.42 A I-45 State College Boulevard/Wagner Avenue Anaheim 0.50 A 0.49 A I-46 State College Boulevard/Ball Road Anaheim 0.57 A 0.65 B I-47 State College Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.46 A 0.40 A I-48 State College Boulevard/Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.29 A 0.40 A I-49 State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.43 A 0.53 A I-50 State College Boulevard/Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.26 A 0.33 A I-51 State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.30 A 0.29 A I-52 State College Boulevard/Artisan Street (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-53 State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A I-54 State College Boulevard/Orange Center Drive Anaheim/Orange 0.21 A 0.21 A I-55 State College Boulevard/I-5 NB Ramps Orange 0.33 A 0.28 A I-56 State College Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramps Orange 0.43 A 0.28 A I-57 State College Boulevard/The City Drive/Chapman Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.66 B I-58 Sunkist Street/Ball Road Anaheim 0.82 D 0.79 C I-59 Sunkist Street/Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.25 A 0.41 A I-60 Sunkist Street/Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.37 A I-61 Howell Avenue/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.55 A I-62 Sportstown/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.41 A I-63 Dupont Drive/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.44 A 0.51 A I-64 Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.51 A 0.44 A I-65 Rampart Street/Chapman Avenue Orange 0.31 A 0.31 A I-66 Ball Road/SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim 0.43 A 0.41 A I-67 Ball Road/SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 0.69 B 0.57 A ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-17 Table 5.9-7 Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection City ICU LOS ICU LOS I-68 SR-57 NB Ramps/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.36 A 0.40 A I-69 SR-57 SB Ramps/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.40 A 0.40 A I-70 Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 NB Ramps Orange 0.52 A 0.49 A I-71 Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 SB Ramps Orange 0.61 B 0.68 B I-72 Phoenix Club Drive/Ball Road Anaheim 0.48 A 0.59 A I-73 Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.41 A 0.49 A I-74 Katella Avenue/Struck Avenue Orange 0.28 A 0.34 A I-75 Eckhoff Street/Collins Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.47 A I-76 Eckhoff Street/Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.56 A 0.69 B I-77 Main Street/Taft Avenue Orange 0.68 B 0.73 C I-78 Main Street/Katella Avenue Orange 0.50 A 0.50 A I-79 Main Street/Struck Avenue Orange 0.53 A 0.48 A I-80 Main Street/Collins Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.57 A I-81 Main Street/Orangewood Avenue Orange 0.54 A 0.58 A I-82 Main Street/Chapman Avenue Orange 0.52 A 0.67 B I-83 Batavia Street/Taft Avenue Orange 0.65 B 0.67 B I-84 Batavia Street/Katella Avenue Orange 0.50 A 0.50 A I-85 Batavia Street/Collins Avenue Orange 0.40 A 0.41 A I-86 Batavia Street/Walnut Avenue Orange 0.51 A 0.46 A I-87 Glassell Street/Katella Avenue Orange 0.55 A 0.60 A I-88 Glassell Street/Collins Avenue Orange 0.58 A 0.52 A I-89 Glassell Street/Walnut Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.75 C I-90 Santiago Boulevard/Meats Avenue Orange 0.72 C 0.65 B I-91 Clementine Street/Gene Autry Way (future) Anaheim Not Applicable I-92 Clementine Street/Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.33 A 0.33 A I-93 Flower Street/Chapman Avenue Orange 0.38 A 0.49 A I-94 Harbor Boulevard/Chapman Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.61 B I-95 I-5 Ramps/Chapman Avenue Orange 0.43 A 0.46 A I-96 Rampart Street/Town Center Place (South) Anaheim 0.14 A 0.18 A I-97 SR-22 EB Ramps/The City Drive Orange 0.57 A 0.58 A I-98 SR-22 WB Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.29 A 0.41 A I-99 SR-57 NB Ramps/Chapman Avenue Orange 0.40 A 0.39 A I-100 SR-57 SB Ramps/Chapman Avenue Orange 0.54 A 0.52 A I-101 State College Boulevard/Winston Road Anaheim 0.38 A 0.39 A I-102 The City Drive/Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.52 A 0.55 A I-103 The City Drive/Metropolitan Drive Orange 0.47 A 0.37 A Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis (Existing 2008) Table 5.9-8 presents ADT and LOS for study area arterial segments under existing conditions. Based on existing count volumes and number of lanes, there are four segments that operate at a deficient LOS under existing conditions. All other 91 segments are operating at acceptable levels of service. 1) Ball Road from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street (City of Anaheim)/(A-13) 2) Ball Road from Sunkist Street to the SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim)/(A-14) 3) Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Rampart Street (City of Anaheim)/(A-77) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 4) Orangewood Avenue from Rampart Street to the SR-57 Freeway (City of Anaheim/City of Orange)/ (A-78) Table 5.9-8 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Traffic Count Lanes Capacity V/C LOS A-1 Anaheim Blvd Katella Ave I-5 Freeway 19,380 6D 56,300 0.34 A A-2 Anaheim Blvd I-5 Freeway Cerritos Ave 33,160 6D 56,300 0.59 A A-3 Anaheim Blvd Cerritos Ave Ball Road 26,790 4D 37,500 0.71 C A-4 Anaheim Blvd Ball Road Vermont Street 25,230 4D 37,500 0.67 B A-5* Anaheim Way State College Blvd Orangewood Ave 3,220 3D 28,150 0.11 A A-6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 18,190 3D 28,150 0.65 B A-7 Anaheim Way Katella Ave Anaheim Blvd 10,730 3D 28,150 0.38 A A-8 Ball Road Walnut Street Disneyland Drive 34,020 6D 56,300 0.60 A A-9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Blvd 44,320 6D 56,300 0.79 C A-10 Ball Road Harbor Blvd Anaheim Blvd 36,890 6D 56,300 0.66 B A-11 Ball Road Anaheim Blvd East Street 35,280 6D 56,300 0.63 B A-12 Ball Road East Street State College Blvd 38,110 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-13 Ball Road State College Blvd Sunkist Street 40,500 4D 37,500 1.08 F A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway 48,400 6D 56,300 0.86 D A-15* Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 32,740 6D 56,300 0.58 A A-16 Cerritos Ave Anaheim Blvd Lewis Street 11,710 4U 25,000 0.47 A A-17 Cerritos Ave Lewis Street State College Blvd 10,030 4U 25,000 0.40 A A-18 Cerritos Ave State College Blvd Sunkist Street 6,180 4U 25,000 0.25 A A-19 Cerritos Ave Sunkist Street Douglass Road 4,520 4U 25,000 0.18 A A-20* Chapman Ave State College Blvd SR-57 Freeway 30,740 6D 56,300 0.55 A A-21* Chapman Ave SR-57 Freeway Main Street 27,260 6D 56,300 0.48 A A-22* The City Drive SR-22 Freeway Chapman Ave 20,980 8D 75,000 0.28 A A-23 Clementine Street Orangewood Ave Gene Autry Way NA NA NA NA NA A-24 Clementine Street Gene Autry Way Katella Ave NA NA NA NA NA A-25 Clementine Street Katella Ave Manchester Ave 7,510 4U 25,000 0.30 A A-26* Collins Ave Eckhoff Street Main Street 6,620 4U 24,000 0.28 A A-27* Collins Ave Main Street Batavia Street 10,800 4U 24,000 0.45 A A-28* Collins Ave Batavia Street Glassell Street 14,710 4U 24,000 0.61 B A-29 Disney Way Harbor Blvd Clementine Street 7,770 6D 56,300 0.14 A A-30 Disney Way Clementine Street Anaheim Blvd 13,880 6D 56,300 0.25 A A-31 Douglass Road Katella Ave Cerritos Ave 6,910 4U 25,000 0.28 A A-32* Eckhoff Street Orangewood Ave Collins Ave 10,870 2D 18,750 0.58 A A-33 Gene Autry Way Harbor Blvd Clementine Street NA NA NA NA NA A-34 Gene Autry Way Clementine Street Haster Street NA NA NA NA NA A-35 Gene Autry Way Haster Street I-5 Freeway NA NA NA NA NA A-36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Blvd 2,220 4U 25,000 0.09 A A-37 Harbor Blvd Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 35,560 6D 56,300 0.63 B A-38 Harbor Blvd Orangewood Ave Convention Way 35,870 6D 56,300 0.64 B A-39 Harbor Blvd Convention Way Katella Ave 40,430 6D 56,300 0.72 C A-40 Harbor Blvd Katella Ave Disney Way 38,410 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-41 Harbor Blvd Disney Way Manchester Ave 41,340 6D 56,300 0.73 C A-42 Harbor Blvd Manchester Ave I-5 Freeway 39,450 7D 65,625 0.60 A A-43 Harbor Blvd I-5 Freeway Ball Road 44,360 8D 75,000 0.59 A A-44 Harbor Blvd Ball Road Vermont Street 26,900 6D 56,300 0.48 A ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-19 Table 5.9-8 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Traffic Count Lanes Capacity V/C LOS A-45 Haster Street Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 18,190 4U 25,000 0.73 C A-46 Haster Street Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 19,760 4U 25,000 0.79 C A-47 Howell Ave State College Blvd Sunkist Street 4,390 4U 25,000 0.18 A A-48 Howell Ave Sunkist Street Katella Ave 5,830 4U 25,000 0.23 A A-49 Katella Ave Euclid Street Ninth Street 31,470 6D 56,300 0.56 A A-50 Katella Ave Ninth Street Walnut Street 29,270 6D 56,300 0.52 A A-51 Katella Ave Walnut Street Disneyland Drive 35,240 6D 56,300 0.63 B A-52 Katella Ave Disneyland Drive Harbor Blvd 37,440 6D 56,300 0.67 B A-53 Katella Ave Harbor Blvd Clementine Street 39,100 6D 56,300 0.69 B A-54 Katella Ave Clementine Street Anaheim Blvd 38,510 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-55 Katella Ave Anaheim Blvd I-5 Freeway 37,830 6D 56,300 0.67 B A-56 Katella Ave I-5 Freeway Lewis Street 35,040 6D 56,300 0.62 B A-57 Katella Ave Lewis Street State College Blvd 30,260 6D 56,300 0.54 A A-58 Katella Ave State College Blvd Sportstown 32,800 6D 56,300 0.58 A A-59 Katella Ave Sportstown Howell Ave 34,240 6D 56,300 0.61 B A-60 Katella Ave Howell Ave SR-57 Freeway 37,990 6D 56,300 0.67 B A-61 Katella Ave SR-57 Freeway Main Street 29,610 6D 56,300 0.53 A A-62* Katella Ave1 Main Street Batavia Street 30,280 6D 59,115 0.51 A A-63* Katella Ave1 Batavia Street Glassell Street 29,490 6D 59,115 0.50 A A-64 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way Katella Ave 1,440 2U 12,500 0.12 A A-65 Lewis Street Katella Ave Cerritos Ave 7,680 4U 25,000 0.31 A A-66 Lewis Street Cerritos Ave Ball Road 6,460 4U 25,000 0.26 A A-67* Main Street Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 20,090 4U 24,000 0.84 D A-68* Main Street Orangewood Ave Collins Ave 16,900 4U 24,000 0.70 B A-69* Main Street Collins Ave Katella Ave 17,700 4U 24,000 0.74 C A-70* Main Street Katella Ave Taft Avenue 11,440 4U 24,000 0.48 A A-71 Manchester Ave Compton Ave Orangewood Ave 6,840 3D 28,150 0.24 A A-72 Manchester Ave Orangewood Ave Katella Ave 11,050 3D 28,150 0.39 A A-73 Manchester Ave Katella Ave Anaheim Blvd 1,410 3D 28,150 0.05 A A-74 Orangewood Ave Harbor Blvd Haster Street 15,540 4U 25,000 0.62 B A-75 Orangewood Ave Haster Street Manchester Ave 17,950 4U 25,000 0.72 C A-76** Orangewood Ave2 Manchester Ave State College Blvd 19,810 6D 56,300 0.35 A A-77 Orangewood Ave State College Blvd Rampart Street 24,490 4U 25,000 0.98 E A-78** Orangewood Ave2 Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway 23,490 4U 25,000 0.94 E A-79* Orangewood Ave SR-57 Freeway Eckhoff Street 27,720 4D 37,500 0.74 C A-80* Orangewood Ave Eckhoff Street Main Street 14,160 4D 37,500 0.38 A A-81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 3,880 2U 12,500 0.31 A A-82 Rampart Street Chapman Ave Orangewood Ave 2,770 2U 12,500 0.22 A A-83* State College Blvd Chapman Ave I-5 Freeway 26,980 8D 75,000 0.36 A A-84* State College Blvd I-5 Freeway Orangewood Ave 21,400 8D 75,000 0.29 A A-85 State College Blvd Orangewood Ave Gene Autry Way 22,160 6D 56,300 0.39 A A-86 State College Blvd Gene Autry Way Katella Ave 20,120 6D 56,300 0.36 A A-87 State College Blvd Katella Ave Howell Ave 23,980 6D 56,300 0.43 A A-88 State College Blvd Howell Ave Cerritos Ave 23,440 6D 56,300 0.42 A A-89 State College Blvd Cerritos Ave Ball Road 23,320 6D 56,300 0.41 A A-90 State College Blvd Ball Road Wagner Ave 24,020 6D 56,300 0.43 A A-91* Struck Ave Katella Ave Main Street 6,720 2U 12,000 0.56 A A-92 Sunkist Street Howell Ave Cerritos Ave 3,900 4U 25,000 0.16 A ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-20 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-8 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Traffic Count Lanes Capacity V/C LOS A-93 Sunkist Street Cerritos Ave Ball Road 7,720 4U 25,000 0.31 A A-94* Walnut Ave Main Street Batavia Street 8,540 2U 12,000 0.71 B A-95* Walnut Ave Batavia Street Glassell Street 8,090 2U 12,000 0.67 B Note: All arterial segments are in the City of Anaheim jurisdiction except where noted * that are in the City of Orange and that are in both cities (Anaheim and Orange). Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken. 1 Smart Street segments in Orange include a 5 percent capacity enhancement. 2 Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken. Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis (Existing 2008) Table 5.9-9 shows the AM and PM peak hour arterial segment LOS for the deficient arterial segments identified in the City of Anaheim, which determined that there are no capacity inadequacies for any of the arterial segments during either the AM or PM peak hour. Table 5.9-9 Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To Traffic Count Lanes Capacity V/C LOS AM Peak Hour A-13 Ball Road State College Blvd Sunkist Street 2,640 4D 3,268 0.81 D A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway 3,420 6D 4,902 0.70 B A-77 Orangewood Ave State College Blvd Rampart Street 2,070 4U 4,940 0.42 A A-78 Orangewood Ave Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway 1,930 4U 4,940 0.39 A PM Peak Hour A-13 Ball Road State College Blvd Sunkist Street 2,900 4D 3,648 0.79 C A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway 3,370 6D 5,472 0.62 B A-77 Orangewood Ave State College Blvd Rampart Street 2,280 4U 5,852 0.39 A A-78 Orangewood Ave Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway 2,130 4U 5,852 0.36 A Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis (Existing 2008) Table 5.9-10 represents the peak hour delays and LOS for the ramp termini intersections under existing conditions. The analysis indicates that all of the Caltrans ramp intersections operate at acceptable LOS. Under all scenarios, freeway ramp termini intersections were evaluated according to both ICU and HCM methodology. The analysis under existing conditions is generally consistent in terms of LOS with the ICU analysis for the ramp termini intersections with the exception of the one deficient location for which the deficiency is generally the result of operational issues, such as insufficient or excessive signal timings for pedestrian crossings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-21 Table 5.9-10 Existing Ramp Termini Intersection LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS I-9 Harbor Boulevard/I-5 NB Ramps 10.8 B 14.4 B I-10 Harbor Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramps 7.9 A 7.5 A I-17 I-5 SB Off Ramp/Disney Way 26.2 C 25.5 C I-21 Anaheim Boulevard/I-5 NB Ramps 15.4 B 25.8 C I-22 Anaheim Boulevard/Disney Way 38.7 C 19.2 B I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 SB Ramps)/Katella Avenue 27.5 C 15.9 B I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramps)/Katella Avenue 17.9 B 20.2 C I-37 I-5 HOV Ramps/Gene Autry Way 6.0 A 6.3 A I-55 State College Boulevard/I-5 NB Ramps 12.8 B 12.5 B I-56 State College Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramps 17.4 B 12.5 B I-66 Ball Road/SR-57 NB Ramps 19.3 B 21.4 C I-67 Ball Road/SR-57 SB Ramps 32.1 C 17.6 B I-68 SR-57 NB Ramps/Katella Avenue 10.4 B 7.5 A I-69 SR-57 SB Ramps/Katella Avenue 11.3 B 8.5 A I-70 Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 NB Ramps 15.6 B 8.3 A I-71 Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 SB Ramps 19.4 B 28.7 C I-95 I-5 Ramps/Chapman Avenue 41.7 D 42.4 D I-97 SR-22 EB Ramps/The City Drive 28.5 C 29.6 C I-98 SR-22 WB Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 38.4 D 29.6 C I-99 SR-57 NB Ramps/Chapman Avenue 19.1 B 19.7 B I-100 SR-57 SB Ramps/Chapman Avenue 36.4 D 36.1 D Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis (Existing 2008) As shown in Table 5.9-11, an analysis of off-ramp queuing and control delay was performed for 19 area off-ramp termini intersections. The analysis indicated that no existing ramp termini intersections have a queue length that is greater than the existing off-ramp storage length. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-22 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-23 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-11 Existing Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Off-Ramp Queue Length Off-Ramp Control Delay (sec) Off-Ramp # of Lanes Off-Ramp Storage Length (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Termini Intersection L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R Deficient Storage Length I-9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 400 1,280 20 10 40 60 12.2 18.5 15.9 31.7 No I-10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 2 1 1,240 190 60 60 32.3 32.3 No I-17 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way 1.33 0.33 1.33 940 380 380 100 100 0 150 150 0 43.5 43.3 8.2 61.2 63.0 9.9 No I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 720 720 1,710 40 0 0 40 0 64.0 27.4 4.9 60.9 23.9 No I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 3 0.5 1,540 1,060 130 120 210 220 20.4 17.5 25.6 20.9 No I-5 HOV NB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 2 1,510 No I-37 I-5 HOV SB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 2 1,340 0 0 4.9 6.7 No I-55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 2 1,580 690 690 70 70 0 70 70 0 52.7 48.6 7.9 54.5 49.8 8.7 No I-56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 1.5 0.5 2 2,960 2,190 1,590 40 230 130 100 140 90 29.3 47.5 35.1 46.4 52.3 32.1 No I-66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1 1 1,030 680 180 240 280 30 28.9 42.7 53.0 10.7 No I-67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 0.5 1.5 1,290 570 390 400 250 250 35.3 45.0 39.5 46.4 No I-68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 1,030 590 70 50 50 40 18.4 20.5 18.8 19.1 No I-69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 930 600 80 70 60 60 19.5 23.1 18.8 23.4 No I-70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 650 350 130 190 20 0 38.9 56.4 21.9 17.2 No I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,050 630 340 210 110 0 140 60 247 66.3 33.4 8.4 68.5 26.0 23.9 No I-95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 2 1 1,080 220 220 0 230 0 46.7 9.8 46.0 7.4 No I-97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 1.33 0.33 1.33 870 650 400 160 170 150 150 56.4 58.5 58.1 58.4 No I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 2 0 2 900 230 70 0 140 0 53.4 9.9 53.0 6.4 No ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-24 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-11 Existing Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Off-Ramp Queue Length Off-Ramp Control Delay (sec) Off-Ramp # of Lanes Off-Ramp Storage Length (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Termini Intersection L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R Deficient Storage Length I-99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 1 1 1,240 760 20 0 10 0 14.8 3.5 13.8 3.0 No I-100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 0.5 0.5 1 580 1,000 210 60 120 90 36.5 12.7 47.6 30.7 No ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-25 Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis (Existing 2008) Table 5.9-12 summarizes HCM analysis results for the existing study area ramps for the AM and PM peak hours. The HCM reports a density based on the existing freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. As shown, nine freeway ramps currently operate at a deficient LOS under PM peak hours. Based on the existing conditions analysis, several ramps currently operate at a deficient level of service and as a result are expected to continue to operate at deficient conditions under future with and without project conditions. There are currently no plans to address each of the current deficiencies on the State Highway System and as a result, these existing and cumulative impacts will carry forward into the future. 1) I-5 Northbound Connector from SR-22 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour)/(R-1) 2) I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(R-10) 3) I-5 Southbound Connector to SR-22 Westbound (PM Peak Hour)/(R-25) 4) SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (PM Peak Hour)/(R-36) 5) SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Ball Road Westbound (PM Peak Hour)/(R-37) 6) SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(R-42) 7) SR-22 Eastbound On-Ramp from Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour)/(R-50) 8) SR-22 Eastbound Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street (PM Peak Hour)/(R-51) 9) SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive (PM Peak Hour)/(R-52) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-26 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-27 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-12 Existing Freeway Ramp HCM LOS A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 NB Connector from SR-22 EB* 2 4,570 1,800 27.6 C 7,250 2,520 > Capacity F R-2 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 6,370 270 23.2 C 9,770 370 33.6 D R-3 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard 2 6,100 520 10.1 B 9,400 410 20.5 C R-4 I-5 NB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way/Disney Way 1 710 10 6.5 A 1,170 20 10.3 B R-5 I-5 NB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 5,580 210 19.3 B 8,990 380 30.0 D R-6 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue** 2 5,190 710 21.2 C 8,030 1,120 32.8 D R-7 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 4,480 230 19.9 B 6,910 320 28.0 C R-8 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 4,710 200 21.1 C 7,230 280 30.9 D R-9 I-5 NB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 700 10 14.6 B 1,150 40 22.6 C R-10 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 4,910 320 22.2 C 7,510 930 > Capacity F R-11 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 5,160 760 23.1 C 8,120 930 33.2 D R-12 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 4,400 230 19.6 B 7,190 530 32.2 D R-13 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 6,420 540 25.1 C 7,880 640 30.7 D R-14 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 5,880 1,120 32.4 D 7,240 790 34.6 D R-15 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Disney Way/Anaheim Boulevard 1 7,000 450 26.6 C 8,030 440 30.2 D R-16 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue** 2 5,590 540 22.8 C 6,930 200 28.3 D R-17 I-5 SB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way 1 1,090 70 10.2 B 630 20 5.8 A R-18 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,050 380 23.2 C 6,730 530 30.5 D R-19 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,430 310 24.0 C 7,260 370 31.1 D R-20 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 6,060 440 21.5 C 7,720 620 28.3 D R-21 I-5 SB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 1,020 20 20.2 C 610 20 13.1 B R-22 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,620 280 24.4 C 7,100 390 30.7 D R-23 I-5 SB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard 1 5,900 170 18.7 B 7,490 290 23.5 C R-24 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 6,070 430 19.1 B 7,780 600 23.7 C R-25 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 WB 1 6,500 840 26.8 C 8,380 1,180 35.2 E ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-28 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-12 Existing Freeway Ramp HCM LOS A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-26 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 EB 2 5,660 850 9.8 A 7,200 1,190 14.2 B R-27 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 3,430 120 22.9 C 4,800 170 30.2 D R-28 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue WB 1 5,540 230 17.6 B 8,440 330 23.8 C R-29 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue EB 1 5,340 200 19.1 B 8,160 280 27.1 C R-30 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 5,770 630 25.1 C 8,770 280 32.5 D R-31 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue WB 1 5,410 160 18.9 B 8,760 280 29.3 D R-32 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue EB 1 5,140 270 19.1 B 8,490 270 28.2 D R-33 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 4,750 740 21.9 C 7,790 560 30.6 D R-34 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 4,310 150 19.6 B 7,680 240 32.8 D R-35 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 4,010 300 19.8 B 7,230 450 33.0 D R-36 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 4,590 850 25.0 C 7,950 670 38.9 E R-37 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 4,220 300 20.5 C 7,890 340 > Capacity F R-38 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 3,740 480 20.3 C 7,280 610 34.5 D R-39 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 6,580 1,510 31.8 D 7,370 920 31.2 D R-40 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 5,070 220 23.0 C 6,450 410 29.7 D R – 42 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 6,360 870 33.0 D 7,380 690 36.5 E R – 43 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 5,490 240 24.7 C 6,690 460 31.1 D R – 44 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 5,730 160 24.9 C 7,150 360 31.9 D R – 45 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 6,350 710 26.4 C 7,750 730 31.5 D R – 46 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,640 200 19.3 B 7,020 570 25.8 C R – 47 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 5,840 450 24.4 C 7,590 640 30.4 D R – 48 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 1,157 380 16.3 B 1,621 530 21.9 C R – 49 SR-22 EB Off-Ramp to Fairview Street 1 5,890 200 25.4 C 8,000 280 34.7 D R – 50 SR-22 EB On-Ramp from Fairview Street 1 5,690 870 29.2 D 7,720 1,220 > Capacity F R – 51 SR-22 EB Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street** 3 6,090 4,470 23.9 C 8,310 6,260 > Capacity F ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-29 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-12 Existing Freeway Ramp HCM LOS A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R – 52 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive 1 4,470 290 27.4 C 6,260 410 36.5 E R – 53 SR-22 EB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 1,832 1,500 17.4 B 2,816 2,100 27.2 C R – 54 SR-22 WB Connector to I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 3,670 1,400 9.8 A 4,880 1,960 16.8 B R – 55 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from The City Drive 1 2,100 320 23.2 C 2,940 440 31.5 D R – 56 SR-22 WB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 3,690 2,100 23.2 C 5,390 2,940 34.4 D R – 57 SR-22 WB Off-Ramp to Haster Street 2 6,110 600 10.7 B 8,770 840 17.6 B R – 58 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from Haster Street 1 5,510 430 25.0 C 7,930 600 34.8 D Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans * Major Merge Analysis Utilized to calculate density Major Diverge Analysis Utilized to calculate density ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-30 • City of Anaheim August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-31 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis (Existing 2008) Table 5.9-13 summarizes HCS analysis results for the densities and levels of service for study area mainline segments for the AM and PM peak hours. Consistent with the existing ramp analysis, several segments currently operate at deficient levels of service. According to the analysis the following freeway mainline segments are deficient under the PM peak hour: 1) I-5 Southbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-3) 2) I-5 Northbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-8) 3) I-5 Southbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-8) 4) I-5 Northbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-9) 5) I-5 Southbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-9) 6) I-5 Southbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-10) 7) SR-57 Eastbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (PM Peak Hour)/(F-14) 8) SR-57 Westbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (PM Peak Hour)/(F-14) 9) SR-57 Eastbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-15) 10) SR-22 Eastbound between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-19) 11) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-19) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-32 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-33 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-13 Existing Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Freeway Segment Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F-1 I-5 between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street 5,370 17.8 B 7,800 26.7 D 5,530 15.3 B 7,460 20.7 C F-2 I-5 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 5,630 18.7 C 8,560 30.5 D 6,120 20.3 C 7,890 27.1 D F-3 I-5 between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue 5,630 18.7 C 8,890 32.5 D 6,370 27.5 D 7,910 40.2 E F-4 I-5 between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard 5,780 19.2 C 9,200 34.5 D 6,420 21.4 C 7,880 27.1 D F-5 I-5 between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue 5,160 17.1 B 8,120 28.3 D 5,590 18.5 C 6,930 23.2 C F-6 I-5 between Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard 5,190 17.2 B 8,030 25.9 C 6,060 20.1 C 7,720 26.4 D F-7 I-5 between State College Boulevard and SR-22 6,100 16.7 B 9,400 26.6 D 7,000 19.2 C 8,940 24.9 C F-8 I-5 between SR-22 and 17th Street 7,570 20.7 C 11,520 36.5 E 9,630 27.2 D 12,560 44.8 E F-9 I-5 between 17th Street and Grand Avenue 8,130 22.3 C 11,680 37.6 E 8,670 23.9 C 11,840 38.7 E F-10 I-5 between Grand Avenue and 4th Street 7,970 21.8 C 11,240 34.8 D 8,580 22.3 C 11,930 39.4 E F-11 I-5 between 4th Street and SR-55 7,960 21.8 C 10,980 33.3 D 7,690 21.0 C 10,930 33.1 D F-12 SR-57 between SR-22 and Orangewood Avenue 5,770 16.3 B 8,770 25.2 C 5,530 18.7 C 7,050 24.2 C F-13 SR-57 between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue 4,750 16.1 B 7,790 27.4 D 6,350 21.5 C 7,750 27.2 D F-14 SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Ball Road 4,590 19.4 C 7,950 42.7 E 6,360 28.2 D 7,380 36.1 E F-15 SR-57 between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 4,670 19.7 C 8,380 > 45.0 F 6,580 22.4 C 7,370 25.5 C ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-34 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-13 Existing Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Freeway Segment Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F-16 SR-57 between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue 4,930 16.7 B 8,640 32.0 D 6,520 18.4 C 7,390 20.9 C F-17 SR-22 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 5,140 20.5 C 7,030 29.8 D 4,860 19.3 C 6,970 29.5 D F-18 SR-22 between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard 5,410 21.6 C 7,300 31.7 D 5,190 20.7 C 7,540 33.5 D F-19 SR-22 between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street 5,890 23.7 C 8,000 37.6 E 5,510 22.0 C 7,960 37.2 E F-20 SR-22 between Fairview Street/Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 6,090 19.4 C 8,310 27.5 D 6,110 19.4 C 8,770 29.7 D F-21 SR-22 between I-5 and Main Street 3,330 27.6 D 4,920 19.6 C 3,670 14.6 B 4,880 19.4 C F-22 SR-22 between Main Street and Glassell Street 3,110 12.4 B 5,120 20.4 C 3,790 15.1 B 4,540 18.1 C F-23 SR-22 between Glassell Street and SR-55 2,600 8.3 A 4,510 14.4 B 3,300 13.1 B 3,750 14.9 B Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-35 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis (Existing 2008) As shown in Table 5.9-14, the following weaving segments are deficient under the existing conditions. 1) I-5 Northbound between Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-6) 2) I-5 Northbound between SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-8) 3) I-5 Northbound between Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector (PM Peak Hour)/(W-9) 4) I-5 Northbound between 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-10) 5) I-5 Southbound between Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street/Penn Way Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(W-10) 6) I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-11) 7) I-5 Southbound between Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-11) 8) I-5 Northbound between Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-12) 9) I-5 Southbound between Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-12) 10) I-5 Northbound between SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-13) 11) I-5 Southbound between First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector (PM Peak Hour)/(W-13) 12) SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W 16) 13) SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-16) 14) SR-57 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 Eastbound Connector (PM Peak Hour)/(W-18) 15) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-20) 16) SR-22 Eastbound between Fairview Street/Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector / Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(W-22) 17) SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor between The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-23) 18) SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour)/(W-23) 19) SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor between Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(W-24) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-36 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-14 Existing Freeway Weaving AM and PM Peak Hours HCM LOS AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours ID Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp W-1 I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp W-2 I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable W-3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 20.6 B 33.6 D I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 21.4 B 35.5 D W-4 I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp Not Applicable W-5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off- Ramp 27.6 C 35.8 D I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off- Ramp 20.9 B 36.7 E W-6 I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp Not Applicable I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp 19.3 B 31.5 C W-7 I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off- Ramp 20.0 C 32.4 D I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 22.7 B 37.2 E W-8 I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 24.3 C 33.6 D W-9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 25.0 C > Capacity F I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 28.4 C > Capacity F W-10 I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off- Ramp 34.1 D > Capacity F I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 27.0 C > Capacity F W-11 I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 31.6 C > Capacity F I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 26.4 C > Capacity F W-12 I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp 26.2 C 37.7 E I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 31.0 C > Capacity F W-13 I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 28.8 C > Capacity F SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 18.9 B 28.1 C W-14 SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 23.5 B 33.5 D SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp 18.7 B 30.6 C W-15 SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp 26.6 C 32.8 D SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 17.8 B 39.3 E W-16 SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 33.0 D 37.0 E SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp W-17 SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp Not Applicable ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-37 Table 5.9-14 Existing Freeway Weaving AM and PM Peak Hours HCM LOS AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours ID Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 19.7 B 36.0 E W-18 SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 26.7 C 34.1 D SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp W-19 SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off- Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Not Applicable W-20 SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off- Ramp 24.6 C 37.6 E SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off- Ramp W-21 SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collect/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp > Capacity F > Capacity F W-22 SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off- Ramp 21.7 B 32.4 D SR-22 EB Collect/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp 34.9 D > Capacity F W-23 SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off- Ramp 29.6 C > Capacity F W-24 SR-22 EB Collect/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector > Capacity F > Capacity F SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off- Ramp 20.1 B 32.2 D W-25 SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 20.6 B 29.9 C SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 17.3 B 30.7 C W-26 SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off- Ramp 21.0 B 27.8 C SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp W-27 SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans Summary As noted in the analysis above, the local circulation system in the Platinum Triangle generally operates at an acceptable LOS. The regional circulation State Highway System has several components that currently operate at a deficient LOS. Locations that are deficient under existing conditions will be considered when determining future project related impacts and mitigation measures. The existing conditions assessment for the base year 2008 provides the framework for applying the General Plan future forecasts to both the No Project and With Project scenarios. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-38 • The Planning Center August 2010 Public Transportation OCTA operates five transit routes in the project area. These routes include regular bus service, station- link bus service, and express bus service. It is projected that demand for mass transit services will increase in the near future, especially when the ARTIC is built and fully operational. 5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project could: T-1 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). T-2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T-3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment). T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. T-6 Result in inadequate parking capacity. T-7 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold T-3 • Threshold T-5 • Threshold T-6 Although impacts associated with Threshold T-3 were determined as having a less than significant impact, additional analysis was provided for clarification purposes. Impacts associated with Thresholds T-5 and T-6 will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.9.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-39 IMPACT 5.9-1: PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION WOULD IMPACT LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM. [THRESHOLDS T-1 AND T-2] Impact Analysis: Traffic impacts were determined using the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). ATAM estimates that the existing land uses within The Platinum Triangle currently generate approximately 84,416 vehicle trips per day, which increases to 243,060 under buildout of the existing MLUP. ATAM projects that the proposed project would generate approximately 443,263 trips per day at buildout, for an increase of 200,203 trips over buildout of the existing MLUP. No Project (Year 2030) The analysis for the future forecast scenarios was performed through the application of the ATAM to develop future traffic forecast volumes throughout the Platinum Triangle study area. The forecasts that represent 2030 conditions are based on citywide land use data and regional socioeconomic growth projections. These forecasts incorporate the following future key project assumptions: • Currently adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan • City of Orange General Plan Update • Revisions to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, including the Anaheim Convention Center Expansion • Disneyland Resort Specific Plan • ARTIC as is currently incorporated into the General Plan • Relocation of Kaiser Permanente hospital Intersection ICU Analysis (2030 No Project) The intersection analysis considers the effect that growth within the study area will have on the future circulation system. Figure 5.9-4 shows ICU and LOS results for the study intersections under 2030 No Project forecast conditions during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Future General Plan lane geometrics were assumed in the intersection analysis. In year 2030 under No Project conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS in either or both AM and PM peak hours: 1) Ninth Street at Katella Avenue/(I-2) 2) Disneyland Drive at Ball Road/(I-5) 3) Disneyland Drive/West Street at Katella Avenue/(I-6) 4) Harbor Boulevard at Ball Road/(I-8) 5) Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road/(I-19) 6) Anaheim Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue/(I-20) 7) Haster Street at Gene Autry Way/(I-24) 8) Lewis Street at Katella Avenue/(I-33) 9) Market Street at Katella Avenue/(I-41) 10) State College Boulevard/The City Drive at Chapman Avenue (City of Orange)/(I-57) 11) Rampart Street at Orangewood Avenue/(I-64) 12) Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps (City of Orange)/(I-71) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-40 • The Planning Center August 2010 13) Main Street at Collins Avenue (City of Orange)/(I-80) 14) The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard (City of Orange)/(I-102) Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis (No Project 2030) According to the arterial segment analysis, the following 30 arterial segments (26 in Anaheim and 4 in Orange) would operate at a deficient LOS under future No Project daily conditions. These arterial segments are shown in Table 5.9-15. Four segments in the City of Orange will operate at LOS E or F, deficient under the City of Orange guidelines. Segments operating at LOS D, E, or F under daily conditions within the City of Anaheim are further analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions below. One roadway segment is divided into two segments, as the current Circulation Element designation has different lane assumptions for different parts of the overall segment. If a deficient segment under daily conditions is also deficient under the AM and PM peak hour conditions then improvements will be necessary to return the segment to an acceptable LOS under peak hour conditions. The analysis indicates that the following arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS under future forecast No Project daily conditions. 1) Anaheim Boulevard from I-5 to Cerritos Avenue/(A-2) 2) Anaheim Way from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue/(A-6) 3) Ball Road from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard/(A-9) 4) Ball Road from Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard/(A-10) 5) Ball Road from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street/(A-13) 6) Ball Road from Sunkist Street to SR-57/(A-14) 7) Ball Road from SR-57 to Main Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-15) 8) Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douglass Road/(A-19) 9) Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-27) 10) Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-31) 11) Eckhoff Street from Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue (City of Orange segment)/(A-32) 12) Harbor Boulevard from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue/(A-37) 13) Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Convention Way/(A-38) 14) Harbor Boulevard from Convention Way to Katella Avenue/(A-39) 15) Harbor Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Disney Way/(A-40) 16) Harbor Boulevard from Disney Way to Manchester Avenue/(A-41) 17) Harbor Boulevard from Manchester Avenue to I-5/(A-42) 18) Katella Avenue from Euclid Street to Ninth Street/(A-49) 19) Katella Avenue from Ninth Street to Walnut Street/(A-50) 20) Katella Avenue from Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive/(A-51) 21) Katella Avenue from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard/(A-52) 22) Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way/(A-56a) 23) Katella Avenue from Sportstown to Howell Avenue/(A-59) 24) Katella Avenue from Howell Avenue to SR-57/(A-60) 25) Katella Avenue from SR-57 to Main Street/(A-61) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.9-4 No Project (2030) Peak Hour Intersection LOS Source: PB 2010 0 2,800 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-42 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-43 26) Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-65) 27) Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street/(A-74) 28) Orangewood Avenue from Haster Street to Manchester Boulevard/(A-75) 29) Phoenix Club Drive from Honda Center to Ball Road/(A-81) 30) Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-91) Table 5.9-15 2030 No Project Deficient Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Vol V/C LOS A-2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 53,130 0.94 E A-6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Ave Katella Avenue Anaheim 25,230 0.90 D A-9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 56,710 1.01 F A-10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 45,610 0.81 D A-13 Ball Road State College Blvd Sunkist Street Anaheim 46,630 0.83 D A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 58,790 1.04 F A-15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 59,090 1.05 F A-19 Cerritos Ave Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 22,300 0.89 D A-27 Collins Ave Main Street Batavia Street Orange 23,270 0.97 E A-31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 24,550 0.98 E A-32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Ave Collins Avenue Orange 27,340 1.14 F A-37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 48,780 0.87 D A-38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Ave Convention Way Anaheim 46,890 0.83 D A-39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 49,980 0.89 D A-40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 55,020 0.98 E A-41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 53,490 0.95 E A-42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 55,420 0.84 D A-49 Katella Ave Euclid St Ninth St Anaheim 49,450 0.88 D A-50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 47,260 0.84 D A-51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 55,400 0.98 E A-52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 64,920 0.87 D A-56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 58160 1.03 F A-59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 54380 0.97 E A-60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR 57 Freeway Anaheim 60860 1.08 F A-61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 54600 0.97 E A-65 Lewis Street Katella Ave Cerritos Ave Anaheim 22360 0.89 D A-74 Orangewood Ave Harbor Blvd Haster St Anaheim 20130 0.81 D A-75 Orangewood Ave Haster St Manchester Ave Anaheim 24480 0.98 E A-81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Rd Anaheim 13530 1.08 F A-91 Struck Avenue Katella Ave Main Street Orange 14100 1.18 F Note: Shared jurisdiction segments are identified by the jurisdiction where the existing traffic count was taken. Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis (No Project 2030) Segments operating at LOS D, E, or F under daily conditions within the City of Anaheim were further analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. The analysis determined that one arterial segment (Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue) is projected to operate deficiently during PM peak hour as shown in Table 5.9-16. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-44 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-16 2030 No Project Arterial Segment PM Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To City Traffic Volume Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A-65 Lewis St Katella Ave Cerritos Ave Anaheim 2,680 4U 2,660 1.01 F 2030 With Project Intersection ICU Analysis (With Project 2030) Intersection analysis describes the effect of future growth on the study area intersections, with the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 5.9-17 and Figure 5.9-5, the following intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F (five intersections in the City of Orange and one shared intersection between Anaheim and Orange). 1) Euclid Street at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-1) 2) Ninth Street at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-2) 3) Disneyland Drive at Ball Road (PM Peak Hour)/(I-5) 4) Disneyland Drive/West Street at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-6) 5) Harbor Boulevard at Ball Road (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-8) 6) Harbor Boulevard at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-12) 7) Anaheim Boulevard at Vermont Avenue (AM Peak Hour)/(I-18) 8) Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road (PM Peak Hour)/(I-19) 9) Anaheim Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-20) 10) Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 NB Ramps (PM Peak Hour)/(I-21) 11) Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-23) 12) Haster Street at Gene Autry Way (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-24) 13) Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue (AM Peak Hour)/(I-27) 14) Lewis Street at Cerritos Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-31) 15) Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-33) 16) Lewis Street at Anaheim Connector (future) (PM Peak Hour)/(I-35) 17) State College Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue (AM Peak Hour)/(I-47) 18) State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-49) 19) State College Boulevard at Gateway Center Drive (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-50) 20) State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way (AM Peak Hour)/(I-51) 21) State College Boulevard at Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim/Orange) (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-53) 22) State College Boulevard/The City Drive at Chapman Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour)/(I-57) 23) Sunkist Street at Howell Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-60) 24) Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-61) 25) Sportstown at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-62) 26) Rampart Street at Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(I-64) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-45 27) Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps (Orange) (PM Peak Hour)/(I-71) 28) Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-73) 29) Main Street at Collins Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour)/(I-80) 30) Glassell Street at Katella Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour)/(I-87) 31) The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard (Orange) (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(I-102) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-46 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-47 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-17 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Summary 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Project Related Impact I-1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 1.02 F 0.85 D 0.90 D 0.87 D 0.94 E Yes I-2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.92 E 0.88 D 0.95 E 0.97 E Yes I-5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.70 B 0.77 C 0.86 D 0.91 E 0.87 D 0.92 E Yes I-6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.63 B 0.60 A 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.96 E 0.94 E Yes I-8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.73 C 0.68 B 1.05 F 0.91 E 1.10 F 0.96 E Yes I-12 Harbor Boulevard/Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.63 B 0.75 C 0.89 D 0.81 D 0.94 E Yes I-18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.82 D 0.92 E 0.89 D Yes I-19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.63 B 0.91 E 0.88 D 0.92 E 0.88 D 1.01 F Yes I-20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.71 C 0.74 C 0.99 E 0.86 D 1.03 F Yes I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.41 A 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.87 D 0.66 B 0.95 E Yes I-23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.47 A 0.58 A 0.84 D 0.87 D 0.90 D 0.92 E Yes I-24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Not Applicable 0.86 D 0.98 E 0.95 E 1.16 F Yes I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.46 A 0.50 A 0.74 C 0.82 D 0.95 E 0.90 D Yes I-31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.31 A 0.72 C 0.81 D 0.85 D 0.95 E Yes I-33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.62 B 0.67 B 0.95 E 0.85 D 1.28 F Yes I-35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim Not Applicable 0.58 A 0.79 C 0.74 C 1.07 F Yes I-47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.81 D 0.82 D 0.96 E 0.87 D Yes I-49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.43 A 0.53 A 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.94 E 0.99 E Yes I-50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.26 A 0.33 A 0.66 B 0.80 C 1.04 F 1.19 F Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-48 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-17 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Summary 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Project Related Impact I-51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.30 A 0.29 A 0.78 C 0.75 C 1.02 F 0.84 D Yes I-53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.91 E 0.97 E Yes I-57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.66 B 0.84 D 0.93 E 0.88 D 0.96 E Yes I-60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.37 A 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.69 B 0.93 E Yes I-61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.51 A 0.55 A 0.78 C 0.62 B 0.93 E Yes I-62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.31 A 0.41 A 0.61 B 0.72 C 0.77 C 0.98 E Yes I-64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 0.51 A 0.44 A 0.71 C 0.99 E 0.78 C 1.13 F Yes I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.61 B 0.68 B 0.79 C 0.94 E 0.84 D 1.04 F Yes I-73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.85 D 0.90 D 1.04 F 1.09 F Yes I-80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.57 A 0.85 D 0.94 E 0.88 D 0.96 E Yes I-87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.55 A 0.60 A 0.75 C 0.89 D 0.77 C 0.92 E Yes I-102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.42 A 0.48 A 0.86 D 0.93 E 0.88 D 0.96 E Yes * CMP Intersection ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.9-5 With Project (2030) Peak Hour Intersection LOS Source: PB 2010 0 2,800 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-50 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-51 Table 5.9-18 provides a list of improvements for the deficient intersections within the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Figure 5.9-6 illustrates the improvement locations and identified mitigation strategy. As shown, with mitigation, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that although one intersection, Harbor Boulevard at Katella Avenue (I-12), is projected to operate at LOS E, no improvements were recommended because this intersection is identified in the OCTA CMP as a CMP location. Per CMP Guidelines and the City of Anaheim Growth Management Element, intersections, major arterials, and Caltrans facilities operating at LOS E indentified within the CMP are considered acceptable. Table 5.9-18 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection LOS With Mitigation With Mitigation AM PM ID Intersection City ICU LOS ICU LOS Recommended Mitigation I-1 Euclid St/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.87 D 0.89 D Restripe NBR to NBT, widen NB departure for 400 feet I-2 Ninth St/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.88 D 0.80 C Add 2nd NBL (Restripe #1 SB lane) I-5 Disneyland Dr/Ball Rd Anaheim 0.83 D 0.87 D Add NBL: Restripe NB to 2L, 2T, 1R and SB to 2L, 2T; Remove Split Phase I-6 Disneyland Dr/West Street/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.84 D 0.90 D Restripe EBR to EBT, Restripe WBR to WBT and add 4th WB lane to the Simba parking lot entrance I-8 Harbor Blvd/Ball Rd Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D Add NBT, SBT, EBT, EBR I-18 Anaheim Blvd/Vermont Ave Anaheim 0.76 C 0.89 D Add SBT I-19 Anaheim Blvd/Ball Rd Anaheim 0.82 D 0.90 D Add NBR, EBL, EBR I-20 Anaheim Blvd/Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.68 B 0.86 D Add NBL, SBL, WBR, Restripe WB approach to 2L, 1TR, 1R I-21 Anaheim Blvd/I-5 NB Ramp Anaheim 0.55 A 0.85 D Add SBT (in median) I-23 Anaheim Blvd /Haster St/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D Add WBR I-24 Haster St/Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.78 C 0.87 D Add WBL, SBL, SBR I-26 Manchester Ave (I-5 SB Ramps)/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.77 C 0.80 C Add EBT, WBT (part of mitigation measure to widen Katella under I-5) I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramp)/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.81 D 0.78 C Add EBT, WBT (part of mitigation measure to widen Katella under I-5) I-31 Lewis St/Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.85 D 0.89 D Add WBR I-33 Lewis St/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.70 B 0.83 D Add NBL, NBT, SBL, SBR, WBT; Restripe SB to 2L, 1T, 1TR, 1R I-35 Lewis St/Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim 0.60 A 0.85 D Add EBL I-47 State College Blvd /Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.88 D 0.74 C Add NBL, SBL, EBL I-49 State College Blvd /Katella Ave Anaheim 0.90 D 0.85 D Add WBR, EBR; Restripe SB to 2L, 2T, 2R; EB to 3L, 3T, 1R I-50 State College Blvd /Gateway Center Dr Anaheim 0.89 D 0.78 C Add WBL and NBR I-51 State College Blvd /Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.90 D 0.73 C Add SBR ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-52 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-18 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection LOS With Mitigation With Mitigation AM PM ID Intersection City ICU LOS ICU LOS Recommended Mitigation I-53 State College Blvd /Orangewood Ave Anaheim/ Orange 0.88 D 0.90 D Add NBR and WBT I-57 State College Blvd /The City Dr/Chapman Ave Orange 0.83 D 0.80 C Restripe WBT to WBTR I-60 Sunkist St/Howell Avenue Anaheim 0.69 B 0.90 D Add SBL, restripe SB to 1L, 1LT, 1R I-61 Howell Ave/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.62 B 0.82 D Add WBR I-62 Sportstown/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.73 C 0.89 D Restripe NBTR to NBT, NBTL, Add Lane I-64 Rampart St/Orangewood Ave Anaheim 0.73 C 0.80 C Add NB Free Right, Add SBL I-71 Orangewood Avenue/SR- 57 SB Ramps Orange 0.79 C 0.89 D Add WBL (Restripe) I-73 Douglass Rd/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.78 C 0.87 D Add NBT and SBT; Reconfigure NBTR to NBT, Reconfigure SBTR to SBT; Add EBT and WBR I-80 Main St/Collins Ave Orange 0.88 D 0.87 D Add 2nd WBL I-87 Glassell St/Katella Ave Orange 0.76 C 0.90 D Restripe SBR to SBT and Widen SB departure for 400 feet I-102 The City Dr/Garden Grove Blvd Orange 0.67 B 0.90 D Add SBL by Restriping #1 NB lane; Restripe EBT to EBL City of Orange Facilities The Proposed Project results in cumulative impacts to seven intersections located within the City of Orange and includes one shared intersection with Anaheim and two ramp termini intersections. Some of the identified improvements are not included within the City of Orange development impact fee program. The Proposed Project would contribute the associated intersection fair-share percentage toward the costs of the recommended improvements. The fair-share calculations, presented in Table 5.9-19, show that the Proposed Project contributes between 8 percent and 27 percent of trips to Orange intersections and 34 percent of trips to the shared Anaheim and Orange intersection. The Cities of Orange and Anaheim will need to enter into or amend an existing cooperative agreement to determine the implementation of these improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-53 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-19 Potential Intersection Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities 2030 With Project 2030 With Project (Mitigated) AM PM AM PM ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Proposed Mitigation Strategy Possible Mitigation Issues Fair-Share Percentage I-53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.91 E 0.97 E 0.88 D 0.90 D Add NBR and WBT Median, Corner business 34% I-57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.83 D 0.80 C Restripe WBT to WBTR Within ROW 16% I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 SB Ramps Orange 0.84 D 1.04 F 0.67 B 0.87 D Add WBL (Restripe) Within ROW 27% I-80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.88 D 0.87 D Add 2nd WBL Parking, landscaping 8% I-87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.77 C 0.92 E 0.69 B 0.90 D Restripe SBR to SBT and Widen SB departure for 400 feet Street parking 9% I-102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.88 D 0.96 E 0.69 B 0.89 D Add SBL by Restriping #1 NB lane; Restripe EBT to EBL Within ROW 9% ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-54 • City of Anaheim August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.9-6 Recommended Mitigation Measures Source: PB 2010 0 2,800 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-56 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-57 Arterial Segment Daily LOS Analysis (With Project 2030) The following arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS with implementation of the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 5.9-20, the traffic analysis found that there are 42 arterial segments with significant impacts with implementation of the Proposed Project, including six segments in the City of Orange. These six arterial segments in the City of Orange will require mitigation to operate at an acceptable LOS through upgrading segment classification to provide additional capacity. For those deficient arterial segments in the City of Anaheim, a peak hour LOS analysis was performed for further analysis. 1) Anaheim Boulevard from I-5 to Cerritos Avenue/(A-2) 2) Anaheim Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road/(A-3) 3) Anaheim Way from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue/(A-6) 4) Ball Road from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard/(A-9) 5) Ball Road from Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard/(A-10) 6) Ball Road from Anaheim Boulevard to East Street/(A-11) 7) Ball Road from East Street to State College Boulevard/(A-12) 8) Ball Road from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street/(A-13) 9) Ball Road from Sunkist Street to SR-57/(A-14) 10) Ball Road from SR-57 to Main Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-15) 11) Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douglass Road/(A-19) 12) Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-27) 13) Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-28) 14) Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-31) 15) Eckhoff Street from Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue (City of Orange segment)/(A-32) 16) Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard/(A-36) 17) Harbor Boulevard from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue/(A-37) 18) Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Convention Way/(A-38) 19) Harbor Boulevard from Convention Way to Katella Avenue/(A-39) 20) Harbor Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Disney Way/(A-40) 21) Harbor Boulevard from Disney Way to Manchester Avenue/(A-41) 22) Harbor Boulevard from Manchester Avenue to I-5/(A-42) 23) Howell Avenue from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street/(A-47) 24) Katella Avenue from Euclid Street to Ninth Street/(A-49) 25) Katella Avenue from Ninth Street to Walnut Street/(A-50) 26) Katella Avenue from Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive/(A-51) 27) Katella Avenue from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard/(A-52) 28) Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way/(A-56a) 29) Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Street/(A-56b) 30) Katella Avenue from Sportstown to Howell Avenue/(A-59) 31) Katella Avenue from Howell Avenue to SR-57/(A-60) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-58 • The Planning Center August 2010 32) Katella Avenue from SR-57 to Main Street/(A-61) 33) Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-62) 34) Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-65) 35) Manchester Avenue from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue/(A-72) 36) Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street/(A-74) 37) Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Rampart Street/(A-77) 38) Orangewood Avenue from Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway/(A-78) 39) Phoenix Club Drive from Honda Center to Ball Road/(A-81) 40) Rampart Street from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue /(A-82) 41) State College Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Howell Avenue/(A-87) 42) Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-91) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-59 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-20 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid- Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A-1 Anaheim Boulevard Katella Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 31,080 6D 56,300 0.55 A A-2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 55,320 6D 56,300 0.98 E A-3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 46,190 6D 56,300 0.82 D A-4 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 39,160 6D 56,300 0.70 B A-5 Anaheim Way State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Orange 15,130 3D 28,150 0.54 A A-6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 26,650 3D 28,150 0.95 E A-7 Anaheim Way Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 18,110 3D 28,150 0.64 B A-8 Ball Road Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 42,390 6D 56,300 0.75 C A-9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 58,690 6D 56,300 1.04 F A-10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 47,460 6D 56,300 0.84 D A-11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 46,390 6D 56,300 0.82 D A-12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 47,540 6D 56,300 0.84 D A-13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 48,590 6D 56,300 0.86 D A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 61,800 6D 56,300 1.10 F A-15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 60,250 6D 56,300 1.07 F A-16 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Lewis Street Anaheim 30,130 4D 37,500 0.80 C A-17 Cerritos Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 29,510 4D 37,500 0.79 C A-18 Cerritos Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 19,870 4U 25,000 0.79 C A-19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 26,820 4U 25,000 1.07 F A-20 Chapman Avenue State College Boulevard SR-57 Freeway Orange 38,400 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-21 Chapman Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Orange 33,930 6D 56,300 0.60 A A-22 The City Drive SR-22 Freeway Chapman Avenue Orange 33,030 8D 75,000 0.44 A A-23 Clementine Street Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim 9,010 4U 25,000 0.36 A A-24 Clementine Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 5,720 4U 25,000 0.23 A A-25 Clementine Street Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim 8,470 4U 25,000 0.34 A A-26 Collins Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 20,830 4U 24,000 0.87 D A-27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 23,650 4U 24,000 0.99 E A-28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 21,820 4U 24,000 0.91 E A-29 Disney Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 17,040 6D 56,300 0.30 A A-30 Disney Way Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 26,660 6D 56,300 0.47 A ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-60 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-20 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid- Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A-31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 28,540 4U 25,000 1.14 F A-32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 27,760 4U 24,000 1.16 F A-33 Gene Autry Way Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 24,940 6D 56,300 0.44 A A-34 Gene Autry Way Clementine Street Haster Street Anaheim 30,800 6D 56,300 0.55 A A-35 Gene Autry Way Haster Street I-5 Freeway Anaheim 38,780 6D 56,300 0.69 B A-36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 45,660 6D 56,300 0.81 D A-37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 50,300 6D 56,300 0.89 D A-38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 47,440 6D 56,300 0.84 D A-39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 50,350 6D 56,300 0.89 D A-40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 56,730 6D 56,300 1.01 F A-41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 54,500 6D 56,300 0.97 E A-42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 57,240 7D 65,625 0.87 D A-43 Harbor Boulevard I-5 Freeway Ball Road Anaheim 59,290 8D 75,000 0.79 C A-44 Harbor Boulevard Ball Road Vermont Street Anaheim 38,240 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-45 Haster Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 38,010 6D 56,300 0.68 B A-46 Haster Street Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 39,830 6D 56,300 0.71 C A-47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 22,000 4U 25,000 0.88 D A-48 Howell Avenue Sunkist Street Katella Avenue Anaheim 7,910 4U 25,000 0.32 A A-49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 50,900 6D 56,300 0.90 D A-50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 48,170 6D 56,300 0.86 D A-51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 56,930 6D 56,300 1.01 F A-52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 67,110 8D 75,000 0.89 D A-53 Katella Avenue Harbor Boulevard Clementine Street Anaheim 59,070 8D 75,000 0.79 C A-54 Katella Avenue Clementine Street Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 59,650 8D 75,000 0.80 C A-55 Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Anaheim 57,520 8D 75,000 0.77 C A-56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 71,090 6D 56,300 1.26 F A-56b Katella Avenue Anaheim Way Lewis Street Anaheim 71,090 8D 75,000 0.95 E A-57 Katella Avenue Lewis Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 57,860 8D 75,000 0.77 C A-58 Katella Avenue State College Boulevard Sportstown Anaheim 51,920 8D 75,000 0.69 B A-59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 62,310 6D 56,300 1.11 F ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-61 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-20 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid- Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A-60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 71,190 6D 56,300 1.26 F A-61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 62,900 6D 56,300 1.12 F A-62 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 51,570 6D 59,115 0.87 E A-63 Katella Avenue* Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 49,250 6D 59,115 0.83 D A-64 Lewis Street Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 25,710 4D 37,500 0.69 B A-65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 32,900 4U 25,000 1.32 F A-66 Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 22,950 4D 37,500 0.61 B A-67 Main Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Orange 40,550 6D 56,300 0.72 C A-68 Main Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue Orange 29,410 6D 56,300 0.52 A A-69 Main Street Collins Avenue Katella Avenue Orange 31,360 4D 37,500 0.84 D A-70 Main Street Katella Avenue Taft Avenue Orange 21,730 4D 37,500 0.58 A A-71 Manchester Avenue Compton Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 16,050 3D 28,150 0.57 A A-72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 23,810 3D 28,150 0.85 D A-73 Manchester Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 14,740 3D 28,150 0.52 A A-74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 21,480 4U 25,000 0.86 D A-75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 25,910 4U 25,000 1.04 F A-76 Orangewood Avenue** Manchester Avenue State College Boulevard Anaheim/ Orange 34,410 6D 56,300 0.61 B A-77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 50,380 6D 56,300 0.89 D A-78 Orangewood Avenue** Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim/ Orange 47,660 6D 56,300 0.85 D A-79 Orangewood Avenue SR-57 Freeway Eckhoff Street Orange 49,090 6D 56,300 0.87 D A-80 Orangewood Avenue Eckhoff Street Main Street Orange 19,610 6D 56,300 0.35 A A-81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 13,510 2U 12,500 1.08 F A-82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 22,510 4U 25,000 0.90 D A-83 State College Boulevard Chapman Avenue I-5 Freeway Orange 45,860 8D 75,000 0.61 B A-84 State College Boulevard I-5 Freeway Orangewood Avenue Orange 48,060 8D 75,000 0.64 B A-85 State College Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Gene Autry Way Anaheim 46,900 8D 75,000 0.63 B A-86 State College Boulevard Gene Autry Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 34,920 6D 56,300 0.62 B A-87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 46,470 6D 56,300 0.83 D A-88 State College Boulevard Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 31,130 6D 56,300 0.55 A A-89 State College Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 28,570 6D 56,300 0.51 A ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-62 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-20 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Daily LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid- Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A-90 State College Boulevard Ball Road Wagner Avenue Anaheim 35,100 6D 56,300 0.62 B A-91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street Orange 15,500 2U 12,000 1.29 F A-92 Sunkist Street Howell Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 12,610 4U 25,000 0.50 A A-93 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 12,000 4U 25,000 0.48 A A-94 Walnut Avenue Main Street Batavia Street Orange 9,710 2U 12,000 0.81 D A-95 Walnut Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street Orange 9,860 2U 12,000 0.82 D NA-Not Applicable * Smart Street segments in Orange include a 5% capacity enhancement Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-63 Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS Analysis (With Project 2030) A peak hour LOS analysis was performed for 35 deficient arterial segments in the City of Anaheim as previously indicated and it determined that four arterial segments would have significant impact in either AM or PM peak hour as shown in Table 5.9-21. Table 5.9-22 compares these deficient segments under existing, No Project, and With Project conditions. The following lists deficient arterial segments that require improvements after the peak hour LOS analysis. 1) Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douglass Road/(A-19) 2) Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-31) 3) Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way/(A-56a) 4) Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-65) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-64 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-65 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-21 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS AM Peak Hour A-2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 3,320 6D 5,586 0.59 A A-3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 2,870 6D 5,586 0.51 A A-6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 1,820 3D 4,370 0.42 A A-9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 3,780 6D 5,358 0.71 C A-10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 2,750 6D 5,358, 0.51 A A-11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 3,200 6D 4,788 0.67 B A-12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 3,310 6D 4,674 0.71 C A-13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 3,250 6D 4,674 0.70 B A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,520 6D 7,286 0.62 B A-19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 2,380 4U 2,584 0.92 E A-31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,150 4U 1,824 1.18 F A-36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 3,300 6D 4,560 0.72 C A-37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,550 6D 5,358 0.48 A A-38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 2,560 6D 5,814 0.44 A A-39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 2,730 6D 5,814 0.47 A A-40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 2,990 6D 6,042 0.49 A A-41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 3,140 6D 6,042 0.52 A A-42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 3,280 7D 8,911 0.37 A A-47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 1,720 4U 2,508 0.69 B A-49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 3,550 6D 5,358 0.81 D A-50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 2,780 6D 7,980 0.53 A A-51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 3,730 6D 10,640 0.43 A A-52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 3,590 8D 7,600 0.71 C A-56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 5,360 6D 5,586 0.96 E A-56b Katella Avenue Anaheim Way Lewis Street Anaheim 5,360 8D 7,448 0.72 C A-59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 4,020 6D 7,524 0.53 A A-60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,530 6D 7,524 0.60 A A-61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 4,960 6D 6,384 0.78 C A-65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,970 4U 3,040 0.99 E A-72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 2,100 3D 2,508 0.84 D ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-66 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-21 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A-74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 1,200 4U 3,800 0.32 A A-75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 2,000 4U 5,168 0.39 A A-77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 3,280 6D 6,156 0.53 A A-78 Orangewood Avenue Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 3,730 6D 6,612 0.56 A A-81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 1,140 2U 1,482 0.77 C A-82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,010 4U 2,964 0.68 B A-87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 2,490 6D 3,762 0.66 B PM Peak Hour A-2 Anaheim Boulevard I-5 Freeway Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 5,090 6D 5,700 0.89 D A-3 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 4,300 6D 7,902 0.88 D A-6 Anaheim Way Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 3,610 3D 4,180 0.86 D A-9 Ball Road Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 4,100 6D 5,130 0.80 C A-10 Ball Road Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim 3,100 6D 3,990 0.78 C A-11 Ball Road Anaheim Boulevard East Street Anaheim 3,550 6D 6,156 0.58 A A-12 Ball Road East Street State College Boulevard Anaheim 3,520 6D 6,156 0.57 A A-13 Ball Road State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 3,800 6D 5,814 0.65 B A-14 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,770 6D 7,296 0.65 B A-19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 2,570 4D 3,268 0.79 C A-31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 2,290 4U 2,508 0.91 E A-36 Gene Autry Way I-5 Freeway State College Boulevard Anaheim 4,210 6D 5,358 0.79 C A-37 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 3,390 6D 3,876 0.87 D A-38 Harbor Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Convention Way Anaheim 3,260 6D 4,446 0.73 C A-39 Harbor Boulevard Convention Way Katella Avenue Anaheim 3,580 6D 4,104 0.87 D A-40 Harbor Boulevard Katella Avenue Disney Way Anaheim 3,560 6D 4,902 0.73 C A-41 Harbor Boulevard Disney Way Manchester Avenue Anaheim 3,730 6D 4,902 0.76 C A-42 Harbor Boulevard Manchester Avenue I-5 Freeway Anaheim 3,810 7D 9,975 0.38 A A-47 Howell Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Anaheim 2,130 4U 2,812 0.76 C A-49 Katella Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street Anaheim 4,320 6D 5,358 0.81 D A-50 Katella Avenue Ninth Street Walnut Street Anaheim 4,260 6D 7,980 0.53 A A-51 Katella Avenue Walnut Street Disneyland Drive Anaheim 4,540 6D 10,640 0.43 A A-52 Katella Avenue Disneyland Drive Harbor Boulevard Anaheim 5,380 8D 7,600 0.71 C ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-67 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-21 2030 With Project Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Traffic Volume Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V/C LOS A-56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way Anaheim 5,360 6D 5,586 0.96 E A-56b Katella Avenue Anaheim Way Lewis Street Anaheim 5,360 8D 7,448 0.72 C A-59 Katella Avenue Sportstown Howell Avenue Anaheim 4,020 6D 7,524 0.53 A A-60 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 4,530 6D 7,524 0.60 A A-61 Katella Avenue SR-57 Freeway Main Street Anaheim 4,960 6D 6,384 0.78 C A-65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 3,020 4U 3,040 0.99 E A-72 Manchester Avenue Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 2,100 3D 2,508 0.84 D A-74 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Haster Street Anaheim 1,520 4U 3,800 0.40 A A-75 Orangewood Avenue Haster Street Manchester Avenue Anaheim 2,000 4U 5,168 0.39 A A-77 Orangewood Avenue State College Boulevard Rampart Street Anaheim 3,280 6D 6,156 0.53 A A-78 Orangewood Avenue Rampart Street SR-57 Freeway Anaheim 3,730 6D 6,612 0.56 A A-81 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 1,140 2U 1,482 0.77 C A-82 Rampart Street Chapman Avenue Orangewood Avenue Anaheim 2,010 4U 2,964 0.68 B A-87 State College Boulevard Katella Avenue Howell Avenue Anaheim 4,390 6D 5,928 0.74 C NA-Not Applicable Note: Shared segments capacities are identified by the jurisdiction in which the traffic count was taken ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-68 • City of Anaheim August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-69 Table 5.9-22 With Project Arterial Segment LOS (Anaheim) 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project ID Arterial From/To ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Impact A-19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street/ Douglass Road 4,520 0.18 A 22,300 0.89 D 26,820 1.07 F Yes A-31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue/ Cerritos Avenue 6,910 0.28 A 24,550 0.98 E 28,540 1.14 F Yes A-56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue/ Anaheim Way 35,040 0.62 B 58,160 1.03 F 71,090 1.26 F Yes A-65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue/ Cerritos Avenue 7,680 0.31 A 22,360 0.89 D 32,900 1.32 F Yes The Proposed Project would result in significant impact to four arterial segments. However, with improvements as described in Table 5.9-23, all segments except for Lewis Street between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue (A-65) would operate at acceptable levels. Although the arterial segment on Cerritos Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Avenue (A-18) was not identified as having a significant impact, improvements are necessary so that Cerritos Avenue has a consistent classification for its entire length and would be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-70 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-23 Recommended Arterial Segment Mitigation Strategies 2030 With Project Scenario Without Mitigation 2030 With Project Scenario With Mitigation ID Arterial From To V/C LOS V/C LOS Mitigation Strategy City of Anaheim A-18 Cerritos Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street 0.79 C 0.53 A Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-19 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road 1.07 F 0.72 C Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-31 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 1.14 F 0.76 C Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-56a Katella Avenue Manchester Avenue Anaheim Way 1.26 F 0.95 E Upgrade to 8 lane Stadium A-65 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 1.32 F 0.88 D Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes City of Orange A-15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 1.07 F No mitigation recommended A-27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 0.99 E 0.63 B Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial A-28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street 0.91 E 0.58 A Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial A-32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue 1.16 F 0.74 C Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 0.92 E No mitigation recommended A-91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street 1.29 F 0.65 B Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial Source: City of Anaheim City of Orange Facilities Table 5.9-24 compares the deficient arterial segments in the City of Orange under existing, No Project, and With Project conditions. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in Orange are generally consistent with the forecast volumes presented by the City of Orange in their General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). As such, the segments of Ball Road (A-15, referred to as Taft Avenue in the Orange analysis) and Katella Avenue (A-62) identified in Table 5.9-24 were identified as deficient in the Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis with no specific capacity enhancing mitigation proposed. Rather, the City of Orange recommended monitoring these segments through peak hour intersection performance to ensure acceptable peak hour operations. Therefore, no specific road improvements are proposed for these two arterial segments. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-71 Table 5.9-24 2030 With Project Arterial Segment LOS (City of Orange) 2008 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 With Project ID Arterial From/To ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Impact A-15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway/ Main Street 32,740 0.58 A 59,090 1.05 F 60,250 1.07 F Yes A-27 Collins Avenue Main Street/Batavia Street 20,800 0.45 A 23,270 0.97 E 23,650 0.99 E Yes A-28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street/Glassell Street 14,710 0.61 B 21,360 0.89 D 21,820 0.91 E Yes A-32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue/Collins Avenue 10,870 0.45 A 27,340 1.14 F 27,760 1.16 F Yes A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street/Batavia Street 30,280 0.54 A 47,690 0.85 D 51,570 0.92 E Yes A-91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue/Main Street 6,720 0.56 A 14,100 1.18 F 15,500 1.29 F Yes For arterial segment improvements within the City of Orange, the facilities identified in Table 5.9-25 would require improvements to ensure acceptable operations. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in Orange are generally consistent with the forecast volumes presented by the City of Orange in their General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). As such, the segments of Ball Road (referred to as Taft Avenue in the Orange analysis) and Katella Avenue identified in Table 5.9-25 were identified as deficient in the Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis with no specific capacity enhancing mitigation proposed. Rather, the City of Orange recommended monitoring these segments through peak hour intersection performance to ensure acceptable peak hour operations. For the segment of Collins Avenue between Batavia Street and Glassell Street, improvements to a four-lane divided facility was recommended. The segments of Eckhoff Street and Struck Avenue were not found to be deficient in the Orange General Plan Update. The City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the deficient circulation system components in the City of Orange. Nevertheless, the City shall fund appropriate fair-shares of the identified improvements. The City shall endeavor to work with the City of Orange in developing a joint fee program whereby cross- municipal boundary impacts can be mitigated by development that is occurring in the adjoining jurisdiction. However, because the City of Anaheim cannot guarantee that the City of Orange will cooperate in the development of such a fee program or utilize funds collected by the City of Anaheim for City of Orange impacts for the intended purpose of such funds, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed for the deficient Orange arterial segments in the Environmental Documentation.. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-72 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-25 Potential Arterial Segment Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities ID Arterial From To With Project ADT V-C Daily LOS Proposed Mitigation Strategy Mit V/C Mit LOS Fair- Share A-15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 60,250 1.07 F No mitigation recommended 4.2% A-27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 23,650 0.99 E Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.63 B 3.0% A-28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street 21,820 0.91 E Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.58 A 6.5% A-32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue 27,760 1.16 F Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.74 C 2.5% A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 51,570 0.92 E No mitigation recommended 18.2% A-91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street 15,500 1.29 F Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial 0.65 B 15.9% IMPACT 5.9-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON CALTRANS FACILITIES. [THRESHOLD T-1] Impact Analysis: No Project (Year 2030) Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis (No Project 2030) As shown in Table 5.9-26, one Caltrans ramp intersection is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS without the Proposed Project. The ramp termini intersections have previously been evaluated based on the ICU methodology and in general the analysis LOS results are consistent. However, this HCM analysis is provided in accordance with Caltrans methodology. For two locations, the ramp termini intersections of SR-22 Westbound at Metropolitan Drive (I-98) and Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound Ramps 71), operate at different levels of service when comparing the ICU and HCM analysis. Intersection #98, SR-22 Westbound at Metropolitan Drive is deficient only under the HCM analysis indicating that the deficiency is generally the result of operational issues, such as insufficient or excessive signal timings for pedestrian crossings. Intersection #71, Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound Ramps is forecast to operate at LOS E under PM peak hour ICU analysis while the analysis resulted in a forecast PM peak hour LOS D condition. 1) SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive (PM peak hour)/ I-98 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-73 Table 5.9-26 2030 No Project Ramp Termini Intersection LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS I-9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 10.5 B 21.6 C I-10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 15.2 B 7.8 A I-17 I-5 Southbound Off Ramp / Disney Way 22.5 C 20.7 C I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 11.1 B 49.9 D I-22 Anaheim Boulevard / Disney Way 23.5 C 29.6 C I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella 26.8 C 24.9 C I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 16.3 B 27.7 C I-37 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 30.0 C 19.6 B I-55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 21.8 C 22.7 C I-56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 54.1 D 20.0 B I-66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 16.3 B 16.7 B I-67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 24.7 C 20.4 C I-68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.0 B 12.2 B I-69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 24.9 C 11.4 B I-70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 13.2 B 6.5 A I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 25.0 C 52.8 D I-95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 29.0 C 36.4 D I-97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 24.3 C 27.0 C I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 46.5 D 65.1 E I-99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 4.9 A 4.3 A I-100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 43.9 D 42.4 D Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis (No Project 2030) Caltrans ramp termini off-ramp queuing and control delay analysis was performed for 19 ramp termini intersections (I-9, I-10, I-17, I-26, I-27, I-37, I-55, I-56, I-66 through I-71, I-95, and I-97 through I-100). The analysis indicates that no Caltrans Ramp intersections are forecast to have a queuing length that is greater than the off-ramp storage length. Under No Project condition, off-ramp queuing length ranges from 2 feet (I-5 HOV Southbound Ramps/Gene Autry Way [I-37]) to 892 feet (State College Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramps Off-ramp storage length ranges from 220 feet (I-5 Ramps/Chapman Avenue [I-95]) to 2,960 feet (State College Boulevard/I-5 Northbound Ramps Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis (No Project 2030) As shown in Table 5.9-27, the following freeway ramps would be deficient without the Proposed Project during either the AM or PM peak hour. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, a 2-lane on or off-ramp should be provided where volumes exceed 1,500 vehicles per hour during either the AM or PM peak hour. The Southbound SR-57 Off-Ramp to Ball Road forecast volume exceeds these criteria during the AM peak hour under No Project conditions and should be monitored; however there is no difference between the No Project and With Project volumes at this location, therefore the project has no responsibility for improvements at this location. 1) I-5 Northbound Connector from SR-22 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour)/(R-1) 2) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(R-2) 3) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(R-3) 4) I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(R-5) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-74 • The Planning Center August 2010 5) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(R-6) 6) I-5 Northbound HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way (PM Peak Hour)/(R-9) 7) I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(R-10) 8) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(R-11) 9) I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(R-12) 10) I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(R-16) 11) I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(R-22) 12) I-5 Southbound Connector to SR-22 Westbound (PM Peak Hour)/(R-25) 13) SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (AM Peak Hour)/(R-39) 14) SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(R-42) 15) SR-22 Eastbound Off-Ramp to Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour)/(R-49) 16) SR-22 Eastbound On-Ramp from Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour)/(R-50) 17) SR-22 Eastbound Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street (PM Peak Hour)/(R-51) 18) SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive (PM Peak Hour)/(R-52) 19) SR-22 Westbound On-Ramp from Haster Street (PM Peak Hour)/(R-58) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-75 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-27 2030 No Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 NB Connector from SR-22 EB* 2 5,320 1,850 28.9 D 9,250 2,790 > Capacity F R-2 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,170 340 25.0 C 12,040 420 > Capacity F R-3 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard 2 6,830 1,130 11.9 B 11,620 840 > Capacity F R-4 I-5 NB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way/Disney Way 1 1,400 50 12.4 B 1,950 140 17.4 B R-5 I-5 NB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 5,700 230 18.9 B 10,780 430 > Capacity F R-6 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue** 2 5,810 950 22.5 C 9,360 1,600 36.2 E R-7 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 4,860 370 21.3 C 7,760 520 32.5 D R-8 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,230 260 22.4 C 8,280 400 33.9 D R-9 I-5 NB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way** 1 1,170 170 22.9 C 1,710 810 36.7 E R-10 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,490 440 24.1 C 8,680 1,140 > Capacity F R-11 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 5,780 800 24.2 C 9,920 1,010 37.8 E R-12 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 4,980 290 21.1 C 8,910 700 > Capacity F R-13 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 7,760 670 28.9 D 8,830 690 32.5 D R-14 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 7,090 1,260 29.1 D 8,140 990 29.7 D R-15 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Disney Way/Anaheim Boulevard 1 8,350 660 30.8 D 9,130 530 32.7 D R-16 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue 2 6,130 750 29.6 D 7,770 360 37.6 E R-17 I-5 SB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way 1 2,760 620 24.7 C 2,690 380 24.1 C R-18 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,380 430 23.6 C 7,410 560 31.6 D R-19 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,810 900 28.8 D 7,970 700 34.6 D R-20 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 6,470 630 22.6 C 8,640 840 30.9 D R-21 I-5 SB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 2,070 220 21.0 C 2,260 270 23.0 C R-22 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,840 680 27.2 C 7,800 820 35.0 E R-23 I-5 SB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard 1 6,520 230 19.9 B 8,620 320 26.0 C R-24 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 6,750 480 20.1 C 8,940 670 25.1 C R-25 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 WB 1 7,230 880 28.0 D 9,610 1,320 38.1 E ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-76 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-27 2030 No Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-26 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 EB 2 6,350 1,040 11.1 B 8,290 1,330 16.1 B R-27 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 3,790 160 23.2 C 5,150 180 29.8 D R-28 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue WB 1 6,270 260 17.8 B 9,710 420 25.2 C R-29 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue EB 1 5,790 220 19.0 B 9,410 300 28.7 D R-30 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 6,270 710 25.2 C 10,130 310 34.3 D R-31 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue WB 1 5,860 220 19.2 B 10,120 660 34.0 D R-32 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue EB 1 5,560 300 19.0 B 9,820 300 30.1 D R-33 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 5,320 970 23.2 C 9,020 750 33.0 D R-34 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 4,750 220 16.6 B 8,760 500 28.2 D R-35 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 4,350 400 17.0 B 8,270 490 26.4 C R-36 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 4,780 910 22.0 C 9,300 860 34.5 D R-37 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 4,390 420 17.3 B 9,090 900 32.5 D R-38 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 3,870 520 16.7 B 8,440 650 28.3 D R-39 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 8,430 1,770 36.5 E 8,250 1,150 32.6 D R-40 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 6,660 240 26.8 C 7,100 500 30.3 D R-41 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 6,900 670 31.0 D 7,600 560 32.5 D R-42 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 8,140 1,020 38.2 E 8,360 790 37.9 E R-43 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 7,120 260 28.5 D 7,570 500 26.0 C R-44 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 7,380 180 28.7 D 8,070 460 33.3 D R-45 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 7,980 870 30.3 D 8,980 860 33.5 D R-46 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 7,110 230 28.2 D 8,120 650 35.0 D R-47 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,340 530 26.4 C 8,770 680 31.9 D R-48 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 1,340 430 17.1 B 1,660 600 21.2 C R-49 SR-22 EB Off-Ramp to Fairview Street 1 6,970 230 29.2 D 8,530 300 35.8 E R-50 SR-22 EB On-Ramp from Fairview Street 1 6,740 980 32.8 D 8,230 1,360 > Capacity F R-51 SR-22 EB Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street** 3 6,990 5,010 33.1 D 8,680 6,690 > Capacity F ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-77 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-27 2030 No Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-52 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive 1 5,010 330 29.2 D 6,690 460 > Capacity F R-53 SR-22 EB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 2,680 2,090 25.5 C 3,030 2,950 34.0 D R-54 SR-22 WB Connector to I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,340 1,830 13.8 B 6,470 2,300 22.2 C R-55 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from The City Drive 1 2,000 380 22.2 C 2,480 470 26.9 C R-56 SR-22 WB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,660 2,000 24.1 C 7,200 2,480 33.0 D R-57 SR-22 WB Off-Ramp to Haster Street 2 7,040 640 11.7 B 10,150 870 20.9 C R-58 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from Haster Street 1 6,400 550 28.2 D 9,280 790 > Capacity F pc/mi/ln-Passenger Cars per Mile per Lane * Major Merge Analysis Utilized to calculate density Major Diverge Analysis Utilized to calculate density ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-78 • City of Anaheim August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-79 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis (No Project 2030) Table 5.9-28 indicates HCM analysis result for the densities and levels of service for deficient freeway mainline segments under No Project conditions (freeway mainline segments already perform deficiently under existing conditions are indicated by 1) I-5 Northbound between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-1) 2) I-5 Northbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-2) 3) I-5 Northbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-3) 4) I-5 Southbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-3)* 5) I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(F-4) 6) I-5 Northbound between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-5) 7) I-5 Northbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-8)* 8) I-5 Southbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(F-8)* 9) I-5 Northbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-9)* 10) I-5 Southbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-9)* 11) I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-10) 12) I-5 Southbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-10)* 13) I-5 Northbound between 4th Street and SR-55 (PM Peak Hour)/(F-11) 14) SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(F-14)* 15) SR-57 Northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-15)* 16) SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-16) 17) SR-22 Eastbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-17) 18) SR-22 Westbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-17) 19) SR-22 Eastbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/F-18) 20) SR-22 Westbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/F-18) 21) SR-22 Eastbound between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F- 19)* 22) 22) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-19)* 23) 23) SR-22 Westbound between Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 (PM Peak Hour)/)(F-20) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-80 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-81 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-28 2030 No Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Freeway Segment Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F-1 I-5 between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street 6,020 18.9 C 9,820 35.3 E 6,950 18.2 C 7,690 20.2 C F-2 I-5 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,300 19.8 C 10,230 38.4 E 7,110 22.5 C 8,840 29.5 D F-3 I-5 between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue 6,300 19.8 C 10,600 41.7 E 7,670 33.7 D 8,860 > 45.0 F F-4 I-5 between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard 6,460 20.3 C 11,010 > 45.0 F 7,760 24.8 C 8,830 29.5 D F-5 I-5 between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue 5,780 18.2 C 9,920 36.0 E 6,130 19.3 C 7,770 24.9 C F-6 I-5 between Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard 5,810 18.3 C 9,360 32.3 D 6,470 20.3 C 8,640 28.6 D F-7 I-5 between State College Boulevard and SR-22 6,830 17.7 B 11,620 33.8 D 8,180 21.3 C 10,020 26.6 D F-8 I-5 between SR-22 and 17th Street 8,350 21.6 C 14,380 > 45.0 F 12,120 36.3 E 14,470 > 45.0 F F-9 I-5 between 17th Street and Grand Avenue 8,760 22.8 C 13,700 > 45.0 F 10,230 27.5 D 12,870 41.5 E F-10 I-5 between Grand Avenue and 4th Street 8,620 22.4 C 13,310 > 45.0 F 9,950 26.5 D 12,710 40.2 E F-11 I-5 between 4th Street and SR-55 8,580 22.3 C 13,030 42.8 E 8,900 23.2 C 11,600 33.4 D ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-82 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-28 2030 No Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Freeway Segment Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F-12 SR-57 between SR-22 and Orangewood Avenue 6,270 16.2 B 10,130 27.1 D 7,010 21.8 C 8,300 26.5 D F-13 SR-57 between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue 5,320 16.5 B 9,020 29.8 D 7,980 25.2 C 8,980 29.6 D F-14 SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Ball Road 4,780 14.8 B 9,300 31.3 D 8,140 36.8 E 8,360 39.0 E F-15 SR-57 between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 5,230 16.2 B 10,010 35.6 E 8,430 27.1 D 8,250 26.3 D F-16 SR-57 between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue 5,090 15.8 B 10,640 40.6 E 9,060 23.6 C 8,720 22.7 C F-17 SR-22 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,700 26.7 D 8,090 36.0 E 5,640 21.8 C 8,580 40.9 E F-18 SR-22 between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard 7,130 29.0 D 8,630 41.6 E 6,210 24.3 C 9,240 > 45.0 F F-19 SR-22 between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street 6,970 28.1 D 8,530 40.4 E 6,370 25.0 C 9,390 > 45.0 F F-20 SR-22 between Fairview Street/Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 6,990 21.6 C 8,680 28.0 D 7,040 21.8 C 10,150 36.3 E F-21 SR-22 between I-5 and Main Street 4,860 18.7 C 6,090 23.7 C 4,340 16.7 B 6,470 25.5 C ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-83 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-28 2030 No Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Freeway Segment Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F-22 SR-22 between Main Street and Glassell Street 4,210 16.2 B 6,360 25.0 C 4,400 17.0 B 5,870 22.8 C F-23 SR-22 between Glassell Street and SR-55 3,320 10.2 A 5,310 16.4 B 4,440 17.1 B 5,180 20.0 C ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-84 • City of Anaheim August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-85 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis (No Project 2030) An HCM analysis was performed for freeway weaving segments, W-1 through W-27. Under the 2030 No Project conditions, the following weaving segments would be deficient during either AM or PM peak hours. 1) I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 2) I-5 Northbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 3) I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 4) I-5 Northbound between Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 5) I-5 Northbound between State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 6) I-5 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 7) I-5 Northbound between SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 8) I-5 Southbound between State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector (PM Peak Hour) 9) I-5 Northbound between Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector (PM Peak Hour) 10) I-5 Northbound between 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 11) I-5 Southbound between Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 12) I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 13) I-5 Southbound between Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 14) I-5 Northbound between Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 15) I-5 Southbound between Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 16) I-5 Northbound between SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 17) I-5 Southbound between First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 Southbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) 18) SR-57 Southbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-86 • The Planning Center August 2010 19) SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 20) SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 21) SR-57 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 Eastbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) 22) SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Eastbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 23) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 24) SR-22 Eastbound between Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector / Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 25) SR-22 Westbound between Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 26) SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off- Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 27) SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 28) SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 Southbound Connector (AM and PM Peak Hour) 29) SR-22 Eastbound between SR-57 Southbound Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 30) SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 Northbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) 31) SR-22 Eastbound between Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 32) SR-22 Westbound between Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) With Project (Year 2030) Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis (With Project 2030) The ramp termini intersections have previously been evaluated based on the ICU methodology as shown in Table 5.9-17, Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Summary, and in general, the analysis LOS results are consistent. However, two ramp termini intersections operate at different levels of service when comparing the ICU and HCM analysis: Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue (I-26) and SR-22 Westbound at Metropolitan Drive (I-98). These intersections are deficient only under the HCM analysis, indicating that the deficiency is generally the result of operational issues, such as insufficient or ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-87 excessive signal timings for pedestrian crossings. Three locations, I-21, Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 Northbound Ramps, I-27, Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue, and I-71, Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps correlate to intersection deficiencies already identified through the ICU analysis. Table 5.9-29 displays the freeway ramp termini locations where implementation of the Proposed Project results in a deficient LOS. The following five freeway ramp termini are deficient under HCM analysis. 1) Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 NB Ramps (PM peak hour)/(I-21) 2) Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue (PM peak hour)/(I-26) 3) Anaheim Way (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue (PM peak hour)/(I-27) 4) Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps (PM peak hour)/(I-71) 5) SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive (PM peak hour)/(I-98) Table 5.9-29 2030 Project Related Freeway Ramp Termini Impacts 2030 No Project 2030 With Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ID Intersection City Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Impact I-21 Anaheim Blvd / I-5 NB Ramps Anaheim 11.1 B 49.9 D 10.5 B 83.1 F Yes I-26 Manchester Ave (I-5 SB Ramps) / Katella Ave Anaheim 26.8 C 24.9 C 40.8 D 75.7 E Yes I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramps) / Katella Ave Anaheim 16.3 B 27.7 C 24.6 C 88.9 F Yes I-71 Orangewood Ave / SR- 57 SB Ramps Orange 25.0 C 52.8 D 30.0 C 81.1 F Yes I-98 SR-22 WB Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive Orange 46.5 D 65.1 E 51.9 D 68.2 E Yes Under future No Project conditions many Caltrans facilities operate at a deficient level of service. The implementation of the Platinum Triangle Overlay Zone results in continued deficient operations on the freeway ramp facilities within the study area. Table 5.9-30 displays the freeway ramp termini locations where implementation of the Proposed Project results in deficient operations as compared to acceptable operations under No Project conditions. Three locations, I-21, Anaheim Boulevard at I-5 Northbound Ramps, I-27, Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue, and I-71, Orangewood Avenue at SR-57 Southbound Ramps correlate to intersection deficiencies already identified through the ICU analysis. Improvements to these intersections should mitigate the identified deficiencies under both the capacity (ICU) and operational analysis methodology. Table 5.9-31 shows the freeway ramp termini intersection with the mitigation measures have been identified through the ICU analysis. Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue was not previously identified as deficient under the ICU analysis but is deficient under the HCM analysis under With Project conditions and acceptable under No Project conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-88 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-30 Project Related Freeway Ramp Termini Impacts 2030 No Project 2030 With Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Impact I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 11.1 B 49.9 D 10.5 B 83.1 F Project I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 26.8 C 24.9 C 40.8 D 75.7 E Project I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 16.3 B 27.7 C 24.6 C 88.9 F Project I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 25.0 C 52.8 D 30.0 C 81.1 F Project I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 46.5 D 65.1 E 51.9 D 62.8 E Cumulative Table 5.9-31 Recommended Freeway Ramp Termini Mitigation 2030 With Project With Proposed Mitigation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Mitigation I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I- 5 NB Ramps 10.5 B 83.1 F 14.1 B 51.6 D Add 4th SBT* I-26 Manchester Avenue 5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 40.8 D 75.7 E 39.2 D 42.0 D Add 4th EBT, Add 4th WBT I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 24.6 C 88.9 F 17.3 B 54.4 D Add 4th EBT, Add 5th WBT* I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 30.0 C 81.1 F 26.5 C 41.1 D Add WBL(Restripe)* I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 51.9 D 68.2 E 50.0 D 36.5 D Restripe WBT to 3rd WBL *Mitigation strategy identical to that proposed for ICU analysis As noted above, Katella Avenue is expected to be widened to eight lanes between Manchester Avenue, and Anaheim Way as part of the improvement for intersection #27, and upgraded to an eight-lane Stadium Smart Street to facilitate traffic operations. The proposed improvement for intersection #26, Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue would be affected by this arterial upgrade and the intersection widened to add a 4th Eastbound and 4th Westbound through lane. This improvement strategy returns the intersection to an acceptable LOS under the analysis. The implementation of the mitigation measures for these ramp termini intersections will return all to an acceptable LOS. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-89 For ramp termini intersections within the City of Orange, the facilities identified in Table 5.9-32 would require improvements to ensure acceptable operations. However, as the City of Orange did not utilize the HCM methodology in their General Plan, the operational deficiencies described were not addressed. Locations that operate at an acceptable LOS under the ICU analysis should be monitored to determine appropriate strategies toward improving flow through signal timing and coordination. The City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the deficient circulation system components in the City of Orange. Should the City of Orange decide to improve the operational capacity of any of the locations above, the City of Anaheim will be subject to a fair-share contribution towards the improvement cost. Table 5.9-32 City of Orange Freeway Ramp Termini Mitigation AM Peak PM Peak ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Mitigation Fair- share I-71 Orangewood Avenue/SR- 57 Southbound Ramps 26.5 C 41.1 D Add WBL (Restripe)* 27% I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 50.0 D 36.5 D Restripe WBT to 3rd WBL 7% *Mitigation strategy identical to that proposed for ICU analysis. Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing (With Project 2030) Table 5.9-33 presents the off-ramp queue and control delay determined by for the study area off-ramp termini intersections under 2030 With Project conditions. The analysis indicates that no Caltrans Ramp intersections are forecast to have a queuing length that is greater than the off-ramp storage length. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-90 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-91 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-33 2030 With Project Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Length Analysis Off-Ramp Queue Length Control Delay (sec) Off-Ramp # of Lanes Off-Ramp Storage Length (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Termini Intersection L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R Deficient Storage Length I-9 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 400 1,280 80 120 160 320 23.0 35.6 30.2 60.9 No I-10 Harbor Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 2 1 1,240 190 140 120 56.9 56.9 No I-17 I-5 SB Off Ramp / Disney Way 1.33 0.33 1.33 940 380 380 230 240 200 200 61.4 66.5 56.3 57.5 No I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 720 720 1,710 100 10 200 100 70 68.7 19.1 79.1 39.4 26.9 No I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 1.5 3 0.5 1,540 1,060 330 320 670 690 48.7 41.2 111.9 111.1 No I-5 HOV NB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 1 2 n/a 1,510 20 0 40 0 29.5 12.6 46.2 8.8 No I-37 I-5 HOV SB Ramps / Gene Autry Way 2 1 1,340 n/a 290 10 170 0 48.2 12.2 67.7 13.4 No I-55 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 2 1,580 690 690 230 240 150 80 84 160 103.6 86.0 40.5 54.0 50.4 64.4 No I-56 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 1.5 0.5 2 2,960 2,190 1,590 50 1,000 110 70 620 100 18.2 128.3 20.0 20.5 66.1 21.2 No I-66 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,030 680 240 240 230 220 45.9 58.2 45.0 56.7 No I-67 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1 2 1,290 570 540 370 410 240 47.3 29.9 67.0 35.8 No I-68 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1.5 1.5 1,030 590 250 250 200 200 41.9 51.3 49.5 59.2 No ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-92 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-33 2030 With Project Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing Length Analysis Off-Ramp Queue Length Control Delay (sec) Off-Ramp # of Lanes Off-Ramp Storage Length (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Termini Intersection L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R Deficient Storage Length I-69 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 1 2 930 600 240 310 170 240 41.3 48.8 43.9 53.6 No I-70 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Northbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 650 350 140 210 70 70 39.7 68.0 50.7 60.8 No I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps 1.5 1.5 1,050 630 340 240 200 150 310 270 247 91.2 72.5 47.6 162.2 139.5 127.2 No I-95 I-5 Ramps / Chapman Avenue 2 1 1,080 220 200 60 240 0 29.2 11.5 34.1 5.3 No I-97 SR-22 Eastbound Ramps / The City Drive 1.33 0.33 1.33 870 650 400 180 190 160 170 62.1 63.3 57.6 59.5 No I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive 2 0 2 900 320 160 300 420 30 30.8 28.8 102.7 8.1 No I-99 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 1 1 1,240 760 70 0 40 0 63.3 14.4 60.9 17.8 No I-100 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Chapman Avenue 0.5 0.5 1 580 1,000 270 50 130 350 87.4 16.2 50.3 129.4 No ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-93 Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Analysis (With Project 2030) Table 5.9-34 summarizes HCM analysis results for the study area ramps for the AM and PM peak hours. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, a 2-lane on or off-ramp should be provided where volumes exceed 1,500 vehicles per hour during either the AM or PM peak hour. The Southbound SR-57 Off-Ramp to Ball Road forecast volume exceeds these criteria during the AM peak hour and should be monitored; however there is no difference between the No Project and With Project volumes at this location, therefore the project has no responsibility for improvements at this location. According to the analysis the following freeway ramps are deficient under either the AM or PM peak hour 2030 With Project conditions: 1) I-5 Northbound Connector from SR-22 Eastbound (PM Peak Hour) 2) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 3) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) 4) I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 5) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 6) I-5 Northbound HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way (PM Peak Hour) 7) I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) 8) I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) 9) I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) 10) I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 11) I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 12) I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 13) I-5 Southbound Connector to SR-22 Westbound (PM Peak Hour) 14) SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) 15) SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (AM Peak Hour) 16) SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) 17) SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 18) SR-22 Eastbound Off-Ramp to Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) 19) SR-22 Eastbound On-Ramp from Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour) 20) SR-22 Eastbound Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street (PM Peak Hour) 21) SR-22 Eastbound Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive (PM Peak Hour) 22) SR-22 Westbound On-Ramp from Haster Street (PM Peak Hour) As compared to the No Project scenario, there are three additional deficient ramps under the With Project scenario. Operationally, adding a lane to either of these ramps does not result in acceptable ramp operations under 2030 With Project conditions. Impacts to freeway ramp facilities are the result of high forecast volumes on the ramps themselves coupled with high forecast volumes on the freeway mainline adjacent to the ramp facilities, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-94 • The Planning Center August 2010 capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. • I-5 Southbound On-ramp from Katella Avenue (PM Peak) • SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (PM Peak) • SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-95 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-34 2030 With Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 NB Connector from SR-22 EB* 2 5,320 2,020 30.2 D 9,390 2,800 > Capacity F R-2 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,170 340 25.0 C 12,190 420 > Capacity F R-3 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard 2 6,830 1,350 13.4 B 11,770 890 > Capacity F R-4 I-5 NB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way/Disney Way 1 1,520 110 13.5 B 2,050 160 18.3 B R-5 I-5 NB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 5,700 230 18.9 B 10,880 440 > Capacity F R-6 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue** 2 5,810 1,050 22.5 C 9,460 1,740 36.6 E R-7 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 4,860 370 21.3 C 7,760 570 32.9 D R-8 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,230 260 22.4 C 8,290 410 34.1 D R-9 I-5 NB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 1,250 220 24.6 C 1,800 930 39.1 E R-10 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,490 440 24.1 C 8,700 1,290 > Capacity F R-11 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 5,780 820 24.3 C 10,090 1,010 38.4 E R-12 I-5 NB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 4,980 290 21.1 C 9,080 740 > Capacity F R-13 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Harbor Boulevard 1 7,870 700 29.4 D 8,830 700 32.6 D R-14 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Harbor Boulevard 1 7,170 1,260 29.3 D 8,140 1,020 30.0 D R-15 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Disney Way/Anaheim Boulevard 1 8,430 730 31.4 D 9,150 590 33.1 D R-16 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue** 2 6,230 940 30.1 D 7,770 410 37.6 E R-17 I-5 SB HOV Off-Ramp to Gene Autry Way 1 2,910 800 26.1 C 2,690 450 24.1 C R-18 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Anaheim Boulevard 1 5,380 440 23.7 C 7,410 590 31.8 D R-19 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 1 5,810 960 29.3 D 7,970 810 > Capacity F R-20 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue 1 6,470 640 22.7 C 8,640 870 31.0 D R-21 I-5 SB HOV On-Ramp from Gene Autry Way 1 2,170 240 22.0 C 2,370 330 24.3 C R-22 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 5,840 700 27.3 C 7,800 900 35.6 E R-23 I-5 SB On-Ramp from State College Boulevard 1 6,530 240 20.0 B 8,670 320 26.2 C R-24 I-5 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 6,770 480 20.1 C 8,990 670 25.2 C R-25 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 WB 1 7,250 950 28.4 D 9,610 1,320 38.1 E R-26 I-5 SB Connector to SR-22 EB 2 6,350 1,060 11.2 B 8,290 1,350 16.2 B R-27 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 3,890 160 23.7 C 5,340 180 30.6 D R-28 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue WB 1 6,170 260 17.6 B 9,780 430 25.5 C R-29 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue EB 1 5,950 220 19.4 B 9,460 320 29.1 D R-30 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 6,430 720 25.8 C 10,210 320 34.6 D ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-96 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-34 2030 With Project Freeway Ramp HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-31 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue WB 1 6,010 340 19.9 B 10,240 690 34.7 D R-32 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue EB 1 5,710 300 19.4 B 9,890 350 30.8 D R-33 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 5,320 970 23.2 C 9,180 770 33.7 D R-34 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 4,750 240 16.8 B 8,910 520 28.8 D R-35 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 4,350 400 17.0 B 8,410 500 27.0 C R-36 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 5,140 910 22.3 C 9,840 980 36.9 E R-37 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 4,750 420 18.2 B 9,510 900 33.9 D R-38 SR-57 NB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 4,230 520 17.6 B 8,860 650 29.7 D R-39 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 8,720 1,770 37.4 E 8,250 1,210 32.9 D R-40 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road WB 1 6,950 240 27.8 C 7,100 520 30.5 D R-41 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Ball Road EB 1 7,190 670 32.0 D 7,600 580 32.7 D R-42 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 8,490 1,100 40.1 E 8,360 800 37.9 E R-43 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue WB 1 7,390 260 29.4 D 7,570 510 32.0 D R-44 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Katella Avenue EB 1 7,650 180 29.6 D 8,070 510 33.7 D R-45 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Orangewood Avenue 1 7,980 870 30.3 D 9,160 930 34.4 D R-46 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue 1 7,110 250 28.4 D 8,230 700 > Capacity F R-47 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Chapman Avenue 1 7,360 530 26.5 C 8,930 680 32.4 D R-48 SR-57 SB On-Ramp from Chapman Avenue 1 1,370 430 17.3 B 1,790 600 22.3 C R-49 SR-22 EB Off-Ramp to Fairview Street 1 7,130 260 30.0 D 8,530 300 35.8 E R-50 SR-22 EB On-Ramp from Fairview Street 1 6,870 980 33.2 D 8,230 1,360 > Capacity F R-51 SR-22 EB Connector to I-5/SR-57/The City Drive/Bristol Street** 3 7,000 5,010 33.2 D 9,110 6,690 > Capacity F R-52 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor Off-Ramp to The City Drive 1 5,010 330 29.2 D 6,690 460 > Capacity F R-53 SR-22 EB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 2,900 2,090 26.6 C 3,230 2,950 35.0 D R-54 SR-22 WB Connector to I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,460 1,940 14.8 B 6,630 2,400 23.2 C R-55 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from The City Drive 1 2,000 380 22.2 C 2,570 490 27.9 C R-56 SR-22 WB Connector from I-5 SB/SR-57 SB 2 4,720 2,000 24.3 C 7,280 2,570 33.9 D R-57 SR-22 WB Off-Ramp to Haster Street 2 7,040 650 11.7 B 10,340 870 21.5 C R-58 SR-22 WB On-Ramp from Haster Street 1 6,400 550 28.2 D 9,470 810 > Capacity F * Major Merge Analysis Utilized to calculate density Major Diverge Analysis Utilized to calculate density ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-97 Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis (With Project 2030) Table 5.9-35 shows 2030 AM and PM peak hour LOS results for study area deficient mainline segments with project implementation. The following freeway mainline segments are deficient under either the AM and/or PM peak hours. When comparing the No Project and With Project scenarios, there are no additional deficiencies under With Project conditions. Caltrans currently does not have any additional improvements identified or planned for the identified deficient segments on the I-5, SR-57, and SR-22 freeways. According to the most current Route Concept Reports for I-5 and SR-22, and consistent with the future proposed improvements to SR-57, improvements to these facilities are contingent on the availability of revenue from regional, state, and federal transportation funding sources. In addition, the City does not have jurisdiction over the State Highway System and, therefore, cannot directly implement mitigation measures associated with project related impacts on mainline segments. 1) I-5 Northbound between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-1) 2) I-5 Northbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-2)* 3) I-5 Northbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-3)* 4) I-5 Southbound between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(F-3)* 5) I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(F-4)* 6) I-5 Northbound between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-5) 7) I-5 Northbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-8)* 8) I-5 Southbound between SR-22 and 17th Street (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(F-8)* 9) I-5 Northbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-9)* 10) I-5 Southbound between 17th Street and Grand Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-9)* 11) I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-10)* 12) I-5 Southbound between Grand Avenue and 4th Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-10)* 13) I-5 Northbound between 4th Street and SR-55 (PM Peak Hour)/(F-11)* 14) SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue and Ball Road (AM and PM Peak Hour)/(F-14)* 15) SR-57 Northbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-15)* 16) SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue (PM Peak Hour)/(F-16)* 17) SR-22 Eastbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F17)* 18) SR-22 Westbound between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-17)* 19) SR-22 Eastbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(F-18)* 20) SR-22 Westbound between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)/(F-18)* 21) SR-22 Eastbound between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-19)* 22) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street (PM Peak Hour)/(F-19)* 23) SR-22 Westbound between Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 (PM Peak Hour)/(F-20)* ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-98 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-99 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-35 2030 With Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Freeway Segment Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F-1 I-5 between SR-91 and Brookhurst Street 6,020 18.9 C 10,040 36.9 E 7,200 18.9 C 8,010 21.0 C F-2 I-5 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,300 19.8 C 10,420 40.0 E 7,360 23.4 C 8,840 29.5 D F-3 I-5 between Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue 6,300 19.8 C 10,830 44.1 E 7,830 35.1 E 8,860 >45.0 F F-4 I-5 between Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard 6,460 20.3 C 11,240 >45.0 F 7,870 25.3 C 8,830 29.5 D F-5 I-5 between Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue 5,780 18.2 C 10,090 37.3 E 6,230 19.6 C 7,770 24.9 C F-6 I-5 between Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard 5,810 18.3 C 9,460 32.9 D 6,470 20.3 C 8,640 28.6 D F-7 I-5 between State College Boulevard and SR-22 6,830 17.7 B 11,770 34.6 D 8,210 21.4 C 10,020 26.9 D F-8 I-5 between SR-22 and 17th Street 8,470 22.0 C 14,590 >45.0 F 12,120 36.3 E 14,900 >45.0 F F-9 I-5 between 17th Street and Grand Avenue 8,800 22.9 C 13,780 >45.0 F 10,230 27.5 D 13,220 44.4 E F-10 I-5 between Grand Avenue and 4th Street 8,640 22.4 C 13,380 >45.0 F 9,950 26.5 D 13,050 42.9 E F-11 I-5 between 4th Street and SR-55 8,590 22.3 C 13,070 43.1 E 8,900 23.2 C 11,890 34.9 D F-12 SR-57 between SR-22 and Orangewood Avenue 6,430 16.6 B 10,210 27.4 D 7,010 21.8 C 8,550 27.6 D F-13 SR-57 between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue 5,320 16.5 B 9,180 30.6 D 7,980 25.2 C 9,160 30.5 D F-14 SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Ball Road 5,140 15.9 B 9,840 34.5 D 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E F-15 SR-57 between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 5,230 16.2 B 10,390 38.5 E 8,720 28.4 D 8,250 26.3 D ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.9-100 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.9-35 2030 With Project Freeway Mainline HCM LOS Northbound / Eastbound Southbound / Westbound AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Freeway Segment Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F-16 SR-57 between SR-91 and Lincoln Avenue 5,090 15.8 B 10,940 43.6 E 9,410 24.7 C 8,720 22.7 C F-17 SR-22 between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street 6,870 27.6 D 8,090 36.0 E 5,640 21.8 C 8,720 42.6 E F-18 SR-22 between Euclid Street and Harbor Blvd. 7,310 30.2 D 8,630 41.6 E 6,210 24.3 C 9,490 >45.0 F F-19 SR-22 between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Street/Haster Street 7,130 29.0 D 8,530 40.4 E 6,370 25.0 C 9,590 >45.0 F F-20 SR-22 between Fairview Street/Haster Street and The City Drive/I-5 7,000 21.7 C 9,110 30.0 D 7,040 21.8 C 10,340 37.7 E F-21 SR-22 between I-5 and Main Street 4,980 19.2 C 6,090 23.7 C 4,460 17.2 B 6,630 26.3 D F-22 SR-22 between Main Street and Glassell Street 4,290 16.5 B 6,360 25.0 C 4,580 17.6 B 5,880 22.8 C F-23 SR-22 between Glassell Street and SR-55 3,490 10.8 A 5,580 17.2 B 4,440 17.1 B 5,210 20.1 C ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-101 Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis (With Project 2030) Table 5.9-36 shows deficient freeway weaving segments with the Proposed Project. The following weaving segments identified as being deficient in either the AM or PM peak hours. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for proposed capacity or operational improvements to the freeway mainline segments or ramps, which may improve the weaving LOS. 1) I-5 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 2) I-5 Northbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 3) I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 4) I-5 Northbound between Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 5) I-5 Northbound between State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 6) I-5 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 7) I-5 Northbound between SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 8) I-5 Southbound between State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector (PM Peak Hour) 9) I-5 Northbound between Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector (PM Peak Hour) 10) I-5 Northbound between 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 11) I-5 Southbound between Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 12) I-5 Northbound between Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 13) I-5 Southbound between Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 14) I-5 Northbound between Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 15) I-5 Southbound between Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 16) I-5 Northbound between SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 17) I-5 Southbound between First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 Southbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) 18) SR-57 Southbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 19) SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 20) SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 21) SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 22) SR-57 Northbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 Eastbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) 23) SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Eastbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-102 • The Planning Center August 2010 24) SR-22 Westbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 25) SR-22 Eastbound between Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector / Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 26) SR-22 Westbound between Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 27) SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off- Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 28) SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off-Ramp (AM and PM Peak Hour) 29) SR-22 Eastbound Collector / Distributor between Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 Southbound Connector (AM and PM Peak Hour) 30) SR-22 Eastbound between SR-57 Southbound Connector and Town and Country Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) 31) SR-22 Westbound between La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 Northbound Connector (PM Peak Hour) 32) SR-22 Eastbound between Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) Due to the high forecast mainline traffic activity, most freeway weaving segments are deficient under the 2030 No Project scenario. Two weaving segments become deficient under 2030 With Project conditions that were not forecast to be deficient under 2030 No Project conditions: • I-5 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) • SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (PM Peak Hour) It should be noted that one weaving segment improves to acceptable levels under 2030 With Project conditions. Since freeway weaving segment operations are dependent upon mainline and ramp capacities, reducing congestion on these facilities contributes to higher weaving speeds and could lead to an improved weaving LOS. Improving weaving facilities through the addition of auxiliary lanes within the weaving area could provide additional capacity and reduce the weaving density. Operational improvements through improved signage or other ITS measures may also be developed in consultation with Caltrans in order to improve the weaving LOS. Table 5.9-36 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving AM and PM Peak Hour HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS I-5 NB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Off-Ramp W-1 I-5 SB b/w SR-91 Connector / Magnolia Avenue On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp I-5 NB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off-Ramp W-2 I-5 SB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-103 Table 5.9-36 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving AM and PM Peak Hour HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS W-3 I-5 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off-Ramp 21.9 B 39.1 E I-5 NB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 22.9 B > Capacity F W-4 I-5 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp Not Applicable W-5 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off- Ramp 32.9 D 38.7 E I-5 NB b/w Anaheim Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off- Ramp 24.1 C > Capacity F W-6 I-5 SB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp Not Applicable I-5 NB b/w State College Boulevard On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp 21.1 B 37.0 E W-7 I-5 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and State College Boulevard Off- Ramp 26.8 C 36.7 E I-5 NB b/w SR-22 Connector and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 24.6 C > Capacity F W-8 I-5 SB b/w State College Boulevard / Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and SR-22 Connector 27.7 C 36.1 E W-9 I-5 NB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and SR-22 WB Connector 27.9 C > Capacity F I-5 NB b/w 17th Street On-Ramp and Main Street Off-Ramp 33.6 D > Capacity F W-10 I-5 SB b/w Main Street On-Ramp and 17th Street / Penn Way Off- Ramp > Capacity F > Capacity F I-5 NB b/w Grand Avenue On-Ramp and 17th Street Off-Ramp 27.8 C > Capacity F W-11 I-5 SB b/w Penn Way On-Ramp and Santa Ana Boulevard Off-Ramp 36.5 E > Capacity F I-5 NB b/w Fourth Street On-Ramp and Grand Avenue Off-Ramp 27.3 C > Capacity F W-12 I-5 SB b/w Santa Ana Boulevard On-Ramp and Fourth Street Off- Ramp 28.8 C 39.3 E I-5 NB b/w SR-55 Connector and First Street Off-Ramp 31.9 C > Capacity F W-13 I-5 SB b/w First Street On-Ramp and SR-55 SB Connector 31.8 C > Capacity F SR-57 NB b/w Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 19.4 B 30.3 C W-14 SR-57 SB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Chapman Avenue Off-Ramp 28.2 C 38.0 E SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp 20.0 B 34.8 D W-15 SR-57 SB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp 31.5 C 38.2 E SR-57 NB b/w Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 18.3 B 36.2 E W-16 SR-57 SB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp > Capacity F 38.6 E SR-57 NB b/w Ball Road On-Ramp and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp W-17 SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-57 NB b/w Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and SR-91 EB Connector 18.8 B > Capacity F W-18 SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 EB Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 35.2 D 36.5 E ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-104 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-36 2030 With Project Freeway Weaving AM and PM Peak Hour HCM LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS SR-22 EB b/w Brookhurst Street On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off- Ramp W-19 SR-22 WB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Brookhurst Street Off- Ramp SR-22 EB b/w Euclid Street On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off- Ramp Not Applicable W-20 SR-22 WB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Euclid Street Off- Ramp 28.6 C > Capacity F SR-22 EB b/w Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Fairview Street Off- Ramp W-21 SR-22 WB b/w Haster Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Not Applicable SR-22 EB b/w Fairview Street / Garden Grove Boulevard On-Ramp and Collector/Distributor The City Drive Off-Ramp > Capacity F > Capacity F W-22 SR-22 WB b/w Metropolitan Drive On-Ramp and Haster Street Off- Ramp 24.5 C 37.2 E SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w The City Drive On-Ramp and Bristol Street Off-Ramp 38.6 E > Capacity F W-23 SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and Metropolitan Drive Off- Ramp > Capacity F > Capacity F W-24 SR-22 EB Collector/Distributor b/w Bristol Street On-Ramp and I-5 SB Connector > Capacity F > Capacity F SR-22 EB b/w SR-57 SB Connector and Town and Country Road Off- Ramp 33.8 D > Capacity F W-25 SR-22 WB b/w La Veta Avenue On-Ramp and I-5 / SR-57 NB Connector 26.5 C > Capacity F SR-22 EB b/w Town and Country Road On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp 24.1 C > Capacity F W-26 SR-22 WB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and La Veta Avenue Off- Ramp 26.2 C 35.5 D SR-22 EB b/w Glassell Street On-Ramp and Tustin Street Off-Ramp W-27 SR-22 WB b/w Tustin Street On-Ramp and Glassell Street Off-Ramp Not Applicable IMPACT 5.9-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SEVERAL HELIPORTS. [THRESHOLD T-3] Impact Analysis: There are two heliports in the project vicinity: the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center. The Anaheim Police Department also uses the parking lot at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. There are no private airstrips within the City. Heliport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft from structures located within navigable airspace and crash hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. The primary risks associated with heliports are take-offs and landings. The City typically seeks to minimize public exposure to heliport-related risks primarily through minimizing the siting of incompatible land uses surrounding the City’s existing heliports. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-105 The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County assists local agencies to ensure that there are no direct conflicts with land uses, noise, or other issues that would impact the functionality and safety of heliport operations. Heliports that are required by building code as an Emergency Use Facility to be used only for emergency medical or evacuation purposes) are exempt from the State’s heliport permit requirements. Should any of the heliports be used for other than the type of emergency use, the heliport would require the issuance of a State heliport permit by the Division in accordance with Public Utility Code (PUC) Section 21663. PUC Section 21659 prohibits structural hazards on or near airports and heliports. Structures should not be at a height that will result in penetration of the approach imaginary surfaces. Per Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Section 77.13, the construction or alteration of a structure more than 200 feet above ground level (AGL) requires filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Structures meeting this threshold must comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, with the referral requirements of ALUC, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA and ALUC, including filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (7460-1) for certain project-specific activities in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.” Proposals to develop new heliports would be required to be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 and for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports (AELUP for Heliports). In addition, the ALUC requires that local jurisdictions’ general plans and zoning ordinances are consistent with Airport Environs Land Use Plans (AELUPs), which contain noise contours, restrictions for types of construction and building heights in navigable air space, as well as requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within close proximity to airports and heliports. Therefore, although implementation of the Platinum Triangle will allow development of various land uses, including high rise residential uses in proximity to the existing heliports, such development would initiate a review by the ALUC for compatibility. It is anticipated that following AELUP guidelines will help reduce hazards related to heliports within the project area and the impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.9-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A DESIGN FEATURE (SHARP CURVES, ETC.) OR POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING USES. [THRESHOLD T-4] Impact Analysis: Development of the Proposed Project would intensify the land uses in the project area. However, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially alter the backbone circulation system and arterial connections compared to the Adopted MLUP. The proposed increase in development intensities is consistent with the visions of the Platinum Triangle and would not result in any potential conflicting uses. Furthermore, development of the Proposed Project would not create sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or any other inherently hazardous design features. It should be noted that delays caused by heavy turning movements, including the pedestrian component of the Proposed Project, are not factored into ICU calculations, and therefore are not reflected in the deficient LOS analysis performed in the traffic study. Heavy right-turn volumes without exclusive right-turn lanes are projected at several intersections with acceptable levels of service. With high pedestrian volumes expected within the project area, through movements and the right-turn movements are projected to be heavily delayed. The addition of a right- turn lane will result in increased pedestrian crossing times, but will improve pedestrian and vehicular safety. The identified right-turn movements at the following intersections have peak-hour right-turn volumes in excess of 300 vehicles without an exclusive right-turn lane and are located in mixed-use districts where heavy pedestrian volumes are expected: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-106 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Lewis Street/ Gene Autry Way – Westbound right turn lane • Anaheim Way/ Orangewood Avenue – Westbound second right turn lane • State College Boulevard/ Howell Avenue – Northbound right turn lane • State College Boulevard/ Gateway – Westbound right-turn • State College Boulevard/ Artisan Court – Westbound right-turn • Dupont Drive/ Orangewood Avenue – Eastbound right-turn Additionally, heavy left-turn volumes are projected at intersections with only one left-turn lane. Excessive queue at left-turn lanes can result in through-moving vehicles being blocked by left-turning vehicles. An additional left-turn lane can accommodate about 180 percent of the volume that can be served by a single left-turn lane with the same amount of green time. The reduction in green time for the left turn allows for more time to be assigned to other movements. The second left-turn lane would result in fewer delays for all movements and a smaller left-turn pocket, increasing the length of the landscaped median. The following locations are recommended to have an additional left-turn lane: • State College Boulevard and Howell Avenue – Southbound second left turn lane • Orangewood Avenue/ Rampart Street – Westbound second left-turn lane Certain intersections will have an unbalanced share of turning volumes between the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, events at Angel Stadium and Honda Center can generate traffic patterns that are unique for events only. Dynamic lane assignment signs will allow for some lanes to operate as through lanes during certain times and turn lanes during other times. The following locations will benefit from these signs in place of capacity enhancements: • State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue – Southbound and Eastbound approaches • State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way – Eastbound approach • Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 SB Ramps – Eastbound approach • Douglass Road/ Katella Avenue – Eastbound and southbound approaches OCTA operates five transit routes in the project area. While there are no inherent safety hazards, construction of bus turnouts will be considered in addition to far side bus stops to minimize delay effects and provide a safe environment for pedestrians. Each development project within the Platinum Triangle would be reviewed per the planned circulation system and would be required to provide necessary improvements in accordance with the determination of the Traffic and Transportation Division. Furthermore, in coordination with OCTA, a railroad undercrossing is being planned along State College Boulevard between Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue to further improve traffic flow and safety. It should also be noted that in accordance with the proposed Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, the property owner/developer will dedicate, including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property to maintain adequate levels of service and access with the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. IMPACT 5.9-5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS (THRESHOLD T-5) Impact Analysis: Development of the Proposed Project would intensify the land uses and alter the existing circulation patterns. However, as the Proposed Project is intended to proactively plan for future development in the Platinum Triangle, proposed roadway system within the Platinum Triangle has been ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-107 designed to accommodate the increased traffic volumes and the each development project is required to provide appropriate fire and emergency access, approved by the Anaheim Fire Department. All vehicle access will be designed and improved in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. Therefore, less than significant impacts to emergency access are associated with the Proposed Project. Temporary construction related access impacts may result from the Proposed Project. However, the property owner/developer is required to submit customary emergency access plans for review and approval of the Anaheim Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. This plan would ensure that sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles is provided during all phases of construction. It should be noted that during construction, if any project work street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound walls, storm drain construction, street connections, etc.) occurs in the vicinity of the Caltrans right-of-way, an encroachment permit would be required. However, it should also be noted that in accordance with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C for the Platinum Triangle, the property owner/developer will dedicate, including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan in place at the time of project construction and consistent with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Therefore, less than significant impact would result from project implementation. IMPACT 5.9-6: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD PROMOTE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION (THRESHOLD T-7) Impact Analysis: The Proposed Project is consistent with the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy, which is a part of the 2004 regional growth forecast policy that attempts to reduce emissions and increase mobility through strategic land use changes. The Proposed Project is a mixed-use development that will reduce vehicle miles traveled through locating housing near employment centers and entertainment uses. The Platinum Triangle MLUP integrates design standards for bus stops, pedestrian walkways, and bike system to promote alternative forms of transportation to residents and workers in the area. Additionally, development of ARTIC facility would directly support the alternative transportation policy as the Platinum Triangle will be served by Amtrak, Metrolink commuter rail, and Orange County Transportation Authority bus services. 5.9.4 Cumulative Impacts As described above, the Proposed Project and other cumulative development would increase traffic volumes in the area roadways, including state facilities at the 2030 General Plan Buildout time horizon. With planned and recommended improvements, deficient intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels. However, not all impacted intersections, arterial segments, and freeways are within the jurisdiction of the City to provide improvements. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in deficient intersections, segments, or freeway interchanges, and traffic impacts to local and state facilities are considered significant under cumulative conditions (2030 with Project). However, the Proposed Project is consistent with SCAG’s regional policy to reduce vehicle trips and the total distances traveled through providing high-density housing development closer to employment, commercial, and entertainment centers. The City of Anaheim is a jobs-rich area; therefore, providing additional housing development in an area where development opportunities exist is anticipated to result in reduction in commuting distances. Especially with the construction of the ARTIC project, which will provide enhanced access to existing bus, Amtrak, and Metrolink services, a link to both the proposed California High Speed Rail System and the California/Nevada maglev rail line would be enhanced. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-108 • The Planning Center August 2010 Providing additional opportunities for more modal choices would have a beneficial impact on transportation within the City of Anaheim and region. 5.9.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • Congestion Management Plan. OCTA is responsible for adopting the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Orange County. The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation decisions. Proposition 111, passed by California voters in June 1990, provides funds to those urbanized areas that adopt a CMP. In Anaheim, the CMP roadway system includes seven streets (Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Imperial Highway) and 15 intersections. The intersections located within the Platinum Triangle are the SR- 57 Northbound and Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue. A CMP standard of LOS E must be met at these locations. If it is not met, the City is responsible for developing a deficiency plan for these intersections. • Renewed Measure M. Orange County voters approved the renewal of Measure M with 69.7 percent on Nov. 7, 2006. The half-cent sales tax, administered by OCTA, will provide more than $11.8 billion to improve transportation in Orange County over a 30-year period beginning in 2011. The Renewed Measure M project includes construction of a new northbound lane between Orangewood Avenue and Lambert Road on the SR-57 freeway. In addition to the planned SR-57 improvements, regional plans include new carpool ramps at Cerritos Avenue using federal and state funds. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program. o SR-57 Northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment—addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall 2010). o SR-57 Northbound from the Katella Avenue off-ramp to the Lincoln Avenue off-ramp— addition of auxiliary lane capacity--(entered the environmental phase in 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late 2010 if project is approved). • Traffic Fee Program. Any development in the City of Anaheim is required to pay transportation impact fees per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the completion of the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. In addition, within the Platinum Triangle, any development shall participate in the Platinum Triangle Community Facilities District, which will fund infrastructure improvements throughout the Platinum Triangle, including transportation infrastructure requirements. As set forth above, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements. The City of Anaheim has historically utilized a variety of strategies to provide improvements to the citywide circulation system. The City currently has a traffic fee program in place to fund General Plan improvements assumed under build-out No Project and With Project conditions. The City has a long-standing policy that as development occurs throughout the City, traffic studies are prepared to demonstrate the need for implementation of the improvements identified in the General Plan, and developer fees and other local dedicated taxes will contribute to those ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-109 improvements as needed. The fee, initially developed in 1993 and updated as needed to include new facilities and updated Capital Improvement Programs, provides a proper nexus between increased development in the City and associated traffic impacts to the citywide circulation system. Developers contribute fees to the City, which uses the fund to implement circulation improvements in the City or as the City of Anaheim’s local match for leveraging funding from OCTA and Caltrans for circulation system improvements. Hence, the general plan improvements assumed in the build-out of the Platinum Triangle, prior to the approval of this plan, are expected to be paid for and implemented through the City’s existing traffic impact fee program. Community Facilities District. The City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. All projects, regardless of size, are required to contribute to the CFD. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle, including transportation. Nearly all of the mitigation measures in this study within the Platinum Triangle and the City of Orange are already identified within the CFD. The CFD is programmed to provide funding for improvements in the Platinum Triangle identified previously and this study has identified additional improvements that will need to funded on a fair-share basis. Under this Traffic Study and EIR, the City will provide fair-share funding for all of the intersection improvements in the City of Orange and the additional deficient intersections within the City of Anaheim not currently identified within the CFD, as well as fair- share funding to implement appropriate Caltrans facility improvements. If the costs of identified improvements cannot be covered by the total funding allocation under the existing CFD, other fee programs or update of the existing fee programs may have to be implemented to complete the recommended improvements. For locations within the City of Anaheim and Orange, the fair- shares for improvements will dictate the fair-share cost, priorities, and timeframe of the improvements. For intersections or arterial segments where the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project contributes a higher share of traffic to the build-out of the area, those improvements will be a higher priority. The City has proposed improvement strategies that return all intersections to an acceptable LOS under the 2030 With Project scenario. The fair-share calculations identify that the Proposed Project contributes a range of 7 percent to 44 percent of trips to study area intersections. The Proposed Project would contribute that percentage toward the costs of the recommended improvements. Intersection and arterial segment improvements in the City of Orange will have fees contributed to them by the Proposed Project, commensurate with the fair-share analysis. Although these improvements will be overridden in this SEIR, because Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the facilities, the project will be responsible for contributions for the appropriate fair-share toward the recommended improvements. • Fee Assessment and Fair-Share for Improvements: The City of Anaheim has applied a fair- share methodology to evaluate the financial responsibility of mitigating Platinum Triangle project impacts. The methodology is consistent with that outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Appendix directing users to use a formula to calculate equitable share responsibility for the traffic impacts of proposed projects. For impacts that are located in adjacent cities where the intersection becomes deficient under the With Project condition, a fair-share to an improvement cost that achieves acceptable performance is warranted. The fair-share calculation is based on the difference between the Future With Project and Future No Project total intersection entering volumes divided by the total growth entering volume from Existing to Future With Project conditions. The fair-share proportion is based on the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-110 • The Planning Center August 2010 value associated with the peak hour for which the deficiency has been identified. A computational example of the fair-share analysis is provided in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010. 5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the Impacts 5.9-3, 5.9-5, and 5.9-6 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.9-1 Increased development intensities within the Platinum Triangle would have substantial impact on the area circulation system. • Impact 5.9-2 The Proposed Project would increase traffic volumes on Caltrans facilities. • Impact 5.9-4 The Proposed Project would increase pedestrian hazards due to a design feature. 5.9.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.9-1 Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from the MMP No. 106A is shown in (italics). 9-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, Tthe property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: (5.10-2) • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 9-2 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, and ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-111 future employees’ commute options, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. following: (5.10-2) • On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services be provided. • Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. • Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs. • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commute rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. A commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program, Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Stagger work shifts. • Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-112 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.) • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants. 9-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, Tthe property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. (5.10-3) 9-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees, and Platinum Triangle Impact Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. (5.10-5) 9-5 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, Tthe property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property and consistent with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. (5.10-6) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-113 Additional Mitigation Measures 9-6 Prior to approval of a Development Agreement for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, property owner/developers shall prepare traffic improvement phasing analyses to identify when the improvements identified in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study, Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010 (Appendix F of this SEIR) shall be designed and constructed. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to implement traffic improvements as identified in the project traffic study to maintain satisfactory levels of service as defined by the City’s General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339, Orange County Congestion Management Program and established in City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair-share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. 9-7 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair-share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. At minimum, fair-share calculations shall include intersection improvements, rights-of-way, and construction costs, unless alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. 9-8 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange: a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within the City of Orange. The fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts shall be calculated in this analysis. b) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with the City of Orange. c) The Proposed Project shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair-share cost prior to issuance of a building permit. The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-114 • The Planning Center August 2010 allocate the fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities. 9-9 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, and assuming that a regional transportation agency has not already programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations, property owners/developers and the City will take the following actions in cooperation with Caltrans: a) The traffic study will identify the Project’s proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations and its fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339 and established in the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. b) The City shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans. 9-10 Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair-share responsibility as determined by the City as set forth in Mitigation Measure 9-9. The City shall allocate the property owners/developers fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City. 9-11 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan and consistent with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, regardless of the level of impacts generated by the project. Transportation Fee Program 9-12 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees, Community Facilities District Fees, and Platinum Triangle Impact Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. 9-13 Subsequent to the certification of the FEIR, and prior to the approval of the first Development Agreement, if the costs of the identified improvements in this traffic study cannot be covered by the total funding allocation under the existing Community Facilities District (CFD), an or update of the existing City traffic fee program or other fee programs shall be developed by the City of Anaheim to ensure completion of the recommended improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-115 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program 9-14 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 9-15 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants. • On-site services. On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services. • Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. • Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs. • Transit Pass. Promote Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. • Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers should be provided as part of this program. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-116 • The Planning Center August 2010 Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area should be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Promote an incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts. • Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • Parking Management. Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. • Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer employees financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax- free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools. • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Participation In the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) 9-16 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-117 9-17 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Public Works, Transit Planning Division that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the project, the existing Metrolink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following: a. A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co- location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division and ATN. The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan. b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair- share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service. e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken its place. f. That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. Impact 5.9-2 Three freeway ramps, I-5 Southbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue, SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road and SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue, are deficient under 2030 With Project conditions in the PM Peak Hour and operate at acceptable levels of service under 2030 No Project conditions. Operationally, adding a lane to either of these ramps does not result in acceptable ramp operations under 2030 With Project conditions. Impacts to freeway ramp facilities are the result of high forecast volumes on the ramps themselves coupled with high forecast volumes on the freeway mainline adjacent to the ramp facilities, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-118 • The Planning Center August 2010 The traffic on the State Highway System is regional in nature and the deficiencies are the result of expected regional growth. Caltrans has not entered into an agreement with the City and Caltrans has not adopted a program by which Caltrans can ensure that developer fair-share contributions will assist in the funding of potential capacity or operational improvements on the study area State Highway System. Because the I-5 and SR-22 are at their conceptual build-out, and OCTA and State funding is committed to the planned widening of SR-57, there is no guarantee that impact fees from the Proposed Project will be dedicated to the improvements of the study area State Highway System. Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation measures as shown below have been recommended for the impacted Caltrans ramp termini, which are the same mitigation measures identified for ICU analysis. However, the City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the deficient circulation system components in the City of Orange. Should the City of Orange decide to improve the operational capacity of any of the impacted locations, the City of Anaheim will be subject to designated fair-share contribution towards the improvement cost. • Intersection I-21: Anaheim Boulevard/I-5 Northbound Ramps (Anaheim) – Add 4th Southbound Through Lane. • Intersection I-26: Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue (Anaheim) – Add 4th Eastbound Through Lane and add 4th Westbound Through Lane. • Intersection I-27: Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue (Anaheim) – Add 4th Eastbound Through Lane and add 5th Westbound through lane. • Intersection I-71: Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound Ramps (Orange) – Add 2nd Westbound Lane (fair-share contribution of 36.1 percent). • Intersection I-98: SR-22 Westbound Ramps/Metropolitan Drive (Orange) – Restripe Westbound Through Lane to 3rd Westbound Lane (fair-share contribution of 7.4 percent). Caltrans Ramp Termini Off-Ramp Queuing No mitigation measures are necessary. Caltrans Freeway Ramp HCM Three freeway ramps, I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from State College Boulevard/Chapman Avenue SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (R-36), and SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Orangewood Avenue (R-46) during PM peak hour are deficient under 2030 With Project conditions. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. Proposed project fair-share percentages for the ramps noted above range from 17 percent to 40 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-119 Freeway ramp performance is directly related to the performance of the mainline segments for freeways, and as such, mitigation to increase ramp capacity likely would not mitigate cumulative traffic deficiencies, as the mainline volumes would still result in deficient operations. Caltrans Freeway Mainline HCM Analysis Proposed Project fair-share percentages have been computed for the two segments of I-5 that are deficient under 2030 With Project conditions and acceptable under No Project conditions. The shares have been computed per the methodology outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Appendix of the guidelines directs users to use a formula to calculate equitable share responsibility for the traffic impacts of proposed projects. The guidelines are not intended to establish a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility, but rather to provide a starting point for discussions with Caltrans to address the traffic mitigation and fair-share responsibilities. The project shares for the two segments on I-5 are 10 percent and less than 0.5 percent, respectively. Caltrans Freeway Weaving HCM Analysis Two weaving segments are deficient under the Proposed Project. Potential improvements include implementation of an auxiliary lane within the weaving area to improve operations. The weaving analysis revealed that several weaving areas operate at deficient levels of service under 2030 With and No Project conditions as a result of high mainline forecast volumes and cumulative growth. To address cumulative deficiencies associated with the freeway mainline and weaving segments, freeway capacity enhancements such as widening the facilities by one lane in each direction would require consideration: • I-5 between SR-91 and SR-55 – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-shares range from approximately 2-12%) • SR-57 Northbound between SR-91 and Katella Avenue – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair- shares range from approximately 13-19%) • SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 and SR-22 Ramps – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair- share approximately 16%) • SR-22 Westbound between Brookhurst Street and Main Street – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-shares range from approximately 8-13%) • SR-22 Eastbound between Brookhurst Street and Glassell Street – widen by 1 lane each direction (fair-share negligible) Mitigation strategies have been recommended to reduce the level of impact to less than significant levels. Potential additional capacity enhancements include the implementation of auxiliary lanes within weaving areas to improve operations on the merge/diverge areas as well as the mainline and weaving areas. However, this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and adjacent mainline segment and no additional improvements are feasible. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-120 • The Planning Center August 2010 Impact 5.9-4 9-18 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements identified under Impact 5.9-4 shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6. 9-19 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.9-1 Intersection and Arterial Segment Impacts Based upon the ICU methodology established by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the study determined that 31 intersections are impacted by the Proposed Project and require mitigation. As shown in Table 5.9-37, improvements have been proposed for all 31 locations and all intersections within the study area would operate at an acceptable LOS with the implementation of the mitigation strategies. Additionally, as shown in Table 5.9-37, mitigation measures have been provided for four arterial segments in the City of Anaheim and six arterial segments in the City of Orange that are impacted by the Proposed Project. One arterial segment (A-18, Cerritos Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Street) is recommended for improvement to allow for continuity on a key east-west corridor although no significant impact was identified. Implementation of Mitigation 9-1 through 9-13, in conjunction with the recommended improvements in Table 5.9-37 would reduce impacted intersections LOS to a less than significant level. However, as indicated in Table 5.9-37, mitigation measures recommended for 13 impacted intersections are infeasible and project impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Should that occur, the project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Table 5.9-37 presents mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts, including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-121 Table 5.9-37 Recommended Mitigation Measures ID Location Jurisdiction Level of Impact Mitigation Comments Intersections I-1 Euclid Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Restripe NBR to NBT, widen NB departure for 400 feet Infeasible I-2 Ninth Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add 2nd NBL (Restripe #1 SB lane) I-5 Disneyland Drive / Ball Road Anaheim Project Add NBL: Restripe NB to 2L, 2T, 1R and SB to 2L, 2T; Remove Split Phase Infeasible I-6 Disneyland Drive / West Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Restripe EBR to EBT, Restripe WBR to WBT and add 4th WB lane to the Simba parking lot entrance Partially Infeasible I-8 Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim Project Add NBT, SBT, EBT, EBR Infeasible I-18 Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue Anaheim Project Add SBT I-19 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim Project Add NBR, EBL, EBR I-20 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBL, SBL, WBR, Restripe WB approach to 2L, 1TR, 1R I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Anaheim Project Add SBT (in median) I-23 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR Infeasible I-24 Haster Street / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Project Add WBL, SBL, SBR I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Anaheim Project Add EBT, WBT I-31 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR I-33 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBL, NBT, SBL, SBR, WBT; Restripe SB to 2L, 1T, 1TR, 1R I-35 Lewis Street / Anaheim Connector (future) Anaheim Project Add EBL I-47 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBL, SBL, EBL I-49 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR, EBR; Restripe SB to 2L, 2T, 2R; EB to 3L, 3T, 1R Partially Infeasible I-50 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim Project Add WBL and NBR I-51 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Project Add SBR I-53 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange Project Add NBR and WBT Infeasible I-57 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Orange Project Restripe WBT to WBTR Override I-60 Sunkist Street / Howell Avenue Anaheim Project Add SBL, restripe SB to 1L, 1LT, 1R I-61 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add WBR I-62 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Restripe NBTR to NBT, NBTL, Add Lane I-64 Rampart Street / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange Project Add NB Free Right, Add SBL I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange Project Add WBL (Restripe) Override ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-122 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.9-37 Recommended Mitigation Measures ID Location Jurisdiction Level of Impact Mitigation Comments I-73 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim Project Add NBT and SBT; Reconfigure NBTR to NBT, Reconfigure SBTR to SBT; Add EBT and WBR I-80 Main Street / Collins Avenue Orange Project Add 2nd WBL Override I-87 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange Project Restripe SBR to SBT and Widen SB departure for 400 feet Override I-102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange Project Add SBL by Restriping #1 NB lane); Restripe EBT to EBL Override Ramp Termini Intersections I-21 Anaheim Boulevard / I-5 NB Ramps Anaheim Project Add 4th SBT* I-26 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Anaheim Project Add 4th EBT, Add 4th I-27 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Anaheim Project Add 4th EBT, Add 5th I-71 Orangewood Avenue / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Orange Project Add WBL (Restripe)* Override I-98 SR-22 Westbound Ramps/ Metropolitan Drive Orange Cumulative Restripe WBT to 3rd WBL Override Arterial Segments A-18 Cerritos Avenue (between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Street) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-19 Cerritos Avenue (between Sunkist Street and Douglass Road) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-31 Douglass Road (between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A- 56a Katella Avenue (between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 8 lane Stadium A-65 Lewis Street (between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue) Anaheim Project Upgrade to 4 lane primary arterial w/ bike lanes A-15 Ball Road (between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street) Orange Project No mitigation Override A-27 Collins Avenue (between Main Street and Batavia Street ) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial Override A-28 Collins Avenue (between Batavia Street and Glassell Street) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial Override A-32 Eckhoff Street (between Orangewood Avenue and Collins Avenue) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial Override A-62 Katella Avenue (between Main Street and Batavia Orange Project No mitigation Override A-91 Struck Avenue (between Katella Avenue and Main Street) Orange Project Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial Override Note: * Intersection identified as deficient under both ICU and HCM analysis. The following City of Anaheim intersection improvements are not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. 1) Intersection I-1: Euclid Street/Katella Avenue—Restripe Northbound Right turn lane to Northbound through lane The improvement at Euclid Street and Katella Avenue is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing and newly constructed businesses including a recently rebuilt mini-mall on the northeast corner of the intersection, which support economic development for the City of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-123 The potential right-of-way required for receiving lane on the northeast corner of the intersection would significantly impact the business and parking on the east side of Euclid Street, north of Katella Avenue. 2) Intersection I-5: Disneyland Drive/Ball Road—Add NBL: Restripe NB to 2L, 2T, 1R and SB to 2L, 2T; Remove Split Phase The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. In order to accommodate the proposed improvement, the intersection would likely need to be expanded, potentially impacting the HOV ramp overpass to the Disneyland Resort. Both the City and Disney have invested heavily in supporting The Anaheim Resort and altering the street system in the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. 3) Intersection I-6: Disneyland Drive/West Street/Katella Avenue—Restripe WBR to WBT and add 4th WB lane to the Simba parking lot entrance The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. This access to the Disneyland Resort has been significantly reconfigured in recent years to accommodate new development at the park and adjacent parking areas. The addition of lane capacity at this intersection would require substantial right-of-way and affect the attractive gateway that the Disneyland Resort has created through extensive landscaping. 4) Intersection I-8: Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road—Add Northbound Through lane, Southbound Through lane, Eastbound Through lane, and Eastbound Right-turn lane The improvements are infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. To accommodate the proposed improvements, the intersection would have to be substantially expanded impacting the right-of-way of several hotel buildings including the Days Inn Suites and Hotel Ménage. Altering the street system in the area would be a cost prohibitive undertaking and disruptive to the effective operation of The Anaheim Resort. 5) Intersection I-23: Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street/Katella Avenue—Add Westbound Right-turn lane The City has invested heavily in supporting development in The Anaheim Resort and reconfiguring an intersection in this area would be disruptive to those goals. This improvement also serves a turning movement that could be considered redundant, as most of the vehicles using this movement would be better served using Anaheim Way to the east to access Anaheim Boulevard. 6) Intersection I-49: State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue—Restripe Eastbound to 3 left turn lanes, 3 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane This proposed restripe will reduce the number of through lanes on eastbound Katella Avenue from four lanes to three lanes. This proposed change will negatively affect signal coordination and timing for both streets. Katella Avenue is identified as an eight lane smart street by OCTA. All through lanes must be kept to ensure the higher capacities envisioned by OCTA on its smart street corridors. To add a third eastbound left turn lane without removing a through lane will significantly impact a ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-124 • The Planning Center August 2010 recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. This widening will also make Katella Avenue difficult for pedestrians to cross, as with this improvement, pedestrian traffic would have to cross 12 lanes. 7) Intersection I-53: State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue—Add Northbound Right turn lane and Westbound Through lane. The improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of immediately adjacent existing structures, including several high-density office buildings within close proximity to the public right-of-way. These types of higher density buildings are consistent with the goals of the Platinum Triangle of internal trip capture and promotion of transit use. Additionally, State College Boulevard is a designated BRT corridor. Improvements to the circulation system in this area should be consistent with the goals of promoting transit use and limiting increased auto trips to this area. All of these intersections have a project related impact under the 2030 With Project scenario. As set forth above, there are numerous physical constraints associated with the proposed improvements, including private properties, extensive circulation landscaping and mature trees, and a variety of hotels and other businesses that would likely be impacted. These physical constraints limit the ability to ensure that impacts at these locations can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. City of Orange Facilities The following intersections within the City of Orange have a project related impact under the 2030 With Project scenario. As noted, there are physical constraints associated with the proposed improvements, including impacts to private properties, businesses, and residences, and natural impediments such as the Santa Ana River. These physical constraints limit the ability to ensure that the improvements necessary to mitigate the project traffic impacts at these locations can be mitigated to level of less than significant. Since the City of Anaheim does not control the improvements that Orange chooses to implement in their City, the City of Anaheim will need to enter into or amend an existing agreement with Orange to contribute a fair-share to the improvements identified within the City of Orange. This fair-share would reflect an appropriate nexus between the additional traffic caused by the Proposed Project and the regional traffic contributing to future deficiencies in Orange. Intersections that are shared between the City of Anaheim and Orange will be dealt with in the same fashion. 8) Intersection I-53: State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue (shared intersection between Anaheim and Orange)—Add Northbound Right and Westbound through lanes (same as included in the City of Anaheim). As identified above, this improvement would significantly impact the high-density office buildings at the southeast and northwest corners of the intersection. These mitigation measures do not impact any area within the City of Orange. 9) Intersection I-57: State College Boulevard/The City Drive/Chapman Avenue—Restripe Westbound Through to Shared Westbound Through Right. Since the westbound right turn does not have an overlap right turn phase, this mitigation measure will cause no impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.9-125 10) Intersection I-71: Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound Ramps—Restripe intersection to add Westbound Left. The existing curb lines up with the curb of the new bridge that will cross the Santa Ana River. The number 1 lane will become a left turn lane at this intersection, leaving two through lanes without an offset. Only signal loops, striping, and timing changes are required at this intersection, and there are no impacts to right-of-way. 11) Intersection I-80: Main Street/Collins Avenue—Add 2nd Westbound Left Turn Lane The improvement may be infeasible due to the fact that there are significant right-of-way impacts to adding additional capacity at the intersection. Existing businesses on the east side of Main Street would be disrupted by construction and right-of-way impacts. The City of Anaheim would need to work with the City of Orange to determine the most appropriate strategy for future improvements at this location. 12) Intersection I-87: Glassell Street/Katella Avenue—Restripe Southbound Right to Southbound Through and Widen Southbound departure for 400 feet The improvement would require right-of-way and would likely disrupt existing businesses at the southwest corner of the intersection. Although the proposed improvement is a restriping, receiving lane accommodations may impact existing property. 13) Intersection I-102: The City Drive/Garden Grove Boulevard—Add Southbound Left by Restriping #1 Northbound Lane. Restripe Eastbound Through to Eastbound Left Turn Lane. This improvement will result in only two northbound through lanes on The City Drive until the southbound left turn pocket tapers to its standard cross section. No impacts to right-of-way are required at this intersection. Additionally, the following one intersection in the City of Orange was identified as deficient under the HCM methodology. This location should be monitored to determine appropriate strategies toward improving flow through signal timing and coordination. However, because the intersection falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Orange, although operational improvements may be feasible, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 14) Intersection I-98: SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive—Restripe Westbound Through to 3rd Westbound Left Turn Lane. The following six arterial segments identified as deficient are located within corridors that are built out and right-of-way constraints include existing businesses, extensive landscaping, and in the case of Struck Avenue, several homes. The City of Orange has not included these segments in a current capital improvement program to fund construction of these improvements: but should the City of Orange decide to implement improvements along these corridors, the City of Anaheim will need to contribute a fair- share. The City of Anaheim will continue to work with the City of Orange to develop the most appropriate strategy toward improving the locations impacted by the Proposed Project. 15) Arterial Segment A-15: Ball Road from SR-57 Freeway to Main Street—No mitigation measures are recommended. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.9-126 • The Planning Center August 2010 16) Arterial Segment A-27: Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street—Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial. 17) Arterial Segment A-28: Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street—Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial. 18) Arterial Segment A-32: Eckhoff Street to Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue—Upgrade to 4- lane divided arterial. 19) Arterial Segment A-62: Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street—No mitigation measures are recommended. 20) Arterial Segment A-91: Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street—Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial. Impact 5.9-2 Caltrans Mainline Segments, Ramps, and Weaving Segments Since the major freeway facilities within the study area, I-5, SR-22, and SR-57 have reached their design capacity or will have reached it by 2030 and the required physical improvements are largely the result of background regional traffic, consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures. State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern and are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission; the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; Caltrans; and OCTA. Therefore, impacts to Caltrans facilities would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.9-4 Construction of bus turnouts as recommended by the OCTA would further alleviate the safety impacts due to design features. In addition, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially alter the backbone circulation system and arterial connections compared to the Adopted MLUP. Each development project within the Platinum Triangle would be reviewed per the planned circulation system and would be required to provide necessary improvements in accordance with the determination of the Traffic and Transportation Division. The project impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation measures 9-18 and 9-19 would reduce potential impacts related to traffic hazards to a less than significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-1 5.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Existing conditions information presented in this section is based on project-specific facilities reports and coordination with affected public utility agencies. Specific references are identified as relevant. This section addresses the following public utilities; the service provider is noted parenthetically: • Wastewater Treatment and Collection (Anaheim Public Utilities Department) • Water Supply and Distribution Systems (Anaheim Public Utilities Department) • Solid Waste (Republic Waste Services of Southern California, LLC) • Electricity (Anaheim Public Utilities Department) • Natural Gas (Southern California Gas Company) • Communications (Time Warner and AT&T) The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports: Sewer • Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) – Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339), CH2M HILL, June 2009. The referenced document is included in Appendix G. Water • Urban Water Management Plan, Psomas, 2005. • The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment, Psomas, July 2009. The water supply assessment is included in Appendix H and the Urban Water Management Plan is available for review at the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works. 5.10.1 Environmental Setting Sewer Treatment and Collection The City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer system serves the project vicinity and is tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), District 2. The entire OCSD system encompasses 479 square miles of northern and central Orange County. OCSD operates the third largest sewer system on the west coast, consisting of over 582 miles of sewer lines, 15 offsite pumping station, two regional wastewater treatment plants, and an ocean disposal system. Sewer from the City sewer system is conveyed to the county trunk and interceptor sewer to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The major OCSD sanitary sewers serving the Platinum Triangle are the Newhope-Placentia Trunk (State College Avenue), the Olive Subtrunk, the Orangewood Diversion Sewer, and the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line. • Newhope-Placentia/Orangewood Basin. The Newhope-Placentia Trunk is 39 inches in diameter and flows south down State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue. At Orangewood Avenue, the Newhope-Placentia Trunk turns to the west past the western boundary of the stadium to Lewis Street, then south to Lewis Street through the City of Orange to the County SARI. The properties along Orangewood Avenue are tributary to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk via eight- ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 inch City sewers in and along the street. The northern limit of this basin is generally Gene Autry Way (west of State College Boulevard) and the backside of the businesses along Orangewood Avenue. The eastern limit is the Santa Ana River, the southern is the City boundary, and the western is Interstate 5 • Olive Basin. The Olive Subtrunk is located along Katella Avenue at the northeastern end of the Platinum Triangle area and continues in a westerly direction through Howell Avenue to connect to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk at State College Boulevard. The size of the line within that reach ranges from 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The Olive Subtrunk also collects sewage from areas east of the Santa Ana River. All flows east of the Santa Ana River can be diverted to the SARI. • Orangewood Diversion Sewer. The old county Newhope-Placentia Trunk is located at the north end of the Platinum Triangle area and flows south within State College Boulevard from the Edison Corridor to Orangewood Avenue, then east along Orangewood Avenue to the county SARI. The size of the line within this reach ranges from 36 to 42 inches in diameter. Flows north of the State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue intersection (in the old alignment of the Newhope-Placentia line) can be diverted easterly by the OCSD Orangewood Diversion Sewer. The OCSD Orangewood Diversion Sewer was built to alleviate a deficiency in the Newhope- Placentia Trunk identified by OCSD in their 1991 Master Plan. Currently, there is a diversion structure that allows sewage to flow either east or west down Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard. • Santa Ana River Interceptor. The SARI line, a regional brine line, is designed to convey 30 million gallons per day (mgd) of nonreclaimable sewer from the upper Santa Ana River basin to the ocean for disposal, after treatment. The nonreclaimable wastewater consists of desalter concentrate and industrial wastewater. Domestic wastewater is also received on a temporary basis. OCSD maintains two wastewater treatment plants within Orange County: Reclamation Plant No. 1, located in Fountain Valley; and Treatment Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach. OCSD plans to upgrade the level of wastewater treatment at both of its treatment plants to meet secondary treatment standards for the projected 2020 effluent flow of 240 to 320 mgd. The effluent discharge to the ocean is a blend of advanced primary and secondary treated wastewater as specified in the OCSD’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Plant No. 1 is located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley, about four miles northeast of the ocean. The plant receives sewage from six major sewer pipes and provides advanced primary and secondary treatment. Secondary effluent is either blended with advanced primary effluent and routed to the ocean disposal system, or is sent to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for further treatment and distribution for reclaimed water uses. Plant No. 2 is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach, about 1,500 feet from the ocean. The plant receives sewage from five major sewer pipes, and all of the effluent from the plant is discharged to the ocean outfall disposal system. The Platinum Triangle As shown in Figure 5.10-1, Sewer Model Boundaries and Recommended Improvements, the Platinum Triangle is divided into 14 sewer model boundaries. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: CH2M HILL 2009 5. Environmental Analysis Sewer Model Boundaries and Recommended Improvements SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.10-1 0 2,400 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-5 In June 2006, The Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision (June 2006 sewer study) was prepared to analyze the adopted General Plan development intensities. As shown in Table 5.10-1, development intensities modeled by the June 2006 sewer study analyzed sewer improvements required to develop to its full potential based on the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and the maximum dwelling units per acre, instead of the maximum square footage and the number of units approved under the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). The maximum land use intensities allowed in each benefit parcel and the flow were input into each sewer model to determine routed flows at the key connection points in the system. Figure 5.10-1 shows the sewer model boundaries and sewer improvements recommended as part of the June 2006 sewer study. Table 5.10-1 Permitted Platinum Triangle Development Intensity Land Use Maximum Development Intensity Industrial 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) Institutional 3.0 FAR Office Office development: 1,790,550 sq. ft. Office-High: No maximum FAR Office-Low: 0.5 FAR Commercial development: 10,000 sq. ft., no maximum FAR Mixed-Use Residential: 10,266 dwelling units at densities up to 100 dwelling units per acre Office development: 3,265,000 sq. ft., no maximum FAR Commercial development: 2,254,400 sq. ft., 0.4 FAR Subsequent to the June 2006 sewer study, three stretches of new backbone sewer have been constructed in the Platinum Triangle for additional sewer capacity. One stretch is approximately 1,000 feet of new sewer along Katella Avenue east of State College Boulevard within Model 117. The second stretch is a reverse sewer (flowing easterly instead of westerly), approximately 2,000 feet along Katella Avenue in Model 28B between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard. And the third stretch is approximately 3,000 feet of new sewer along Gene Autry Way and Santa Cruz Street just west of State College Boulevard in Model 47. Water Supply Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was signed into law on October 9, 2001. It mandates that a city or county approving certain projects subject to CEQA identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, and (ii) request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. Pursuant to SB 610, a water supply assessment (WSA) for the Platinum Triangle was prepared to evaluate the potential effect of the proposed development on current and future water supplies. According to the WSA, the City currently obtains water from: 1) naturally and artificially recharged local groundwater and 2) imported water. In addition, the City of Anaheim Water Department maintains 17 interconnections with adjacent water purveyors that are temporarily utilized on an as-needed or emergency basis. In 2007/08, the City received approximately 79 percent of its water supply from its groundwater wells and 21 percent from imported water. Groundwater supply is managed by the OCWD, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) provides imported water supplies to the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 Anaheim Public Utilities Department The Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) provides water service to the Platinum Triangle. APUD’s water service area population as of 2008 was approximately 353,000 and is expected to increase to approximately 436,000 by the year 2030. Figure 5.10-2, City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Service Area shows the service area boundaries. The basic water services include single-family residential, multifamily residential, and general services commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional) consumers. APUD’s current major water system facilities consist of eight purchased water connections to MWD (one untreated and seven treated water connections), 18 active wells, one 920- million-gallon (mg) reservoir for untreated water, one 15 mgd water treatment plant, 12 treated water reservoirs with 28.75 mg of treated storage capacity, permanent chlorination facilities at various sites, nine booster pump stations, approximately 750 miles of water mains, and approximately 7,850 fire hydrants. Figure 5.10-3, City of Anaheim Major Water Facilities, depicts the location of the City’s major water supply, treatment, and storage facilities. APUD’s water system serves areas ranging in elevation from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level (asl). To provide appropriate operating pressures for such a wide range of elevations, the water system is divided into 19 pressure zones. The lowest pressure zone operates at a static hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation of 220 feet asl and the highest pressure zone at a static HGL elevation of 1,320 feet asl. APUD’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 (585 HGL elevation and above). The Flatland Area is approximately 21,000 acres, situated generally north and west of the Santa Ana River, and can be almost entirely served by groundwater (with MWD imported water supplementing as necessary). The project site is located in the Flatland Area. The Hill and Canyon Area is approximately 11,000 acres, situated generally south and east of the Santa Ana River, and served primarily by the imported water from MWD and the Lenain Water Treatment Plant (LWTP). Groundwater The primary source of groundwater for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) that underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote Hills and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminating at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. The Basin is dominated by a deep structural depression containing a thick accumulation of fresh water-bearing imbedded marine and continental sand, silt, and clay deposits. The sediments containing easily recoverable fresh water extend to approximately 2,000 feet in depth. Although water bearing aquifers exist below that level, reduced water quality and pumping make these materials economically unviable at present. However, upper, middle, and lower aquifer systems are recognized in the Basin with well production yields ranging from 500 to 4,500 gallons per minute, but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per minute. The Basin is one of the richest and most plentiful sources of groundwater in the entire State, holding millions of acre-feet (af) of water, of which about 1.25 to 1.5 million af is available for use. To ensure that the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Groundwater conditions in the Basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions and the Basin is recharged primarily by four sources: 1) local rainfall, which varies due to the extent of the annual seasonal precipitation; 2) storm and base flows from the Santa Ana River, which includes recycled wastewater from treatment plants in Riverside and San Bernardino counties; 3) imported water; and 4) highly treated recycled wastewater. The production capability of the Basin has increased as a result of increased wastewater reclamation and the blending of waters of different qualities to produce high- quality potable water for public distribution. ---PAGE BREAK--- NOT TO SCALE 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.10-2 City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Service Area Source: Psomas, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- NOT TO SCALE 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.10-3 City of Anaheim Major Water Facilities Source: City of Anaheim Public Utilities ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-11 The most recent example of a highly successful OCWD wastewater reclamation project is the construction and operation of OCWD’s new $500 million water-purification plant, which is designed to turn wastewater into drinking water. This new Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project currently treats and recharges up to 70 million gallons per day of wastewater back into the Basin for future potable use. This equates to the recycling of over 72,000 acre feet per year of wastewater back into the Basin for future extraction and potable use. Additionally, the approved expansion of the GWRS will increase the recharge capacity to 90,000 afy. Basin recharge occurs largely in the following recharge basins: 1) Warner Basin, a 50-foot deep recharge basin located next to the Santa Ana River at the intersection of the SR-55 and SR-91 freeways; 2) Burris Pit, located between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road; 3) Kraemer Basin, located adjacent to Burris Pit, and 4) Santiago Creek. All of these recharge facilities are located in or adjacent to the City of Anaheim. A large portion of the recharge of the OCWD groundwater basin comes from water flowing in the Santa Ana River south of the Prado Dam, located in San Bernardino County, just east of the Orange County’s jurisdictional boundary. With the exception of contractual rights conveyed to Bryant Ranch landowners in east Yorba Linda, which have contractual rights to approximately 2,800 afy of Santa Ana River water, OCWD has the legal rights to all of the Santa Ana River flow south of the Prado Dam. OCWD is a special district that manages the Basin largely through the basin production percentage (BPP) that is established each water year. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, ideal precipitation, Santa Ana River runoff, and basin management objectives. The BPP represents a set percentage identifying the amount of groundwater all pumpers in the basin can pump without paying a high pumping tax or basin equity assessment (BEA) to OCWD. Groundwater production equal to or less than the BPP pays a replenishment assessment and if groundwater production is greater than the BPP, a BEA is paid on each af of water pumped above the BPP. According to OCWD’s Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2006−2007, total groundwater production from the Basin in OCWD's jurisdiction was 349,858 af. Because of the location of many of the City’s wells adjacent to the Santa Ana River and in the northeast part of the groundwater basin, especially the six wells near Anaheim Lake, City wells are ideally located within the Basin. From a hydro-geological standpoint, the City’s wells pump from geological structures which are relatively high up and geologically differentiated from other parts of the OCWD groundwater basin. In addition, because the City’s wells are located relatively near to the Prado Dam outlet to the Santa Ana River, particularly as compared to the well locations of other producers in the Basin, the City’s well fields draw water from easily accessible groundwater tables that are recharged on a naturally- occurring priority basis due to: 1) the location of OCWD recharge basins in or adjacent to the City, and 2) the City’s wells’ location in or near the upper reaches of the Santa Ana River. In essence, Santa Ana River water has the natural effect of recharging the portion of the OCWD Basin that provides groundwater to the City wells prior to such Santa Ana River water reaching the lower portion of the river. Thus, City wells are ideally located within the OCWD Groundwater Basin that the groundwater production in Anaheim does not generally affect the production of groundwater production wells operated by other producers located in other portions of the Basin. Table 5.10-2 sets forth the past groundwater production amount from each of the City’s wells and Table 5.10-3 shows the City’s projection based on past trends and the anticipated BPP during a normal water year. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.10-2 Historic Groundwater Pumping by Well (AF) Well No. 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 12 36.7 - - - 14 628.5 502.4 477.4 539.8 509.1 18 362.9 376.7 92.0 - - 19 65.0 - - - - 20 802.1 665.0 409.0 - - 22 2,005.6 551.1 - - - 24A 332.0 231.6 214.7 251.6 296.9 25 591.6 408.2 505.5 484.8 544.9 26 1,233.9 347.6 - - - 27 997.6 803.4 984.0 1,383.4 234.6 28 1,027.3 818.6 780.2 988.8 580.9 29 573.8 226.4 394.2 - - 34 1,091.4 1,272.8 743.1 409.5 - 36 2,254.4 1,829.1 1,358.3 1,077.2 934.3 39 831.8 959.4 1,019.3 1,722.4 615.3 40 1,513.2 2,156.1 2,155.1 2,396.7 1,849.9 41 5,884.4 4,951.2 5,048.7 5,957.0 5,612.7 42 4,453.5 3,738.5 3,658.3 4,302.4 4,267.6 43 4,650.0 4,521.6 4,373.1 4,520.8 4,402.8 44 4,309.3 3,887.3 3,541.8 4,346.2 4,034.0 45 3,643.7 2,840.2 2,299.8 4,077.2 5,319.3 46 4,486.1 2,609.3 2,090.6 2,869.9 3,354.1 47 2,012.2 2,045.6 3,327.8 4,022.0 5,195.5 49 2,920.4 3,009.8 2,664.5 3,396.0 6,174.4 51 2,477.8 1,759.4 1,626.6 1,595.6 2,571.3 55 2,237.5 2,322.6 1,272.1 2,581.9 4,865.4 48 - - - - 1,080.0 52 - - - - 2,130.1 105 0.0 0.0 - - - 112 408.7 314.1 - - - 53 - 493.9 2,821.1 4,965.0 3,896.2 Total 51,831.4 43,641.9 41,857.2 51,888.2 58,469.3 Potable Total1 51,499.4 43,410.3 41,642.5 51,636.6 58,172.4 1 Potable total excludes pumping from Well No. 24A, which is an irrigation well serving Dad Miller Golf Course. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-13 Table 5.10-3 Estimated Pumping by Well to 2015 (AF) Well No. 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 12 14 466 470 475 479 483 488 18 19 20 22 *24A* 272 275 277 280 282 285 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 27 215 217 219 221 223 225 28 532 537 542 546 551 556 29 34 36 855 863 870 878 886 894 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1,691 1,707 1,722 1,738 1,753 1,769 41 5,129 5,176 5,223 5,270 5,317 5,365 42 3,900 3,936 3,972 4,008 4,043 4,079 43 4,024 4,061 4,098 4,135 4,171 4,208 44 3,687 3,721 3,755 3,788 3,822 3,856 45 4,861 4,906 4,950 4,995 5,040 5,084 46 3,066 3,094 3,122 3,150 3,178 3,206 47 4,748 4,792 4,835 4,879 4,922 4,966 49 5,642 5,694 5,746 5,798 5,849 5,901 51 2,350 2,372 2,394 2,415 2,437 2,458 55 4,447 4,487 4,528 4,569 4,610 4,650 48 988 997 1,006 1,015 1,024 1,033 52 1,947 1,965 1,983 2,001 2,019 2,037 105 112 53 3,561 3,594 3,626 3,659 3,691 3,724 Total 52,382 52,863 53,343 53,824 54,304 54,785 Potable Total1 52,100 52,588 53,066 53,544 53,022 54,500 1 Potable total excludes pumping from Well No. 24A, which is an irrigation well serving Dad Miller Golf Course. 2 Assumed out of operation. Imported Water (Surface Water) MWD is the wholesale water agency that serves supplemental imported water from northern California through the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River to 26 member agencies located in portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The City of Anaheim is one of only three retail member agencies of MWD in Orange County. As a member agency, pursuant to the Metropolitan Act, the City has preferential rights to a certain percentage of water delivered to MWD each year primarily from the SWP and/or the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as other MWD storage programs. Being a member agency of MWD puts the City in a better position ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 relative to receiving water directly from MWD, as opposed to other agencies in Orange County that obtain their imported MWD water through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The City purchases both treated potable and untreated nonpotable water from MWD. The treated water is delivered through MWD connections A-01 through A-07 via five major feeders, East Orange County Feeder No. 2, Orange County Feeder, Second Lower Feeder, West Orange County Feeder, and Allen- McColloch Pipeline. Untreated MWD water is delivered to the City's Walnut Canyon Reservoir (WCR) through MWD Connection A-08 via the Santiago Lateral of the Lower Feeder System, and this water is treated by the LWTP. WCR has a total capacity of 2,823 af (920 mg).Together, the WCR and LWTP form a receiving, storage, and treatment facility. Recycled Water The City does not currently utilize recycled water. However, OCWD utilizes recycled water generated from the OCSD treatment facilities for regional recycled water projects and groundwater recharge. Although a formal Recycled Water Optimization Plan has not been completed for the City, APUD requires separate irrigation services for any new landscaped area larger than 2,500 square feet in the City, including properties within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and the Platinum Triangle, which will enable easy conversion to recycled water if and when it becomes available. Historic Water Production Table 5.10-4 shows the City’s historic water production by source from 2002 through 2008. Table 5.10-4 City of Anaheim Historic Water Production by Source (AF) Source 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Groundwater 50,852 51,831 43,642 41,858 51,637 58,172 Imported Water 23,943 25,066 28,030 31,256 24,696 15,272 Total 74,795 76,897 71,672 73,114 76,333 73,445 Total Water Into System (Water Demand) 74,541 76,900 71,108 72,798 76,687 74,212 Source: Psomas, Table 4.3 of WSA 2009 Water Demand In 2007/08, the City’s water demand was approximately 74,000 acre-feet per year (afy) including unaccounted-for water, which was actually over 5,000 afy less than what was projected in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). In essence, this means that City businesses and residents are using less water than was originally forecast, which is likely due to the fact that the previous UWMP conservatively over-estimated water demand, and water demand is being reduced due to effective conservation efforts being undertaken by the City and increased water efficiencies resulting from more stringent building codes and more efficient appliances tankless water heaters, high-efficiency clothes washing machines, etc.). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-15 Reliability of Long-Term Water Supply Increased environmental regulations and the collaborative competition for water from outside the region have resulted in reduced supplies of water in the recent years. Furthermore, continued population and economic growth correspond to increased water demands in the region, putting an even larger burden on local supplies. On June 5, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought and directed state agencies and departments to take specified actions and on February 27, 2009, he proclaimed a state of emergency and directed all state government agencies to utilize their resources, implement a state emergency plan, and provide assistance for people, communities, and businesses impacted by the drought. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Imported Water) The reliability of the City of Anaheim’s water supply currently depends on the reliability of both imported water and groundwater supplies, which are managed and delivered by MWD and OCWD, respectively. MWD has a 5,200-square-mile service area and imports about half of the water used in southern California. The other half includes local surface and groundwater supplies, recycled water, and water imported from the Owens Valley by the City of Los Angeles. Of the total water supply, 20 percent goes to urban uses and 80 percent goes to agriculture uses. As a wholesaler, MWD has no retail customers, and distributes treated and untreated water directly to its 26 member agencies. One such member agency is the City of Anaheim. The SWP, MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct, and MWD’s local water facilities and programs have many layers that provide reliability. Through the 1996 Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) and subsequent updates, MWD has worked toward identifying and developing water supplies to provide 100 percent reliability. The IRP is an adaptive planning framework and, with the adopted annual implementation reporting and five-year updating cycle, MWD and its member agencies will continue to refine and revise the resource targets as new information and technologies become available. Due to competing needs and uses for all of the water sources and regional water operational issues, MWD undertook a number of planning processes: the Integrated Resources Planning Process, the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan, the Strategic Planning Process, the Regional Urban Water Management Plan, and most recently, the Report on Metropolitan Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water Reliability. Combined, these documents provide a framework and guidelines for optimum water planning into the future. It should be noted that some of the recent issues surrounding operational limitations in supply related to species protection and delta smelt issues are considered by MWD to be somewhat short-term in nature and are not expected to affect the overall 20-year planning period. State Water Project The SWP is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, powerplants and pumping plants. It is owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and its main purpose is to store water and distribute it to 29 urban and agricultural water suppliers in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California. Of the contracted water supply, 80 percent goes to urban users and 20 percent goes to agricultural users. The reliability of the SWP impacts MWD’s member agencies’ ability to plan for future growth and supply. On an annual basis, each of the 29 SWP contractors, including MWD, requests an amount of SWP water based on their anticipated yearly demand. After receiving the requests, DWR assesses the amount of water supply available based on precipitation, snowpack on northern California watersheds, volume of water in storage, projected carryover storage, and Sacramento-San Joaquin River ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 Delta regulatory requirements. Once the percentage is set early in the water year, the agency can count on that amount of supply or more in the coming year. The percentage is typically set at a conservative level and then held or adjusted upwards later in the year. Based on initial estimates supplied by the DWR and considering the Interim Remedial Order, MWD staff was estimating that it could lose up to 30 percent of its SWP supplies in 2008. MWD’s current measures to address potential water supply shortages and interruptions include calling for extraordinary conservation, cutting groundwater replenishment and agricultural water deliveries, maximizing groundwater production, acquiring additional supplies, and drawing from dry year storage programs. Therefore, MWD’s 2007 IRP, adopted in 2008, includes a forecast of 22 percent reduction in SWP deliveries. Because of uncertainties related to SWP deliveries to MWD based on delta smelt and other issues, Section 6 of the WSA analyzes an additional 13 to 18 percent loss of SWP supply above and beyond the 22 percent MWD has already factored into supply calculations (for a total reduction of 35 to 40 percent in SWP deliveries). Delta Smelt The delta smelt is a federally and state-listed threatened fish species that inhabits the estuaries of the Bay-Delta region. In May 2007, a federal court invalidated the biological opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for operations of the SWP and Central Valley Project with regard to the delta smelt. On August 31, 2007, the federal court ordered interim operating rules until a new biological opinion is issued by the USFWS. Under the ruling, operational limits on delta pumping are in place from the end of December, when fish are about to spawn, until June, when the smelt migrate. The federal ruling and protective measures will be in effect until the biological opinion is rewritten. These protective actions and the simulations resulted in reduced SWP water deliveries. Therefore, DWR conducted simulations to evaluate 2007 SWP delivery reliability in light of possible long-term cutbacks due to delta smelt protective orders and possible impacts from climate change and reduced snow pack. In addition to the interim remedies and the proceedings to address immediate environmental concerns, the Delta Vision process has been created by Governor Schwarzenegger to identify long-term solution to the conflicts in the Bay-Delta region and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is being prepared. The BDCP will identify a set of water flow and habitat restoration actions to contribute to the recovery of endangered and sensitive species and their habitats in the Bay-Delta region. Therefore, the BDCP would provide species and habitat protection and improved reliability of water supplies by securing long-term operating permit for the SWP. The BDCP is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. Colorado River Aqueduct The Colorado River is MWD’s original source of water after MWD’s establishment in 1928. MWD has a legal entitlement to receive water from the Colorado River under a permanent service contract with the Secretary of the Interior. Under the 1931 priority system that has formed the basis for the distribution of Colorado River water made available to California, MWD holds the fourth priority apportionment right to 550,000 afy and the fifth priority right to 662,000 af of water, which is in excess of California’s basic apportionment. Prior to 2002, MWD could divert over 1.2 million af in any year, but since then, MWD’s deliveries of Colorado River water varied from a low of 633,000 af in 2006 to a high of 897,000 af in 2005. In 2007, MWD received approximately 713,500 AF of Colorado River water. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-17 Water Transfer and Exchange Programs California’s agricultural activities consume approximately 34 million af of water annually, which is 40 percent of the water used for all consumptive uses. Voluntary water transfers and exchanges can make a portion of this agricultural water supply available to support the State’s urban areas. Such existing and potential water transfers and exchanges are an important element for improving the water supply reliability within MWD’s service area and accomplishing the reliability goal set by MWD’s board of directors. MWD is currently pursuing voluntary water transfer and exchange programs with state, federal, public and private water districts and individuals. Supply Management Strategies On the regional level, MWD has taken a number of actions to secure a reliable water source for its member agencies. MWD recently adopted a water supply allocation plan for dealing with potential shortages that takes into consideration the impact on retail customers and the economy, changes and losses in local supplies, the investment in and development of local resources, and conservation achievements. Additional actions taken by MWD during the first half of 2008 include the adoption of a $1.9 billion spending plan, increased rates and charges, and the funding of a new reservoir to benefit Colorado River supply capabilities. The $1.9 billion spending plan for 2008−09 includes spending for the improvement of water conveyance facilities, water transfers, and providing financial assistance to member agencies’ local conservation, recycling, and groundwater clean-up efforts. As shown in Table 5.10-5, regional water projections for MWD indicate surplus water through 2030 under average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. Table 5.10-5 Metropolitan Regional Imported Water Supply Reliability Projections (AF) Region-Wide Projections 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Information1 During Average Year 2,465,140 2,579,140 2,505,040 2,512,040 2,512,040 During a Single Dry Year 3,253,640 3,438,180 3,486,560 3,439,560 3,390,560 During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period 2,599,760 2,653,060 2,685,580 2,677,580 2,660,580 Demand Information2 During Average Year 2,063,000 1,985,000 2,029,000 2,141,000 2,269,000 During a Single Dry Year 2,348,000 2,234,000 2,275,000 2,388,000 2,511,000 During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period 2,420,000 2,341,000 2,355,000 2,479,000 2,609,000 Surplus Information During Average Year 402,140 594,140 476,040 371,040 243,040 During a Single Dry Year 905,640 1,204,180 1,211,560 1,051,560 879,560 During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period 179,760 312,060 330,580 198,580 51,580 1 Projected supplies include current supplies and supplies under development. This data was obtained from MWD’s 2006 IRP Implementation Report supply projections and includes a 22% reduction in SWP deliveries based on MWD’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report. 2 Demand data obtained from MWD’s 2005 UWMP demand projections. Orange County Water District (Groundwater) Reliability of groundwater is managed by implementation of the OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan (LTFP), Ground Management Plan (GMP), and local agency programs as described below: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 OCWD Long Term Facilities Plan OCWD has prepared a draft LTFP to evaluate potential basin and water quality enhancement projects that may be implemented in the 20-year planning period. The LTFP includes a master list of developed and proposed projects. The various projects are grouped into five categories: 1) recharge facilities, 2) water source facilities, 3) basin management facilities, 4) water quality management facilities, and 5) operational improvements facilities. Each project is evaluated using criteria such as technical feasibility, cost, institutional support, functional feasibility, and environmental compliance. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan OCWD finalized its GMP that complies with Senate Bill 1938 (SB 1938). The GMP’s objectives are to protect and enhance groundwater quality and to cost-effectively protect and increase the Basin’s sustainable yield. Various programs, policies, goals, and projects are defined in the GMP to assist OCWD staff in meeting these objectives. OCWD 2020 Water Master Plan Report OCWD’s Water Master Plan Report (MPR) describes local water supplies and estimates their availability extending to the year 2020. Specifically, OCWD states in its 2020 Water MPR that significant water supply sources will be available in the future for potable, nonpotable, and recharge purposes. The 2020 Water MPR discusses source waters such as imported water from MWD, base flows from the Santa Ana River, treated wastewater through the OCWD/OCSD Groundwater Replenish System program, and possibly desalinated ocean water. The local supplies’ availability and projections from the 2020 Water MPR have been revised and are being pursued with the LTFP. Anaheim Public Utilities Department Reliability is a measure of a water system's expected success in managing water shortages. The City has strategies to manage water demand with respect to frequency and magnitude of supply deficiencies. On February 16, 1991, the City adopted Ordinance No. 5204, which is now codified as Anaheim Municipal Code section 10.18.010 et seq., relating to water shortages. This ordinance consists of three Water Shortage Plans that can be implemented during declared water shortages. This ordinance was a result of the severe drought the City experienced starting in 1987. In response, on March 19, 1991, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 91R-65, in which the City Council determined that a water shortage existed and ordered implementation of Water Shortage Plan II, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5204. Effective April 1, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92R-65, discontinuing Water Shortage Plan II, and ordered Water Shortage Plan I. This reduced Anaheim’s target of water conservation from 15 percent to 10 percent. On September 16, 2008, the City Council approved guidelines asking residents and businesses for voluntary reduction in water use and stretch water supplies. Plumbing repairs, sprinkler system adjustments, reduced landscape watering, runoff and evaporation management are some of the smart practices the City urges its residents and businesses to adopt. On April 14, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6138 in response to MWD’s request to its member agencies to adopt more stringent conservation ordinances that would put into effect different levels of conservation related to MWD’s Water Supply Allocation Plan levels. Groundwater is currently the most reliable and least expensive water resource for the City. The Department has scheduled the drilling of one new well every three years. The new wells replace existing shallow and deteriorated wells and provide additional production capacity. Additional groundwater pumping capacity will add to the reliability of the system by: 1) meeting peak demands during the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-19 summer months, 2) providing a contingency for wells that are temporarily out of service, and 3) providing availability for any additional pumping requests from OCWD. The City's long-term plans to assure a reliable water supply include, but are not limited to, the following: • Reduction of water demand through aggressive water use efficiency programs, with a goal to reduce demand by 15 percent by 2020, compared to 1993. • Groundwater production capacity and distribution ability to meet 100 percent of the water service area demands. • Cooperation with OCWD to maximize conservation activities throughout Orange County and increase groundwater recharge capabilities. Drainage The Platinum Triangle covers an area that includes portions of City of Anaheim Drainage Districts 25, 26, and 27. Drainage Master Plans have been completed for these Districts and updated following the County’s publication of new hydrologic parameters in 1986. The new parameters resulted in greater storm runoff projections than previously estimated resulting in most existing storm drain systems being classified as undersized. The City’s drainage criteria was developed with this issue in mind and resulted in the declaration that most systems within the City would be designed for a minimum storm frequency of 10 years with specific and practical limits regarding surface flow during storms. This lower limit was established due to the overall limited conveyance capacity However, storm drain systems tributary to the Santa Ana River require sizing to convey the runoff from a 25-year storm event. The improvement of river by the Corps of Engineers to provide adequate capacity over the last decade has eliminated this once notable conveyance constrain and created the opportunity to relieve the watershed during heavy rainfall. In general, the area west of State College Boulevard will, at a minimum require drainage infrastructure adequate to convey the 10-year runoff. Larger facilities may be required to meet the surface flow limitations. The area generally located east of State College Boulevard drains to the South Anaheim Channel (E12) and then to the Santa Ana River. Solid Waste The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD) provides solid waste service to the City of Anaheim with the Waste Disposal Agreement. Republic Waste Services of Southern California, LLC, 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 Republic Waste Services of Southern California, LLC’s Regional Material Resource Recovery Facility (MRF). The MRF is located at 1131 North Blue Gum Street in Anaheim and contains an 800-foot-long automated and manual sorter/conveyor system that separates more than 70 types of recyclables. The MRF processes an average of 3,200 tons of material each day. Once the materials have passed through the sorter/conveyer system, they are bundled and transferred for immediate shipment to domestic and international markets. Nonrecyclable waste that remains is moved to the onsite 40,000-square-foot solid waste transfer operation for final processing and consolidation before delivery to landfills. Household toxic waste is disposed of at the Anaheim Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center operated by the County of Orange and located at 1071 North Blue Gum Street in Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-20 • The Planning Center August 2010 Landfills Orange County owns and operates three active landfills: Olinda Alpha Landfill at 1942 North Valencia Avenue in Brea; Frank R. Bowerman (FRB) Landfill at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine; and Prima Deshecha Landfill at 32250 La Pata Avenue in San Juan Capistrano. Daily and total disposal capacities at these landfills are shown in Table 5.10-6, Orange County Landfills. Based on the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s Jurisdiction Profile, the waste generated by the City of Anaheim is taken to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. 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 site. This landfill has a daily tonnage maximum of no more than 8,000 per day and a permitted life to 2013. To ensure that the maximum permitted daily tonnage at a particular landfill is not exceeded, waste haulers are subject to diversion to another OC Waste & Recycling landfill or one of the transfer stations located throughout the County. The FRB Landfill comprises a total of 752 acres with 341 acres currently permitted for disposal. The FRB Landfill is permitted to take in 11,500 tons of solid waste (mixed municipal and residential solid waste) per day. Although the FRB Landfill has a projected closure date of 2053, OCIWMD is in the process of proposing horizontal and vertical expansion of the landfill. If approved, the life of the FRB Landfill would extend to 2053. Landfill operations are subject to air quality regulations set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and water quality regulations enforced by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Table 5.10-6 Orange County Landfills Landfill Daily Capacity1 (tpd) Disposal Capacity2 (mcy) Disposal Acres Total Acres Estimated Cease Operation Olinda Alpha (ID#30-AB-0035) 8,000 27.3 (as of 6/30/09) 420 565 12/31/2021 Frank R. Bowerman (ID#30-AB-0360) 11,500 200.8 (as of 6/30/09) 534 725 12/31/2053 Prima Deshecha (ID#30-AB-0019) 4,000 134.27 (as of 6/30/09) 699 1,530 12/31/2067 Total 23,500 362.37 1,653 2,820 – tpd = tons per day mcy = million cubic yards (1 cy airspace = 0.6 ton refuse) 1 Daily capacity refers to the maximum amount of daily tonnage that may be disposed. 2 Refuse disposal capacity refers to the available air space capacity at the landfill. Recycling Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the Integrated Waste Management Act, requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. In accordance with AB 939, 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 percent in 1995 to 51 percent in 2004. The City is required to maintain this diversion rate of 50 percent. Diversion rates for later years are not approved yet, however, preliminary data indicates 48 percent for 2005 and 2006. To facilitate the diversion of waste from landfills, the City of Anaheim participated in 37 programs in 2006. 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 franchise contractor, the City provides an automated curbside recycling program for solid waste ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-21 disposal, which uses the three-can automated collection system of trash, commingled recyclable materials, and yard waste. All commercial bulk collection from multiunit residential and commercial premises collected in three-yard bins is processed at the Regional Material Recovery Facility in Anaheim for landfill diversion. Electricity APUD’s Electrical Division currently provides electricity to Anaheim’s citizens and businesses. The distribution system consists of 70 circuit miles of 69 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and 1,400 circuit miles of 12 kV and lower distribution lines, 594 miles of which are underground, for a total of 1,470 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines. To facilitate the safe and efficient transfer of electricity to residences and businesses, 11 distribution substations are located throughout the City. APUD supplied 3,233,508 Megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity to its customers in FY 2006. Of this amount, 628,397 MWh were sold to residential uses, 641,798 MWh to commercial uses, 1,287,909 MWh to industrial uses, and 675,404 MWh to other utilities. Anaheim obtains its electricity supply from its resources located in or near Anaheim and across the western United States. To round out its electricity supply, the City of Anaheim participates in seasonal power exchanges as well as additional market purchases where necessary. Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides gas service in the City of Anaheim and has facilities throughout the City, including the project area. SCG operates its Anaheim Base within the Platinum Triangle at the corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard. As a Regional Response and Emergency Operations Center for SCG, the Anaheim Base plays a key role in providing day-to-day service, as well as in critical and emergency situations. Telephone AT&T provides telephone service to the project site. Cable Time-Warner provides cable service to the project site. 5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project: U-1 Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. U-2 Would 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. U-3 Would 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 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-22 • The Planning Center August 2010 U-4 Would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and new and/or expanded entitlements would be needed. U-5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. U-6 Would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. U-7 Would not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. U-8 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity. U-9 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas. U-10 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alteration related to telephone service. U-11 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold U-10 • Threshold U-11 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.10.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.10-1: PROJECT-GENERATED SEWAGE COULD BE ADEQUATELY TREATED BY THE SEWER SERVICE PROVIDER FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. [THRESHOLDS U-1, U-2 (PART), AND U-5] Impact Analysis: In June 2009, CH2M HILL prepared a technical memorandum entitled the Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project – Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (June 2009 CCAAMPSS), included in Appendix G of this DSEIR. This technical memorandum incorporated the development intensities analyzed by the June 2006 sewer study and subsequent revisions to the project. For modeling purposes of the June 2009 CCAAMPSS, the permitted development intensities were distributed into subareas to accurately reflect the total increased development intensity. Because this modeling approach removed the need to generalize numbers, some subareas showed less development intensities when compared to the June 2006 sewer study even though the overall intensity amount was ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-23 greater. The distribution of the development intensities is shown in Attachment 1 of the June 2009 CCAAMPSS. The June 2009 CCAAMPSS ran 12 models (Models 15, 28B, 47, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, and 123) following the sanitary flow modeling methodology of the CCAAMPSS, which is based on using diurnal curves, rather than using the traditional peaking factor method. The diurnal curve method better represents the pattern of sanitary wastewater flows generated by a type of land use over a 24-hour period. The new model run incorporated the three stretches of new backbone sewers in Models 117, 28b, and 47. The proposed amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (DSEIR No. 340) was incorporated into Model 15 for the cumulative impact. The June 2009 CCAAMPSS determined that the Proposed Project would require upsizing of 7,373 linear feet of sewer pipe in Models 15, 28B, 47, 119, 120, 121, and 122. Table 5.10-7 shows the length, capacity, and location of the required sewer pipes. There are no improvements proposed for Models 115, 116, 117, 118, and 123. Figure 5.10-4, Proposed Sewer Improvements, shows recommended sewer improvements to the Proposed Project. Table 5.10-7 Platinum Triangle Sewer Improvements Model No. Upstream – Manhole Pipe Length Capacity (d/D)1 Existing Diameter2, 3 Selected Diameter Location 107111–107110 358 ft 0.73 8 in 10 in Howell Ave. 107110–107109 342 ft 0.74 8 in 10 in Howell Ave. 15 107109–107108 364 ft 0.65 8 in 10 in Howell Ave. Office District Subtotal 1,064 ft 107402–107401 353 ft 1 8 in 10 in Wright Circle 107401–107403 305 ft 1 8 in 10 in Rigney Way 107403–107411 230 ft 1 8 in 10 in Rigney Way 28B 107411–108214 147 ft 0.48 8 in 10 in Rigney Way Katella (Subarea B) District Subtotal 1,035 ft 108207–108206 197 ft 1 8 in 15 in Gene Autry Way 47 108206–108205 357 ft 1 8 in 15 in Gene Autry Way Gene Autry District Subtotal 554 ft 127308–127306 470 ft 1 8 in 10 in Douglass Road 119 127306–127304 406 ft 1 8 in 15 in Douglass Road Katella (Subarea D) Subtotal 876 ft 108403–108404 212 ft 0.76 8 in 10 in State College Bl. 108404–108405 223 ft 1 8 in 10 in State College Bl. 108405–119101 69 ft 0.69 8 in 10 in State College Bl. 119209–119108 341 ft 1 8 in 12 in Dupont Dr. 119108–119107 274 ft 1 8 in 12 in Dupont Dr. 119107–119106 272 ft 1 8 in 12 in Dupont Dr. 119106–118309 278 ft 0.65 8 in 12 in Dupont Dr. 118309–118308 137 ft 1 10 in 15 in Orangewood 118308–118307 218 ft 0.75 12 in 15 in Orangewood 118307–118308 158 ft 1 12 in 15 in Orangewood 118308–118306 70 ft 1 12 in 15 in Orangewood 118306–119102 392 ft 1 12 in 15 in Orangewood 120 119102–119101 73 ft 1 12 in 15 in Orangewood Gateway and Orangewood Districts Subtotal 2,717 ft ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-24 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.10-7 Platinum Triangle Sewer Improvements Model No. Upstream – Manhole Pipe Length Capacity (d/D)1 Existing Diameter2, 3 Selected Diameter Location 119211–119210 255 ft 0.76 8 in 10 in Rampart St. 119210–119206 277 ft 0.49 8 in 10 in Rampart St. 121 119206–129102 395 ft 1 8 in 12 in Easement Orangewood District Subtotal 857 ft 118108–118107 190 ft 1 15 in 21 in Private 122 118107–118106 10 ft 1 15 in 21 in Private Stadium District Subtotal 200 ft Total 7,373 ft d = depth of flow (in) D = Diameter of the pipe (in) City of Anaheim’s capacity criteria of max d/D are: 0.67 = d/D for pipeline with diameters less than 12” 0.75 = d/D for pipeline with diameters equal to or greater than 12” City of Anaheim's design criteria of max d/D are: 0.50 = d/D for pipeline with diameters less than or equal to 12” 0.60 = d/D for pipeline with diameters greater than 12” 1 Capacity as a result of the Proposed Project. 2 Selected diameter is not recommended by sewer modeling, but based on the City's criteria of recommending pipe improvements: 3 Selected diameter is larger than the diameter recommended by the sewer modeling based on the following assumptions: Recommend pipe replacement instead of parallel system for existing small diameter 10", and 12") pipes. Either recommend pipe replacement or parallel system for existing 15" diameter pipes, on a case-by-case basis. Generally, recommend parallel system for existing 18" diameter pipes and larger. For pipe diameter 12" and larger, only downsizing by one pipe size is allowed. For pipe diameters 8" and 10", no downsizing is allowed. For gaps in the sewer design requirements when there is no sewer need in the sewer section being considered but there is a sewer need on either or both sides of the sewer section), criteria through applies. Replace all 6" diameter pipes with 8" or larger. Maintain continuity of pipe diameter to match upstream and pipe diameters. Increase pipe diameter to provide better transition between upstream and pipe diameters. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: CH2M HILL 2009 5. Environmental Analysis Proposed Sewer Improvements SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center • Figure 5.10-4 0 2,400 Scale (Feet) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-26 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-27 Potential Spills The Hydra model analysis was performed to determine the potential of any spills within the City sewers in the project area (trunk sewers along State College Boulevard, Howell Avenue, and Orangewood Avenue) due to surcharging as indicated by OCSD’s modeling of their trunk sewers during a 10-year storm event. The Hydra analysis assumed: • Recommended sewer improvements for the Platinum Triangle area are constructed • Recommended sewer improvements are constructed at same inverts of existing sewers • Flows within the OCSD trunk sewers based on the modeling results figures provided by OCSD Table 5.10-8 shows the depth of the sewer below ground and the anticipated surcharge above pipe crown for each of the Hydra models. Therefore, as shown, the hydraulic grade line for the surcharge is below the depth of the sewer. For example, the depths of the existing City sewers within Model 28B are approximately 7 to 15 feet below the ground elevation. However, because surcharge was experienced at approximately 2 feet above the pipe crown, the surcharge is anticipated to be experienced at hydraulic grade line of 5 to 13 feet below ground elevation. Therefore, provided that assumptions made for the Hydra analysis do not change, the potential for sewer spills during a 10-year storm event is low. Table 5.10-8 Surcharge Levels within the City Sewers in the Platinum Triangle Model Depth of Sewer below Ground Elevation (ft) Surcharge Above Pipe Crown (ft) 28B 7–15 2 47 14 2 115 7–9 1–2 116 6 1–2 117 7–8 2 118 7–11 2 119 9–12 2–3 120 6–7 2–4 121 16 0 122 5 2–4 123 14 1 IMPACT 5.10-2: WATER SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. [THRESHOLDS U-2 (PART) AND U-4] Impact Analysis: As shown in Table 5.10-9, the build-out of the Platinum Triangle would result in a total demand of 5,249 afy, which includes the existing demands from the arena, stadium, and landscape irrigation of afy that have been a part of, and included in, the existing citywide demand; (ii) the 2,656 afy from the February 2005 WSA, which was included in the 2005 UWMP; and (iii) the 1,804 afy of additional demand addressed in the 2009 WSA. As shown, when subtracting the existing water use by the existing uses onsite (landscape irrigation, arena, and stadium) and the permitted Platinum Triangle development intensities as included in 2005 UWMP, the additional water demand for the Proposed Project would be 1,804 afy. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-28 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.10-9 Total Water Demand Demand Land Use Units Demand Factor1 Gallons Per Day afy Residential 18,909 du 105 gpd/unit 1,985,445 2,224 Commercial 4,909,682 sf 195 gpd/ksf 957,388 1,072 Office 14,340,522 sf 60 gpd/ksf 860,431 964 Institutional 1,500,000 sf 60 gpd/ksf 90,000 101 Parks 9.07 ac 3,500 gpd/ac 31,745 36 Subtotal 3,925,009 4,397 Less Existing Industrial1 2,272,155 sf (-89,473) (-100) Total 3,835,536 4,297 3.8 % Losses 163 Existing Landscape Irrigation2 164 ac 3,000 gpd/ac 492,000 551 Existing Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim3 238 Total Platinum Triangle Water Demand4 5,249 Less Existing Landscape Irrigation (-551) Less Existing Arena and Stadium (-238) Less February 2005 WSA Additional Demand (included in 2005 UWMP) (-2,656) Water Demand Increase 1,804 Source: Psomas, 2009 Based on Average Day Demand Includes cumulative projects that are approved and under construction. du = defined as dwelling unit ksf = 1,000 square feet of building area 1 These industrial demands were derived from average of past three years of water meter readings from the subject industrial parcels. 2 Existing Landscape Irrigation demand calculated based on 20% of gross acreage of the Platinum Triangle (820 acres) being landscaped and irrigated. Demand factor based on typical application rate for median, parkway and onsite landscaping typical to the existing land uses. Since this demand is included in existing water usage figures in February 2005 WSA and 2005 UWMP (and not anticipated to change due to future land use intensification), it was not included in determining Water Demand Increase. 3 Existing Honda Center Arena and Angel Stadium demands are not included in the projections above but are included in the currently approved Platinum Triangle plan. Since this demand is included in existing water usage figures in the February 2005 WSA and 2005 UWMP (and not anticipated to change due to future land use intensification), it was not included in determining Water Demand Increase. 4 Total water demand for the Proposed Project includes 2,656 afy from existing and/or previously approved development included for the densities anticipated by the previous version of the Platinum Triangle plan, which was included in the 2005 UWMP, the existing landscape irrigation demand described in footnote 2, the existing Arena and Stadium demand described in footnote 3, and 1,804 afy additional demands shown here and addressed in this WSA. Thus this WSA analyzes the full 5,249 afy water demand projected for the current Platinum Triangle proposed development intensities. Water Supply and Demand According to the WSA prepared for the Proposed Project, the City’s average water demand for 2009/10 is approximately 76,170 afy and is projected to increase to 81,960 afy by 2029/30 without the Platinum Triangle. However, as shown in Table 5.10-10, there are adequate water supplies from now through 20- year planning period to meet the City’s water demand. As discussed above in Environmental Setting, OCWD establishes the BPP each water year based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, ideal precipitation, Santa Ana River runoff, and basin management objectives. The BPP was initially established in 1969 and has generally ranged from 60 to 80 percent. The average BPP for the past 20 years is 72.9 percent and the City’s water supply projection assumed an average BPP of 67 percent groundwater and 33 percent imported. At the end of the 20-year planning period for this WSA, as required by SB 610, City water demand for 2029/30 is projected to be approximately 88,520 afy. This projection includes future demands from the City based on the overall projected growth rate, as well as ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-29 added demands from the Proposed Project, the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project, and the amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion, all of which have been, or are being, addressed in other WSAs prepared since the 2005 UWMP. Implementation of the Proposed Project would require an additional 90 afy in 2009/10, 540 afy by 2014/15, 990 afy by 2019/20, 1,440 afy by 2024/25, and 1,800 afy by build-out year 2029/30 (all numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10). Comparison of projected demand and supply concluded that there are adequate water supplies to meet the water demand created by the Proposed Project. The WSA concluded that there would be surplus water through the 20-year planning period. Table 5.10-10 shows the projected water supply and demand with the proposed increase in development intensities. As shown in Table 5.10-10, forecasts indicate that APUD would continue to have a supply surplus of potable water through 2030 under Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Year conditions. Table 5.10-10 With Project Water Supply and Demand (afy) Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Normal Year Supply MWD Imported1 29,090 30,430 29,560 29,640 29,640 Local (Groundwater)2 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310 Total Supply 81,200 84,930 86,020 88,000 88,950 Demand Without TPT Expansion3 76,170 78,040 79,760 81,500 81,960 Existing plus Approved TPT Demand4 1,440 1,940 2,450 2,950 3,450 Additional TPT Expansion Demand5 90 540 990 1,440 1,800 Additional KPMC Demand6 40 210 330 330 330 Additional ARSP Demand7 30 610 740 880 980 Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 Supply/Demand Difference 3,430 3,590 1,750 900 430 Single Dry Year Supply MWD Imported 38,390 40,570 41,140 40,590 40,010 Local (Groundwater) 54,970 57,500 59,560 61,570 62,570 Total Supply 93,350 98,070 100,700 102,160 102,580 Demand Without TPT Expansion 80,360 82,340 84,140 85,980 86,470 Existing plus Approved TPT Demand 1,520 2,050 2,580 3,110 3,640 Additional TPT Expansion Demand 90 570 1,040 1,520 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand 40 220 350 350 350 Additional ARSP Demand 30 640 780 930 1,030 Total Demand 82,040 85,820 88,890 91,890 93,390 Supply/Demand Difference 11,320 12,250 11,810 10,270 9,190 Multiple Dry Year Supply MWD Imported 30,680 31,310 31,690 31,600 31,390 Local (Groundwater) 54,970 56,130 57,830 59,480 60,130 Total Supply 85,650 87,440 89,520 91,080 91,520 Demand Without TPT Expansion 80,650 82,340 84,140 85,980 86,470 Existing plus Approved TPT Demand 1,520 2,050 2,580 3,110 3,640 Additional TPT Expansion Demand 90 570 1,050 1,520 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand 40 220 350 350 350 Additional ARSP Demand 30 640 780 920 1,030 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-30 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.10-10 With Project Water Supply and Demand (afy) Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Demand 82,040 83,770 86,320 88,770 89,750 Supply/Demand Difference 3,610 3,670 3,200 2,310 1,770 Source: WSA 2009 afy = acre feet per year. All afy rounded to nearest 10. A full discussion of current and under-development water supply entitlements, water rights, and water service contracts can be found in the WSA. Supply Assumptions: 1 Imported water supply is the result of the “MWD Average Year Supply” times the Level 10, (1.18%) allocation percentage for the City of Anaheim from MWD’s 2009 Water Supply Allocation Model. The “MWD Average Year Supply” that was taken from the MWD 2006 IRP Implementation Report includes a 22% reduction in SWP supply based on 2007 MWD IRP Implementation Report. This 22% reduction in SWP supply is the amount of SWP water MWD has forecast would be reduced for delivery to MWD and its customers due to pumping restrictions that may be imposed to protect the Delta smelt and due to potential future impacts from climate change. Thus, the imported supply numbers included in this water supply assessment include the potential for a reduction in total SWP deliveries to MWD as a result of judicial and regulatory actions designed to protect Delta smelt as well as account for future climate change impacts. The Level 10 allocation percentage for the City of Anaheim was obtained from MWD. This allocation percentage, which is based on MWD’s Water Supply Allocation Model, corresponds to a 50% reduction in regional supply. This is conservative in that the proposed allocation for Year 2009/10, which is the first year MWD has enforced an allocation program, is set at Level 2, corresponding to a 10% reduction in regional supply. 2 Groundwater supply is estimated to equal 67% of total demand. Demand Assumptions: 3 Demand projections are consistent with the OCP-2006 housing and population projections released in December 2008, adjusted to reflect current (2006−2008) water demand data provided by the City with all Platinum Triangle demand excluded. The demand includes unaccounted for water. 4 This demand includes the additional demand for the Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 afy at build-out) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand (551 afy) and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim (238 afy) that were not specifically addressed in the February 2005 WSA, except within the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. 5 This demand refers to the additional demand necessitated by the revised project description. Total Project demand equals 5,249 afy at build-out, which includes existing landscape irrigation demand of 551 afy, existing Arena and Stadium demand of 238 afy, 2,656 afy from the February 2005 WSA plus 1,804 afy from the current WSA. See Table 5.10-7, Total Water Demand. 6 Project demand assumptions and phasing are from May 2007 WSA. 7 Additional project demand assumptions are discussed in concurrent ARSP WSA. Water Reliability The City’s water supply projection assumed up to 67 percent groundwater and 33 percent imported, which has been confirmed as reliable by MWD. Additionally, analyses of normal, single-dry, and multiple- dry year scenarios demonstrate the City’s ability to meet demand during the 20-year analysis period. Finally, an analysis was conducted utilizing assumed temporary shortages in MWD’s water supply, which demonstrates the City’s ability to meet demand under reasonably foreseeable temporary allocations to deal with cutbacks in SWP deliveries due to Delta smelt and other environmental issues. There are a number of water supply challenges for MWD and its service area, such as critical dry conditions and protective measures for the delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta which resulted in uncertainty about future pumping operations from the SWP due to ruling in the federal courts in August 2007. However, the Platinum Triangle WSA includes, as a worse-case scenario, an analysis under the assumption that SWP deliveries will be reduced by both 35 and 40 percent. Table 5.10-11 shows the worst case scenario demand and supply comparison under temporary 40 percent reduction in SWP water supply. This level of evaluation goes beyond the scope and requirements of SB 610. In the event that the SWP water supply is temporarily reduced by 40 percent, the project’s water demand would be met by implementing water conservation in the range of 0.3 to 3 percent, as shown in Table 5.10-11 Should extraordinary circumstances require it, the City can meet its water demand by increasing production of groundwater beyond the BPP up to the basin safe yield, increasing imported water purchases from available storage programs, and/or decreasing demand through water ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-31 conservation measures. Moreover, under temporary MWD allocation shortages, the City would trigger its Conservation Ordinance and call for at least a 10 percent reduction in usage by all customer classes with rate penalties if users exceed 90 percent of their previous year’s water use. With planned water supplies and facilities, there is adequate water to serve the Proposed Project. Table 5.10-11 With Project Water Demand and Supply (afy*) Under Temporary 40 Percent SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2011–2030 Water Sources Normal Years Dry Years8 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SUPPLY Imported1 26,260 26,260 28,910 28,910 28,910 Local (Groundwater)2 51,460 51,800 55,730 54,830 56,130 Total Supply 77,720 78,060 84,640 83,740 85,040 DEMAND Total City Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP3 76,540 76,920 82,470 80,540 82,340 Existing plus Approved Platinum Triangle Demand4 1,540 1,640 1,860 1,910 2,050 Additional Proposed Project Demand5 180 270 380 470 570 Additional Kaiser Medical Center Demand6 40 40 220 220 220 Additional ARSP Demand7 50 80 110 610 640 % of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 76,810 77,310 83,180 81,840 83,770 Supply/Demand Difference 910 750 1,460 1,900 1,270 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Imported1 25,270 25,270 29,120 29,120 29,120 Local (Groundwater)2 53,510 53,810 57,750 56,450 57,830 Total Supply 78,780 79,080 86,870 85,570 86,950 Total Multiple Year Demand 79,870 80,320 86,200 84,250 86,320 Supply/Demand Difference -1,090 -1,240 670 1,320 630 Percent Conservation Required 1.4% 1.5% 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Imported1 25,360 25,360 29,020 29,020 29,020 Local (Groundwater)2 55,130 55,440 59,490 58,140 59,480 Total Supply 80,490 80,800 88,510 87,160 88,500 Total Multiple Year Demand 82,280 82,750 88,790 86,770 88,770 Supply/Demand Difference -1,790 -1,950 -280 390 -270 Percent Conservation Required 2.2% 2.4% 0.3% - 0.3% 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Imported1 25,360 25,360 28,820 28,820 28,820 Local (Groundwater)2 59,510 56,660 60,600 59,050 60,130 Total Supply 81,870 82,020 89,420 87,870 88,950 Total Multiple Year Demand 84,350 84,560 90,450 88,130 89,750 Supply/Demand Difference -2,480 -2,540 -1,030 -260 -800 Percent Conservation Required 2.9% 3.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.9% Source: WSA 2009. *afy rounded to nearest 10. 1 This figure represents a Level 10 Allocation (1.18% of MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply) consistent with the preceding MWD WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. MWD Multi Dry Year ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-32 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.10-11 With Project Water Demand and Supply (afy*) Under Temporary 40 Percent SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2011–2030 Supply: 2,225,800 (year 2011); 2,225,800 (year 2012); 2,450,200 (year 2013); 2,450,200 (year 2014); 2,450,200 (year 2015); 2,148,800 (year 2016), 2,148,800 (year 2017), 2,467,600 (year 2018), 2,467,600 (year 2019), and 2,467,600 (year 2020); 2,148,800 (year 2021); 2,148,800 (year 2022); 2,459,600 (year 2023); 2,459,600 (year 2024); 2,459,600 (year 2025); 2,148,800 (year 2026); 2,148,800 (year 2027); 2,442,600 (2028); 2,442,600 (year 2029); 2,442,600 (year 2030) 2 This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. 3 This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. 4 This figure includes additional demand for the Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 afy at build-out) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Honda Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands, as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. 5 This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total project demand equals 5,249 afy at build-out, which includes 2,656 afy from the February 2005 WSA plus existing demands of 551 afy and 238 afy for existing landscape irrigation and the Honda Center/Angel Stadium of Anaheim, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and 1,804 afy from the current WSA. 6 Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. 7 This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. 8 Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP). Water Delivery System Rule 15-D of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates and Regulations specifies approved water facility improvements in the project vicinity that have either been completed or are in planning stages. The following improvements have been approved but have not yet been constructed. • A 16-inch water main in Orangewood Avenue from Santa Cruz to State College Boulevard (1,400 LF) • A 16-inch water main in State College Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Gene Autry Way (1,250 LF) • A 16-inch water main in Katella Avenue at State College to Well #45 (1,300 LF) • A new water well adjacent to the planned Fire Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street south of Stanford Court Furthermore, the APUD indicated that the proposed increase in development intensities would require the following improvements to the current water facilities. • A new transmission main in Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to State Route 57 (SR-57) • A new transmission main in Douglass Road from Katella to the Anaheim Stadium loop • A new transmission main in State College Boulevard from Orangewood south to the City limits • A new transmission main in the Lewis Street Connector • One new 3,000 GPM water well, location to be determined ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-33 Rule 15-D of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates and Regulations (Plan No. W2524D) specifies the water facility improvements required to accommodate the projected land use water demands within the City, including the Platinum Triangle. Under Rule 15-D, a new 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) Well No. 45 was constructed in 2003, and currently supplies most of the demands in and around the Platinum Triangle area. Ultimately, changes in land use projections and addition of water facilities will require updating Rule 15- D; however, under existing Rule 15-D, the projected demands for new office, commercial, and industrial land uses have already been accounted for in determining water facility improvements. The only significant changes, in terms of projected demand quantity for the Proposed Project, were the demands resulting from new residential dwelling units. Once the City approves the necessary improvements, Rule 15-D and associated rates and figures will be revised. Compliance with the amended Rule 15-D would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve the Proposed Project. Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan would not adversely impact the water delivery system. IMPACT 5.10-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STORM WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES. [THRESHOLD U-3] Impact Analysis: According to the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area prepared in January 2006, the existing storm drainage system under current condition in the Platinum Triangle is deficient. Therefore, in addition to local facilities needed as part of a specific development, a facility requirement or deficiency need must be addressed as part of the development. Specific project will be evaluated by the City Engineer to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities as identified in the appropriate drainage study and the developments in the Platinum Triangle will be required to incorporate into their plans additional local systems to meet the City’s current drainage criteria in terms of street flooding limits and other surface flow parameters, Construction of these facilities would occur in compliance with the standard engineering rules and regulations and would not result in a significant environmental effects. IMPACT 5.10-4: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED FACILITIES WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECT-GENERATED SOLID WASTE AND COMPLY WITH RELATED SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS. [THRESHOLDS U-6 AND U-7] Impact Analysis: Development of the Proposed Project would increase the service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions and would provide more solid waste to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Typical waste would include, but is not limited to, green waste lawn and tree trimmings), cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, aluminum cans, diapers, food, and household hazardous waste (paint, motor oil, antifreeze, batteries), etc. Table 5.10-12 shows projected solid waste demands for residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-34 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.10-12 Projected Solid Waste Demand Land Use Proposed Additional Unit Generation Factor Daily Waste Generated Proposed Project Residential 8,643 DU 90 lbs/unit/week 111,124 lbs (50 tons) Commercial 2,645,282 sq. ft. 0.046 lbs/sq. ft./day 121,683 lbs (55 tons) Office 9,284,972 sq. ft. 1 lb/100 sq. ft./day 92,850 lbs (42 tons) Institutional 1,500,000 sq. ft. 3.12 lbs/100 sq. ft./day 46,800 lbs (21 tons) Total 372,457 lbs. (168 tons) The additional 8,643 residential units would generate approximately 111,124 pounds per day or 5.562 tons per day (tpd). The proposed increase in commercial, office, and institutional uses would generate additional 55.19 tpd, 42.12 tpd, and 21.23 tpd of solid waste, respectively. Olinda Alpha Landfill is the main disposal site for the waste generated in the City of Anaheim. Olinda Alpha Landfill is located in the City of Brea and is permitted through 2013 with an operational life of 2021. The current daily tonnage at Olinda Alpha is approximately 5,600 tons and is permitted for 8,000 tons per day. The Proposed Project would generate an additional 168.94 tons of solid waste per day, which would constitute about 2.4 percent of the permitted capacity. Therefore, the proposed increase would not have a substantial impact on the Olinda Alpha landfill capacity or the MRF processing. In addition, the FRB Landfill in the City of Irvine and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in the City of San Capistrano each provides landfill capacity through 2053 and 2067, respectively. The proposed residential uses are expected to generate the typical range of recyclable and nonrecyclable waste. The Orange County Landfill system is required to have available disposal capacity for a projected period of 15 years. The Orange County Landfill System has demonstrated this capacity and regularly imports solid waste from Los Angeles County. There is available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfills to accommodate the anticipated solid waste stream generated by the Proposed Project, individually and cumulatively. The City has increased its diversion rate from 44 percent in 1995 to 51 percent in 2004. Diversion rates for later years are not yet approved. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate increased construction and operation solid waste in the area. However, each development project in the project area would be required to submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Development projects in the project area are required to comply with the City’s existing recycling and diversion programs, which would reduce impacts generated by the additional development density to a less than significant level. IMPACT 5.10-5: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED FACILITIES WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECT-GENERATED ELECTRICITY DEMANDS. [THRESHOLD U-8] Impact Analysis: Development pursuant to the proposed amendments would increase the electrical load on existing facilities and require upgrades to the existing 12 kV distribution systems. The impact would include, but may not be limited to, increasing conductor sizes, locating the conductors underground, installing new high and low voltage conductors, and installing new voltage transformation facilities, including one electrical substation. As described in the project description, a new electrical substation is proposed adjacent to Fire Station No. 12 between Anaheim Way and Santa Cruz Street, south of Stanford Court. This new substation would have capacity between 112 and 168 megawatts ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-35 (MW) and connect to new and existing electrical transmission and distribution lines. All installations would be located in City streets, City property and rights-of-ways, or on customer-provided easements. Distribution and transmission systems would be installed to coincide with street improvements, or as needed by a development, whichever comes first. According to APUD, the City currently consumes approximately 590,000 MWh for residential use and 630,000 MWh for commercial/office use, and APUD anticipates that a new substation would be installed when project electrical loads exceed the existing electrical capacity in the Platinum Triangle by 20 MW. The owner or developer would be required to submit plans showing that each structure will comply with the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) and will consult with the APUD Business and Community Program Division in order to review Title 24 measures prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection to incorporate into the project design energy and water efficiency and sustainability practices. Therefore, APUD anticipates that impacts resulting from the Proposed Project are within the expansion capabilities of the existing service and such expansion would not be detrimental to the environment. APUD has specified electric utility improvements in the project vicinity that have been completed or are in the planning stages: • Relocate Southern California Edison transmission line underground on Katella Avenue from west of the Union Pacific Railroad to Lewis Street (850 feet) • Relocate Southern California Edison communication line underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to east of State College. (2,400 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet) • Relocate distribution circuits underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from Anaheim Way to State College Boulevard (1,500 feet) • Relocate a distribution circuit underground on Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to west of the Santa Ana River (1,600 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Gene Autry Way (950 feet) • Relocate a distribution circuit underground on Douglas Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (1,000 feet) Furthermore, the APUD indicated that the proposed increase in development intensities would require the following improvements to the current electric facilities: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-36 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Two new distribution duct banks on Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Street (800 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Douglas Road to Howell Avenue (2,000 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on State College Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue (2,600 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from I-5 to the Santa Ana River (4,800 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from Haster Street to the east side of I-5 (2,500 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet) • A new transmission duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet) • A new transmission duct bank on Lewis Street and Santa Cruz Street from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,000 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on the east side of the Angel Stadium parking lot from Orangewood Avenue to the SR-57 (2,000 feet) • A new distribution duct bank on Douglas Road from SR-57 to Cerritos Avenue (4,000 feet) The electrical substation will be required when project electrical loads exceed the existing electrical capacity in the project area by 20 MW of customer load. The existing electric system capacity in the Platinum Triangle area is approximately 40 MW. To meet this increased electrical demand, the electric utility had determined that a new electrical substation in the project area would be required. A suitable site for the substation has been secured at the City-owned property at Orangewood Avenue and Anaheim Way, on the same parcel where the new fire station and water well will be located. Therefore, provided that a new electrical substation is constructed to meet increased electrical demand, and new electrical distribution and transmission lines are constructed, implementation of the PT MLUP would not adversely impact the electrical supply and the impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.10-6: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED FACILITIES WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECT-GENERATED NATURAL GAS DEMANDS. [THRESHOLD U-9] Impact Analysis: Development pursuant to the amendments would increase the natural gas demand in the project area. The project area is served by SCG but would require substantial upgrades to the existing system. SCG has indicated that the Proposed Project would require an additional 1.5 miles of 465 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) large-diameter gas transmission pipelines, along with placement of at least two additional pressure limiting stations in the area, and alteration of at least three miles of existing gas main in the area to increase capacity. Gas service will be added to the existing system by SCG as necessary to meet the requirements of individual development projects within the project site. It is anticipated that with necessary system ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-37 upgrades and facility improvements, SCG would be able to service the project site with natural gas, which would be provided in accordance with the SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with the Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SCG is under the jurisdiction of the California 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 would be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Although the Proposed Project would create additional demands on natural gas supplies and distribution infrastructure, the increased demands are projected to be within the service capabilities of SCG provided necessary improvements are made in coordination with SCG. Increased building densities and heights in the project area could interfere with the communication function of a microwave tower at the corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard. However, the current PTMU Overlay Zone would allow a nonscreened rooftop microwave communications tower with a variance, if relocation of the microwave tower is necessary. 5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts As discussed in the appropriate sections, the Proposed Project would result in substantial increase in the areas of all public utilities. Impacts to utilities and service systems would occur incrementally to cause cumulative impacts and upgrades to existing systems, and new construction would be necessary. Implementation timing of other related projects such as ARTIC and the Anaheim Resort Area Specific Plan Amendment would also impact the service provider’s ability to provide adequate services. However, such increase is projected and appropriate payment mechanism is available to fund the necessary utility improvements as planned by each utility service provider. Necessary utility and service systems improvements would be required as part of the project development and any remaining measures have been included as part of additional mitigation measures. Therefore, since impacts to utility systems can be mitigated to less than significant level without exceeding or jeopardizing service levels, cumulative impacts would also be considered less than significant. 5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • City of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.18, Water Conservation Ordinance No. 6138 (adopted April 14, 2009). APUD shall monitor and evaluate the projected supply and demand for water by its customers. APUD shall recommend to the City Council such Water Reduction Plan(s) as provided in the Municipal Code Chapter 10.18, which permit APUD to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. The City Council may, by resolution, order implementation of such Water Reduction Plan(s) as appropriate. At any time, the City Council may discontinue any Plan, modify any Plan, or may implement another Plan as provided in this chapter. • Assembly Bill 939 (Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989). The Integrated Waste Management Act requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. In addition, AB 939 requires each county to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element for its unincorporated areas, identifying waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, solid waste facility capacity, education and public information, funding, special waste (asbestos, sewage sludge, etc.), and household hazardous waste. In addition, each county must prepare a countywide siting element, specifying areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity for solid waste generated in the jurisdiction which cannot be reduced or recycled for 15 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-38 • The Planning Center August 2010 5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.10-1 The proposed sewer demand exceeds the existing sewer handling capacity. • Impact 5.10-2 The proposed water supply demand exceeds the existing water supply capacity. • Impact 5.10-3 The Proposed Project would result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. • Impact 5.10-4 The Proposed Project would substantially increase the solid waste disposal needs. • Impact 5.10-5 The Proposed Project would result in substantial increase in electricity demands. • Impact 5.10-6 The Proposed Project would result in substantial increase in natural gas demands. 5.10.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.10-1 (Sewer) Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-1 The City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle Sewer Study. If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Benefit Parcels and Development Mitigation (Appendix D of The Platinum Triangle Sewer Study), prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final Building and Zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-39 if adopted for the project area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. (5.11-5) 10-2 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner/developer shall coordinate with the OCSD to ensure that all improvements and construction schedules are coordinated. (5.11-7) Additional Mitigation 10-3 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall contact Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regarding sewer capacity. Additionally, if requested by the OCSD, the property owner/developer shall place up to three flow monitoring devices for up to a month to verify capacity and ensure consistency with the OCSD’s modeling results. 10-4 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to prevent the sewer spill for below-grade structures of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe and the invert elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when they are above the pipe crown. 10-5 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where OCSD will be upsizing truck lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner shall coordinate with OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are installed at the lateral connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties. 10-6 Prior to final design approval, additional analysis shall be performed for each individual project using flow, wet-weather data, and other information specific for that project in order to obtain more accurate results of the surcharge levels for final design. Impact 5.10-2 (Water Supply) Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-40 • The Planning Center August 2010 ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881)Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325). Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following: • Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; • Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas; • Low-flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; • Use of self-closing valves for drinking fountains; • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors; • Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals; • Low-flow shower heads in hotels; • Infrared sensors on drinking fountains; • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances; • Cooling tower recirculating system; • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; • Use of waterway recirculation systems; • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. (5.11-1) 10-8 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide engineering studies, including network analysis, to size the water mains for ultimate development within the project. This includes detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering reviews and approval in determining project water requirements and appropriate water assessment fees. (5.11-2) 10-9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-41 when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) (5.11-3) 10-10 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit following certification of SEIR No. 334339, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall comply with Rule 15D of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Rule 15D shall be amended to include construction of a new well with a minimum 1,500 GPM capacity within The Platinum Triangle. (5.11-4) Additional Mitigation 10-11 Ongoing, the City shall continue to collaborate with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, its member agencies, and Orange County Water District to ensure that available water supplies meet anticipated demand. If it is forecast that water demand exceeds available supplies, the City shall trigger application of its Water Conservation Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.18, as prescribed, to require mandatory conservation measures as authorized by Section 10.18.070 through 10.18.090, as appropriate. 10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. 10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water facets, and water efficient appliances. 10-14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. 10-15 Prior to approval of a project that exceeds the statutory thresholds set forth in SB 610 and SB 221, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that adequate water supply exists to serve the Proposed Project. If it cannot be demonstrated that adequate water exists to serve the specific project, the project shall not be approved. 10-16 Prior to issuance of the first building permit or grading permit following certification of SEIR No. 339, whichever occurs first, Rule 15-D shall be amended to include the following improvements. • A transmission main in Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to SR-57. • A transmission main in Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to the Anaheim Stadium loop. • A transmission main in State College Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue south to the City limits. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-42 • The Planning Center August 2010 • A transmission main in the Lewis Street Connector. • A new 3,000 gallon per minute water well. Impact 5.10-3 (Storm Water Drainage) Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-17 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities, as identified in the Platinum triangle Drainage Study Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area. If the project will increase stormwater flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient storm drain system or will create a deficiency in an existing storm drain, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the drainage facilities, as required by the City Engineer to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Development Mitigation within Benefit Zones (Appendix E of the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study) of the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final Building and Zoning inspection for the building/ structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, as determined by the city Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. (5.5-3) Impact 5.10-4 (Solid Waste) Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-43 as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: (5.11-8) • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection • Providing on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. • Prohibiting curbside pick-up. • Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations. 10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: (5.11-9) • Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling. • Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. 10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the The property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division, and /or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site, sale to a broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if all cannot be reused on the project site. (5.11-10) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-44 • The Planning Center August 2010 Impact 5.10-5 (Electricity) Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with exceed the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Department Business and Community Programs Division. in order to review Title 24 measures incorporated into the project design including energy efficient designs. This consultation shall take place during project design in order to review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient practices efficiency and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage air-conditioning, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives. (5.11-11) 10-22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, In order to conserve energy, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans implement energy-saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 10 24, which may include the following: • High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control. • Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution. • Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle. • Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. • Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. • Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors compressor motors, air- handling units, and fan-coil units). • Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces. • Use of compact fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent lamps. • Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps. • Use of Energy Star exit lighting or exit signage. • Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-45 • Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high- pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots. • Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or hotel buildings, meeting facilities, theaters, or other intermittent-use spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. • Consideration for participation in Resource Efficiency’s Advantage Services Programs such as: ƒ New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering fees for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. ƒ Energy Sale for New Construction – Cash incentives ($150 300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements. ƒ Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. ƒ Thermal Energy Storage Feasibility Study – Cost sharing of up to $5,000 for the feasibility study of TES applied to new facilities. (5.11-12) • Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or less). • Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). • Use of weather-based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. • Use of drought-tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping. 10-23 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, For any buildings requiring a change in electrical service, the property owner/developer shall install their portion of the an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for of Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees service fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the Cityand Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. The underground electrical service will consist of the following improvements to the current electric facilities: (5.11-13) • Relocate Southern California Edison transmission line underground on Katella Avenue from west of the Union Pacific Railroad to Lewis Street (850 feet). • Relocate Southern California Edison communication line underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to east of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • Relocate distribution circuits underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-46 • The Planning Center August 2010 • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from Anaheim Way to State College Boulevard (1,500 feet). • Relocation a distribution circuit underground on Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to west of the Santa Ana River (1,600 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Gene Autry Way (950 feet). • Relocate a distribution circuit underground on Douglas Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (1,000 feet). 10-24 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with exceed the State Energy Conservation Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code) by a minimum of 10 percent. (5.11-14) Additional Mitigation 10-25 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall install their portion of the underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications of Underground Systems. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City. The underground electrical service will consist of the following improvements to the current electric facilities: • Two new distribution duct banks on Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Street (800 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Douglas Road to Howell Avenue (2,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on State College Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue (2,600 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Ave. from I-5 to the Santa Ana River (4,800 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from Haster Street to the east side of I-5 (2,500 feet). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.10-47 • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet). • A new transmission duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet). • A new transmission duct bank on Lewis Street and Santa Cruz Street from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on the east side of the Angel Stadium parking lot from Orangewood Avenue to the SR-57 (2,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Douglas Road from SR-57 to Cerritos Avenue (4,000 feet). 10-26 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, the property owner/developer shall provide an electrical load analysis to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The analysis shall include a load schedule and maximum electrical coincident demand. Should the property owner/developer’s load analysis result in a contributed load forecasted to exceed 20 MVA above the existing 40 MVA capacity of the electrical system currently serving the Platinum Triangle area, the APUD will initiate construction of a new electrical substation within the Platinum Triangle project area. Electrical service fees and other appli- cable fees for the electrical substation will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City. Impact 5.10-6 (Natural Gas) 10-27 The City shall coordinate all future street and infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle with other service providers including Southern California Gas Company and the Orange County Sanitation District so that required infrastructure upgrades maybe constructed concurrently. 5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to utilities remain. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.10-48 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-1 5.11 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project to impact or be impacted by global climate change. Although the Proposed Project’s impacts are compared to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332) for the Adopted MLUP, impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not studied in it since this issue was not identified as an environmental issue at the time of FSEIR No. 332 adoption in October 2005. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions. The analysis in this section is based on air quality analysis completed by The Planning Center. The air quality model output sheets are included as Appendix C. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following: • CEQA and Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), January 2008 • Climate Change Scoping Plan, California Air Resources Board, December 2008. • Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas Maps, Southern California Association of Governments, 2008. • The California Environmental Quality Act – Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, Office of the California Attorney General, 2008. 5.11.1 Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Climate change is the variation of Earth’s climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The climate system is interactive, consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (ocean, rivers, and lakes), the cryosphere (sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers), the land surface, and the biosphere (flora and fauna). The atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing part of the system. It is made up of 78.1 percent nitrogen (N2), 20.9 percent oxygen (O2), and 0.93 percent argon (Ar). These gases have only limited interaction with the incoming solar radiation and do not interact with infrared (long-wave) radiation emitted by the Earth. However, there are a number of trace gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3), that absorb and emit infrared radiation and therefore have an effect on climate. These are GHG, and while they comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total volume mixing ratio in dry air, they play an essential role in influencing climate (IPCC 2001). Non-CO2 GHG are those listed in the Kyoto Protocol1 (CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFC], perfluorocarbons [PFC], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6])and those listed under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments2 (chlorofluorocarbons [CFC], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFC], and halons). Table 5.11-1 lists 1 Kyoto Protocol: Established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and signed by more than 160 countries (excluding the United States) stating that they commit to reduce their GHG emissions by 55 percent or engage in emissions trading. 2 Montreal Protocol and Amendments: International Treaty signed in 1987 and subsequently amended in 1990 and 1992. Stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere (CFC, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 a selection of some of the GHG and their relative global warming potentials (GWP) compared to CO2.3 Because GHG emissions take many years to leave the atmosphere (as measured by atmospheric lifetime), the GWP potential in Table 5.11-1 is based on a relative scale that compares warming potential of non-CO2 GHG to CO2 over a 100 year period. For example, CH4 is 21 times more powerful a GHG that CO2. As shown in the Table below, fluorinated gases have a very high global warming potential relative to CO2 and are therefore considered High Global Warming Potential gases, or gases that are strong/potent because of their potential to absorb infrared radiation. Although not included in this table, water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG, is also the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant (IPCC 2001). The major GHG are briefly described below the table. Table 5.11-1 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 GHG Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential Relative to CO2 1 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1 Methane (CH4)2 12 21 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 264 11,700 HFC-32 5.6 650 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 HFC-152a 1.5 140 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 6,500 Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 9,200 Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 7,000 C6F14 3,200 7,400 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source: USEPA. 1 Based on 100-Year Time Horizon of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the air pollutant relative to CO2. 2 The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also naturally removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. 3 GWP is used to show the relative potential that different GHG have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-3 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated gases are strong greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes called High Global Warming Potential gases because they absorb substantially more infrared radiation and therefore significantly contribute to climate change. • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are greenhouse gases covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and are used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. Because these gases are ozone depleting, they are being replaced by other compounds that are also GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol. • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but have a high global warming potential. • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and that is soluble in water. SF6 is a strong greenhouse gas used primarily as an insulator in electrical transmission and distribution systems. • Hydrochlorofluorocarbons contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone-depleting substances, they destroy stratospheric ozone less than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also greenhouse gases. • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but are strong greenhouse gases. (USEPA 2008a). California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution Simply due to its total population and geographic size, California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, surpassed only by Texas, and the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world (CEC 2005). However, because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services). In 2004, California produced 492 million metric tons (MMTons) of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) GHG emissions,4 of which 81 percent were CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, 2.8 percent were from other sources of CO2, 5.7 percent were from methane, and 6.8 percent were from N2O. The remaining 2.9 percent of GHG emissions were from High Global 4 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHG have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 Warming Potential gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (CEC 2006). CO2 emissions from human activities make up 84 percent of the total GHG emissions. California’s trans- portation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 40.7 percent of the state’s total emissions. Electricity consumption is the second largest source, comprising 22.2 percent. While out-of-state electricity generation comprises 22 to 32 percent of California’s total electricity supply, it contributes 39 to 57 percent of the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption in the state. Industrial activities are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 20.5 percent of the state’s total emissions. Other major sources of GHG emissions include mineral production, waste combustion, and forestry changes. Agriculture, forestry, commercial, and residential activities comprise the balance of California’s greenhouse gas emissions (CEC 2006). Human Influence on Climate Change For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times, and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in climate change pollutants far exceed the naturally occurring extremes of the ice ages. Further, the global mean temperature is rising at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty (IPCC 2007). The Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report projects that the range of global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate-change scenarios, will range from 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4°F). In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic timeframe but within a human lifetime. Potential Climate Change Impacts for California Climate change is not a local environmental impact; it is a global impact. Unlike criteria pollutants, CO2 emissions cannot be attributed to a direct health effect. However, human-caused increases in GHG have been shown to be highly correlated with increases in the surface and ocean temperatures on Earth (IPCC 2007). What is not clear is the extent of the impact on environmental systems. Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environ- mental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict. Likewise, there are varying degrees of uncertainty in environmental impact scenarios. Because of this uncertainty, the IPCC uses five different confidence levels to quantify climate change impacts on the environment: Very High Confidence (95 percent or greater), High Confidence (67 to 95 percent), Medium Confidence (33 to 67 percent), Low Confidence (5 to 33 percent), and Very Low Confidence (5 percent or less). In California and western North America, 1) observations in the climate have showed a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow, 3) there is a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) there is an ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-5 advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the springs, and 5) there is a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5.11-1), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now unavoidable. CAT and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) use the results from the recent analysis of global climate change impacts for California under three IPCC scenarios: lower emissions (B1), medium-high emissions (A2), and high emissions (A1F1); each is associated with an increasing rise in average global surface temperatures. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC) in their 2006 report, Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, global climate change risks to California include public health impacts (poor air quality made worse and more severe heat), water resources impacts (decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack, challenges in securing adequate water supply, potential reduction in hydropower, and loss of winter recreation), agricultural impacts (increasing temperatures, increasing threats from pests and pathogens, expanded ranges of agricultural weeds, and declining productivity), coast sea level impacts (rising coastal sea levels, increasing coastal floods, and shrinking beaches), forest and biological resource impacts (increasing wildfires, increasing threats from pest and pathogens, declining forest productivity, and shifting vegetation and species distribution), and electricity impacts (increased energy demand). Specific climate change impacts that could affect the City of Anaheim include health impacts from a reduction in air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand. Scientific Debate Regarding the Scope and Extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming As a matter of public policy, through the enactment of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and other legislation, the State of California has declared that the continued rise in concentrations of GHG emissions pose a threat to the health and welfare of the people of the State. Thus, this EIR sets forth a comprehensive analysis consistent with the framework provided by state and regional authorities, of the proposed project’s impacts with respect to climate change. Nevertheless, there continues to be significant debate among scientists on the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming and whether California’s commitments to reduce GHG emissions will have any measurable affect on global climate change trends. Significant scientific debate continues to exist regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming.5 During the past two years additional evidence and factual material has been disclosed and debated that calls into question the integrity of scientific methodologies of the IPCC – which has served as the primary basis for much of the proposed regulatory action throughout the world.6 Thus, while the State of California has embarked upon a comprehensive regulatory program and has declared that climate change 5 In 2008, 650 scientists from around the globe submitted a several hundred page report calling into question the claims made by the IPCC that global warming exits and is caused by humans (U.S. Senate Minority Report 2008). 6 The factual material consists of the following: the charge that the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific organization (Singer 2008 and Tol 2007); extensive criticism that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report lacked any sort of meaningful scientific peer review (Holland 2007); the assertion that the Fourth Assessment Report contains numerous errors and unsubstantiated factual assertions such as the use of the “Hockey Stick” (Gray 2010 and Monckton 2008), leaked emails from the University of East Anglia (Delingpole 2009), various claims contained in the Fourth Assessment Report were false, including, but not limited to the claims that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt by 2035, that African crop production would be cut by 50 percent by 2020; and the claim that sea levels would rise based on melting ice having equal displacement with water, among others (Webster 2010, IPCC 2010, and Leake 2010). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 poses a significant threat to the health and welfare of the citizens of the State, it is nevertheless true that scientific debate exists regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming. In addition, assuming that the State of California can achieve its greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals set forth in AB 32, it is unclear as to whether the achievement would have any effect on any global warming trends caused by fossil fuel combustion. While California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan outlines strategies to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 169.4 MMTons (CARB 2008), these savings are not nearly enough to compensate for the expected increase in emissions in developing countries during the same period alone. China has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest GHG emitter and GHG levels are projected to increase by 75 percent to more than double existing levels.7 India’s emissions are projected to increase fourfold by 2030 (The Economist 2008).8 Similarly, Brazil, the largest economy in South America, GHG emissions increased by more than 60 percent between 1990 and 2004, and are projected to continue to rise at a similar pace (International Energy Agency 2006). Both of those increases, however, are insignificant compared to the increases projected for China. Consequently, it is clear that similar steps to reduce emissions must be taken in developed and developing nations to reduce GHG emissions worldwide. Baseline GHG Inventory An emissions inventory of existing conditions for the Platinum Triangle MLUP was conducted based on the existing commercial, office, and residential land uses and estimates of trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compiled by Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (2009), and is shown in Table 5.11-2. The emissions inventory assumes both residential and employment trips to be associated with land uses in the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, all the VMT generated by those trips are considered to be part of the City’s GHG inventory even if part of the trip end is external to the City. In comparison, the Regional Target Advisory Committee for Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) is recommending that in scenarios where employment trips are split between jurisdictional boundaries, only 50 percent of the trip length be included as part of that region’s GHG inventory. What this means is the vehicle trip may originate in the City of Los Angeles, but end in the Platinum Triangle (or vice- versa). The City considers this whole trip length and trip to be associated with the Proposed Project. Because the Platinum Triangle GHG inventory does not split trips associated with residential uses and trips associated with nonresidential uses, this correction is not included in the GHG emissions inventory and results in an overestimation of VMT and trips generated by the Platinum Triangle alone. The existing GHG emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions model for area sources and EMFAC2007 for transportation sources. In addition, indirect GHG emissions for energy use, water, and waste disposal were included in the emissions inventory. GHG emissions for energy use were calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the US Energy Information Administration. GHG emissions from project-related water demand were calculated using southern California energy-intensity factors 7 A recent study conducted by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and UC San Diego estimated that China’s CO2 emissions are growing by as much as 11 percent annually and that a ton of CO2 emitted from China comingles with a ton of carbon dioxide emitted from Southern California in approximately seventy two hours (Auffhammer and Carson 2008). A 2009 analysis of Chinese emissions by the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations projects that even if the Chinese government reduces carbon emissions by about 40-45 percent per unit of gross domestic product, China will still have an approximate 75 percent increase in CO2 emissions by 2020 (The Times of India 2009). A different study by the Climate Change Institute at Australian National University suggested that China’s emissions may grow even more: doubling by 2020 (The Times of India 2009). China’s increase in emissions alone could be three to four times higher than the combined cuts promised by the United States and the European Union (The Times of India 2009). 8 According to projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), carbon emissions from Brazil alone are expected to increase from 216 MMTons in 1990 and 356 MMTons in 2005 to 541 MMTons in 2020, nearly double the amount of emissions which will be saved by the implementation of AB 32. During that period, India’s emissions are projected to increase by about 1,253 MMTons (EIA 2008). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-7 obtained from the CEC, and GHG emissions from project-related waste disposal were calculated using the USEPA’s Waste Reduction Model. Lifecycle emissions9 are not included in this analysis because no information is available for the Proposed Project and therefore lifecycle GHG emissions would be speculative. Air quality modeling and details on the modeling assumptions are included as Appendix C. Table 5.11-2 Existing GHG Emissions Inventory in the Platinum Triangle MLUP Source GHG Emissions MTons/Year1 Percent of Total Transportation Sector1 138,564 73% Electricity Sector Purchased Energy2 36,758 19% Water Demand and Treatment3 783 Total Energy Emissions 37,541 20% Recycling and Waste4 3,868 2% Area Sources1 11,032 6% Total 191,005 MTons 100% Per Service Population (SP)5 12.4 MTons/SP NA Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. MTons = metric tons. The emissions inventory does not include emissions from existing industrial land uses. 1 short ton (ton) equals 0.9071847 metric ton. 1 URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Assumes CO2 represents 99.6 percent of total CO2e emissions from gasoline while CH4, N2O, and Fluorinated Gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). 2 CO2e emissions calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the United States Department of Energy, EIA, and Southern California Edison. Based on the EIA 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption, December 2006, Table C14 and C20. Note: Does not take into account increase in appliance and building energy efficiency. 3 Includes energy required for water conveyance, treatment, distribution, and wastewater treatment. Water use estimated from SCAQMD Water and Electricity Usage in Southern California. CO2e emissions calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the United States Department of Energy, Southern California Edison. Based on California Energy Commission. 2005, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011-SF. 4 CO2e emissions from waste generation are based on the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) created by the USEPA and the waste stream jurisdictional profile for the City of Anaheim (CIWMB) 5 Service population includes people who live (residents) and work (employees) in the Platinum Triangle. As of June 2008, the Platinum Triangle had an estimated 585 residents and 14,822 employees for a service population of 15,407 people. Regulatory Setting Regulation on an International Level Currently, there is no international regulatory program regulating emissions from various nations. A brief summary of the state of international climate change regulation is set forth below. In 1992, 154 nations, including the United States, entered into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change a nonbinding agreement under which industrialized countries pledged to work to reduce GHG emissions. Five years later, in 1997, the parties to the adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set 9 Lifecycle emissions are the GHG emissions from raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal and include all intervening transportation emissions caused by the product's existence. Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction over the lifetime of the Platinum Triangle MLUP is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of lifecycle emissions would be speculative. In addition, the Final Statement of Reasons for the CEQA guidelines states that there is no regulatory definition of lifecycle and lifecycle emissions could refer to emissions beyond those that could be considered indirect effects of a project. Therefore, references to lifecycle analyses were removed from the CEQA Guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community, with the objective of reducing their collective omissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels during the “commitment period” of 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries, but has not been ratified by the United States. Indeed, in 1995, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a 95-0 vote, stating the Senate’s directive that the United States should not enter into any protocol that did not set binding targets for developing, as well as industrialized, nations. It should be noted that many of the industrialized countries which ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not and/or are not expected to meet their Kyoto targets.10 The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. Formal negotiations to replace the protocol officially began in December 2007 at the Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia. Whether a workable agreement can be reached, however, remains to be seen, as the United States continues to press for an agreement which requires firm commitments from developing nations, and countries like China and India continue to oppose binding targets (BBK News 2007). Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level The federal government has taken a number of steps toward addressing global climate change over the past 30 years, but thus far, such actions have been mostly policy oriented. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, which required an investigation into climate change. In 1987, Congress enacted the Global Climate Protection Act for the purpose of establishing a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications (15 USC § 2902.). The act required the establishment of various programs to further climate change research (15 USC § 2904(d).). After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the EPA announced on December 7, 2009, two distinct findings regarding GHG emissions under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. First, the EPA made an endangerment finding that current and projected concentrations of the six key greenhouse gases—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Second, the EPA made a finding that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHGs that threaten public health and welfare. EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 US Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions could be regulated within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. Despite the fact that climate change has been on the Federal government’s radar for 30 years, to date, Congress has not enacted any legislation requiring economy-wide mandatory reductions in GHG emissions. Currently, the Federal government’s policy on climate change has three objectives: 1) Slowing the growth of emissions; 2) Strengthening science, technology and institutions; and 3) Enhancing international cooperation, which it is implementing through voluntary and incentive-based programs (USEPA 2010). While the newly-elected Obama Administration has stated its support for cap and trade legislation, thus far no new federal legislation has been adopted. Several different “cap-and-trade” proposals, which would require such reductions, have recently been introduced in Congress, but none of them have been passed by either branch of Congress, or have become law. All such plans would place caps on the total amount of GHG which can be emitted during future years, and allow emitters to buy and sell emission credits. However, such 10 Canada, which currently has emissions that are 30 percent above 1990 levels, announced in 2009 that it would not be able to meet its obligations under Kyoto (Environment Canada 2010). Likewise, Japan has not indicated that it will not comply with its targets, but as of 2005, its emissions were approximately 8 percent higher than in 1990 (Kestenbaum 2007). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-9 plans vary widely on what caps they would place on emissions and how quickly such caps would come into effect, as well as how their specific mechanisms would work (Pre Center on Global Climate Change 2008). Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG. AB 32 follows the first tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05, signed on June 1, 2005. Executive Order S-3-05 requires the state’s global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and by 80 percent of 1990 levels by year 2050. Projected GHG emissions in California are estimated at 596 MMTons of CO2e by 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTons (471 million tons) of CO2e for the state. The 2020 target requires emissions reductions of 169 MMTons, approximately 30 percent of the projected emissions compared to business-as-usual (BAU) in year 2020 30 percent of 596 MMTons). CARB defines BAU in their Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical practice in 2002–2004. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 metric tons (MTons) per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions. In June 2008, CARB released a draft of the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which was revised in October 2008. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. Key elements of CARB’s GHG reduction plan are: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; • Achieving a mix of 33 percent for energy generation from renewable sources; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources; • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard • Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Table 5.11-3 shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, CARB estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services are estimated to result in a reduction of five MMTons of CO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments will play in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today’s levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the state’s reduction target. Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize compact, low-impact growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer VMT. According to the supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 MMTons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). Table 5.11-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Toward 2020 Target Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMTons CO2e Percentage of Statewide 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets1 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined2 NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARB. 2008, 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-11 In summary, current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32 and Executive Order S-01-07. AB 32 establishes a goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 and describes a process for achieving that goal. Executive Order S- 03-05 sets a goal for the following for reduction of GHG emissions: • 2000 levels by 2010 • 1990 levels by 2020 • 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Regional Level In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino County, Riverside, Ventura, and Riverside. The GHG emission reduction targets for each region are required to be established no later than September 30, 2010. Once the GHG emissions reduction targets for each region have been established, SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of its Regional Transportation Plan. While there is no deadline for adoption of the SCS, it is anticipated that the first plans would not be released until 2011, at the earliest. The SCS sets forth a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to take individual jurisdictions growth strategies, that, when taken together, achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. If the SCS is unable to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets, then the MPO is required to prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy that shows how the GHG emissions reduction target could be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, and/or transportation measures. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Local Level City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element The General Plan Update for the City of Anaheim was adopted in May 2004. The City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element, while not specifically addressing GHG emissions or climate change, addresses topics concerning conservation of natural resources including vehicle emissions reduction; reducing vehicle work trips; expanding transit trips; sound land use planning; efficient, clean-burning public transit; energy conservation; and building performance standards (see also Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning). City of Anaheim Green Resolution, Green Connection, and Green Building Programs In 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution, which sets out a series of goals for the City, grounded in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainable development. The City’s Green Resolution includes a goal to reduce energy use by 20 percent and water use by 15 percent by 2015. Anaheim Public Utilities, through Anaheim’s Green Connection Program, is exploring a variety of different ways to meet these green ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 goals. For example, the City offers several incentive-based program through Anaheim Public Utilities.11 The City’s Green Building Programs promotes the following in the design and construction of new development and redevelopment: • Sustainable Sites. Takes into consideration future needs including access to public transportation, parking capacity, accommodation for alternative fuel vehicles, protection or restoration of open space, storm water management, and prevention of the heat island effect and light pollution. • Water Efficiency. Requires water-efficient landscapes, water-efficient equipment and appliances, and innovative wastewater technologies to reduce costs, help preserve water supplies and prevent pollution. • Energy Efficiency. Encourages energy-efficiency measures such as use of daylighting, renewable energy, superior insulation, and high-efficiency appliances and equipment. • Cleaner Atmosphere. Reduction of greenhouse gas and chlorofluorocarbons in heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems and refrigeration to preserve and protect the environment. • Wiser Use of Materials and Resources. All materials used in construction should provide the best value in terms of the life of the product and future maintenance costs. At the same time, materials must be selected with environmental concerns in mind. Green builders consider not only the finished products they will use in construction, but also the methods of raw material acquisition, product manufacturing, packaging, transportation and use. Green building also means being conscious of waste management. Recycling and reusing materials when practical helps prevent overusing landfills. • Indoor Environmental Quality. Green buildings provide good indoor air quality, lighting, acoustics and temperature control for the health and comfort of inhabitants. This requires the use of the most environmentally friendly building materials and innovative designs with special attention to ventilation, insulation, and HVAC systems. 5.11.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: GCC-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. GCC-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association In their January 2008 CEQA and Climate Change white paper, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association identified a number of potential approaches for determining the significance of GHG emissions 11 A list of the City of Anaheim Public Utilities incentives for business efficiency can be found on the City’s webpage at: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=990. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-13 in CEQA documents. In this white paper, CAPCOA suggests making significance determinations on a case- by-case basis when no significance thresholds have been adopted. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research – SB 97 OPR released a Technical Advisory for addressing climate change through CEQA in June 2008. In their guidance document, OPR recommends that each public agency develop its own consistent approach to performing a climate change analysis based on best available information. OPR states that compliance with CEQA for global climate change analyses entails three basic steps: 1) identify and quantify GHG emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities; 2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and 3) if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that will reduce the impact below significance. For projects where GHG emissions are considered significant, the California Attorney General has prepared a fact sheet listing various mitigation measures to reduce the project’s contribution to global climate change impacts. South Coast Air Quality Management District The issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. In accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology, any project that produces a significant regional air quality impact in an area adds to the cumulative impact. The SCAQMD is the local air district responsible for establishing thresholds for air quality. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. Currently the SCAQMD is in the process of establishing a threshold for GHG emissions. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD adopted a threshold of 10,000 MTons of CO2e of stationary (and not mobile) sources for industrial projects where they are designated as the Lead Agency under CEQA. The SCAQMD is currently proposing, but has not yet adopted, thresholds for development projects. 5.11.3 Environmental Impacts Operational GHG emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions model for area sources and the EMFAC2007 model for transportation sources. In addition, an estimate of construction emissions was generated using the URBEMIS2007 model. The EMFAC2007 computer model includes an inventory of emission rates for vehicular sources. Transportation emission rates used the EMFAC2007 computer model based on trips and VMT from the traffic report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. In addition, CO2e emissions for project-related energy use were calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). CO2e emissions from project-related water demand were calculated using Southern California energy-intensity factors obtained from the CEC and CO2e emissions from project-related waste disposal were calculated using the USEPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Air quality modeling is included as Appendix C. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 IMPACT 5.11-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS COMPARED TO THE ADOPTED MASTER LAND USE PLAN AND CUMULATIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN CALIFORNIA. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS GOALS. [THRESHOLDS GHG-1 AND GHG-2] Impact Analysis: The CEQA Guidelines were amended on December 30, 2009 to incorporate methodology and discussion for GHG emissions. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The State of California, through its governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40+ years. This will occur primarily through the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375, which will address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. As this framework was not available when the FSEIR No. 332 was published, it did not analyze impacts associated with GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines recommend that a lead agency consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: 1. The extent to which the project may increase (or reduce) GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; 2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; 3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.12 In accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory and revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis below provides the conclusions on the project-specific impact towards the cumulative impact of global climate change. Annual GHG emissions from project-related mobile and stationary sources and for project-related indirect emissions from purchased energy and water were also calculated for construction and operation of the Proposed Project and evaluated for the potential to interfere with the State of California's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies, as identified in AB 32 through a consistency analysis with CARB’s Scoping Plan. Project-Related GHG Emissions The Proposed Project is a regionally significant project pursuant to SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review (IGR) criteria and the CEQA Guidelines. The emissions inventory assumes both residential and employment trips to be associated with land uses in the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, all the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by those trips are considered to be part of the City’s GHG inventory even if part of the trip end is external to the City. In comparison, the Regional Target Advisory Committee for SB 375 is recommending that in scenarios where employment trips are split between jurisdictional boundaries, only 50 percent of the 12 OPR recommendations include a requirement that such a plan must be adopted through a public review process and include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-15 trip length be included as part of that region’s GHG inventory. What this means is the vehicle trip may originate in the City of Los Angeles, but end in the Platinum Triangle (or vice-versa). The City considers this whole trip length and trip to be associated with the Proposed Project. Because the Platinum Triangle GHG inventory does not split trips associated with residential uses and trips associated with nonresidential uses, this correction is not included in the GHG emissions inventory and results in an overestimation of VMT and trips generated by the Platinum Triangle alone. The development contemplated by the Proposed Project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from on-site area sources, off-site energy production required for on-site activities and water use, and vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project. Lifecycle emissions are not included in this analysis because no information is available for the Proposed Project and therefore lifecycle GHG emissions would be speculative.13 Project-related GHG emissions from operation activities were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 and EMFACE2007 computer models, energy usage factors and emission rates from the EIA, and GHG emission rates from waste disposal from the USEPA. For the operations phase, the project’s GHG emissions are separated into emission sources for the applicable GHG emissions sectors established by CARB. Transportation Sector emissions are produced from vehicular travel to and from the project site. Electricity Sector sources are indirect GHG emissions from the energy (purchased energy and energy from water use) that is produced off-site.14 In accordance with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, these sources of GHG emissions are evaluated. Recycling and Waste Sector are emissions associated with waste disposal generated by the project. Area Sources Sector (Commercial and Residential Sector emissions sources) are owned or controlled by the project natural gas combustion, boilers, furnaces) and produced on-site. Project-related construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions. GHG emissions from operational activities associated with the Proposed Project at build-out year 2030 are shown in Table 5.11-4. In general, project-related Transportation Sector emissions represent the largest proportion of emissions associated with the Proposed Project. While development patterns can influence travel behavior and travel modes, these emissions are indirect sources of GHG emissions that are not directly controlled by future applicants for new development in the Platinum Triangle. The second largest source of emissions is from the Electricity Sector, followed by area sources associated with the Commercial and Residential Sector, construction activities, and Recycling and Waste. These direct sources of emissions can be controlled by new development by ensuring that structures are built efficiently to reduce demand on energy use, that nonpotable/recycled water is used where available to reduce demand of potable water use, and that recycling is available on-site to decrease the amount of waste sent to landfills. 13 Lifecycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. Because of the programmatic nature of the Platinum Triangle MLUP development, evaluation and quantification of raw material usage and production are unknown. 14 Potable water use consumes large amounts of energy associated with water conveyance, treatment, distribution, end use, and wastewater treatment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.11-17 • City of Anaheim August 2010 Table 5.11-4 2030 Business-as-Usual Annual GHG Emissions Inventory for the Platinum Triangle CO2eEmissions MTons Per Year (BAU Scenario) Source Existing Adopted MLUP Increase from Existing (Adopted MLUP) Proposed Project Increase from Existing (Proposed Project) Increase from Adopted MLUP (Proposed Project) Percent of Total (Proposed Project) Transportation Sector1 138,564 364,449 248,996 665,969 527,405 301,519 66% Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment2 783 2,392 1,774 5,249 4,466 2,857 1% Purchased Energy3 36,758 84,438 52,558 190,628 153,869 106,190 19% Total Energy Emissions 37,541 86,830 54,332 195,877 158,335 109,046 19% Recycling and Waste Sector4 3,868 10,987 7,847 27,441 23,572 16,454 3% Area Sources Sector5 11,032 32,481 23,644 69,933 58,901 37,452 7% Annual Average Construction6 — 20,268 22,342 48,394 48,394 28,126 5% Total 191,005 515,016 357,161 1,007,613 816,608 492,597 100% Per Service Population (SP)5 12.4 MTons/SP 17.1 MTons/SP 5.2 MTons/SP 15.5 MTons/SP 3.1 MTons/SP -1.6 MTons/SP NA The emissions inventory does not include emissions from existing industrial land uses. 1 URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Assumes CO2 represents 99.6 percent of total CO2e emissions from gasoline while CH4, N2O, and Fluorinated Gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). 2 Includes energy required for water conveyance, treatment, distribution, and wastewater treatment. Water use estimated from SCAQMD Water and Electricity Usage in Southern California. CO2e emissions calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the United States Department of Energy, Southern California Edison. Based on California Energy Commission. 2005, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011-SF. 3 CO2e emissions calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the United States Department of Energy, EIA, and Southern California Edison. Based on the EIA 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption, December 2006, Table C14 and C20. Note: Does not take into account increase in appliance and building energy efficiency. 4 CO2e emissions from waste generation are based on the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) created by the USEPA and the waste stream jurisdictional profile for the City of Anaheim (CIWMB) 5 Service population includes people who live (residents) and work (employees) in the Platinum Triangle. The Adopted MLUP generates 15,399 residents and 14,640 employees for a service population of 30,039 people. The Proposed Project would generate 23,364 residents and 41,500 employees for a service population of 64,864 people. As of June 2008, the Platinum Triangle had an estimated 585 residents and 14,822 employees for a service population of 15,407 people. 6 URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Based on the default construction equipment mix and assumes CO2 represents 99.7 percent of total from diesel CO2e while CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). Does not include a reduction in GHG emissions from implementation of the low carbon fuel standard which would reduce the carbon content of fuel proposed by year 2020, thereby reducing GHG emissions from fuel from construction equipment by 10 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 The Planning Center Page 5.11-18 • City of Anaheim August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-19 As shown in this table, the Proposed Project would generate an increase in 492,597 MTons of GHG emissions compared to the Adopted MLUP and 816,608 MTons from existing conditions. The emissions estimates do not take into account the GHG emission reductions associated with changes to the Building and Energy Efficiency standards, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, California low carbon-content fuel legislation, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures in the Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions. Hence, the emissions inventory included in this table represents the Proposed Project’s BAU emission scenario. Business as usual is defined as emission levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. The FSEIR No. 332 for the Adopted MLUP did not analyze potential impacts from GHG emissions. The Adopted MLUP would generate an increase of 357,161 MTons from existing conditions. Emissions generated by the Adopted MLUP and the Proposed Project would both be substantial and therefore potentially significantly contribute to climate change impacts in California. The Proposed Project would further increase GHG emissions by 492,597 MTons compared to the Adopted MLUP; however, per-capita emissions would decrease. GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be substantially greater under the Proposed Project compared to the Adopted MLUP and therefore impacts are considered significant. CARB Scoping Plan Consistency While California alone cannot stabilize the climate, the state’s actions set an example and drive global progress toward reduction of GHG. If the industrialized world were to follow the emission reduction targets established by California, and industrializing nations reduced emissions according to the lower emissions path (lower emissions IPPC scenario B1), medium or higher warming ranges of global temperature increases might be avoided, along with the most severe consequences of global warming. In 2007 the CEC published The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. In this publication, the CEC acknowledged that California’s land use patterns shape energy use and the production of GHG. Transportation contributes a large percentage of the state’s GHG emissions and research shows that increasing a community or development’s density and accessibility to job centers are the two most significant factors for reducing vehicle miles traveled through design (CEC 2007). CARB adopted the Scoping Plan in December 2008. CARB’s Scoping Plan identifies that reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels means “cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today’s levels.” According to the Scoping Plan, a hard and declining cap will cover 85 percent of California GHG emissions reductions. The early actions and the percentage toward the GHG reduction goal of 169 MTons that they achieve were shown in Table 5.11-3. Consequently, the emissions inventory in Table 5.11-4 would be reduced as a result of the GHG emissions reduction under the cap-and- trade program. In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected year statewide 2020 BAU GHG emissions GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from year 2020 BAU. Therefore, the Scoping Plan defines the future baseline emissions scenario to mean in the absence of the statewide emissions reduction strategy. In order to determine whether the project’s GHG emissions are consistent with the overall goal of AB 32, emissions shown previously in Table 5.11-4 are compared to GHG emissions with implementation of the Scoping Plan GHG emissions reduction measures. Additionally, the Scoping Plan identified several early action measures to reduce GHG emissions in the State of California. These early action measures include: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-20 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Green Building: Implementation of newer, more energy-efficient California Building Standards within the California Building Code (CBC). The new 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 standards. • Renewable Energy Portfolio: Requiring that California use renewable energy to represent 33 percent of California’s energy portfolio. Renewable energy currently comprises 12 percent of the state’s energy portfolio. • Per-Capita Water Reduction: Reducing per-capita water use by approximately 20 percent. The draft 20X2020 water conservation plan identifies strategies to reduce water use in the state. In addition, plumbing and landscaping codes amended with the new CBC result in a 50 percent reduction of water use for new commercial and residential plumbing fixtures. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Adoption of a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS requires the carbon content of fuels sold in California to be reduced by 10 percent by year 2020. • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards: Adoption of higher fuel efficiency standards (Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards). The United States Environmental Protection Agency granted the waiver to California to implement higher fuel efficiency standards on July 1, 2009. California’s fuel efficiency standards require the average fleet fuel economy of cars to be 43 miles per gallon (mpg) by year 2020. This results in an increase in fuel efficiency of 42.8 percent from the current 23 mpg average fleet economy in California. Table 5.11-5 shows the GHG emissions inventory at build-out of the Proposed Project with the associated GHG emissions reductions and the percent reduction from BAU. As described previously, to be consistent with GHG reduction targets of AB 32 for year 2020, the City would need to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from BAU by year 2020. As shown in this table, the statewide GHG emissions reduction measures identified in the Scoping Plan and that are being implemented over the next 10 years would reduce GHG emissions by 353,237 MTons, or 35 percent, from the BAU scenario. Because the GHG emissions reductions for transportation, buildings, energy, and other economic sectors would be implemented by year 2020, the percent reduction associated with the Scoping Plan for the project for 2030 would be similar for forecast year 2020 (see Appendix This is because no additional emissions control measures are assumed for years 2020 through years 2030 for the purpose of this analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-21 Table 5.11-5 2030 Annual GHG Emissions Inventory for the Proposed Project with Scoping Plan Reductions CO2eEmissions MTons Per Year Source Proposed Project (BAU Scenario) Proposed Project W/Scoping Plan Reductions Percent of Total Transportation Sector1 665,969 380,934 58% Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment2 , 3 5,249 4,147 1% Purchased Energy3 190,628 132,362 20% Total Energy Emissions 195,877 136,509 21% Recycling and Waste Sector 27,441 27,441 4% Area Sources Sector3 69,933 61,098 9% Annual Average Construction6 48,394 48,394 7% Total GHG Inventory 1,007,613 654,375 100% Per Service Population4 15.5 MTons/SP 10.1 MTons/SP NA Percent Decrease from BAU 35% Scoping Plan Reductions 353,237 MTons = metric tons. The emissions inventory does not include emissions from existing industrial land uses. 1 Based on a 42.8 percent increase in fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles from 2008 to 2020 in the CARB 2008 Technical Advisory. Pavley 2 would require an average fleet fuel economy of new cars of 42.5 mpg by 2020 compared to an existing average of 24.4 mpg (CARB 2008b). 2 Based on an increase in renewable energy use from 12 percent to 33 percent by 2020. (CARB 2008a) 3 Based on an increase in 15 percent energy efficiency from the 2005 to 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, California Building Code). 4 Service population includes people who live (residents) and work (employees) in the Platinum Triangle. The Adopted MLUP generates 15,399 residents and 14,640 employees for a service population of 30,039 people. The Proposed Project would generate 23,364 residents and 41,500 employees for a service population of 64,864 people. Relative to Measure T-3 of the Scoping Plan, which is the measure encompassing the requirements of SB 375, local governments have the ability to directly influence both the siting and design of new residential and commercial developments in a way that reduces per capita greenhouse gases associated with vehicle travel, energy, water, and waste. SB 375 enhances existing processes by which governments coordinate with the regional planning agencies in order to demonstrate GHG emission reductions through integrated development patterns, improved transportation planning, and other transportation measures and policies. The Proposed Project would mix high- and medium-density housing units with office, retail, and entertainment uses within the vicinity of major transportation corridors, including State Route 22, Interstate 5, and State Route 57, and therefore would be considered consistent with intent of similar regional planning efforts focused on efficient land use that strive to integrate jobs centers and housing opportunities specifically to reduce VMT and therefore GHG emissions. Regional GHG emissions reduction targets have not yet been established by CARB and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) element of the RTP that are required by SB 375 will not be adopted by the SCAG region until the 2012 RTP is adopted. At this time, the only regional growth document that has been incorporated into a regional growth policy is SCAG’s Compass Blueprint. If the Compass Blueprint were to be fully implemented, VMT per household would be expected to decrease (SCAG 2009b). The Proposed Project includes land use features designed to reduce VMT within southern California and the SoCAB through development of the Proposed Project, including the ARTIC District. The ARTIC District replaces the existing institutional land use designation on the eastern project boundary with a mixed use land use designation. This designation would allow for a variety of uses in addition to ARTIC, which is envisioned as a major regional intermodal transit center proposed under a partnership between the City of Anaheim and the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-22 • The Planning Center August 2010 Orange County Transportation Authority. The regional intermodal transit center would link rail, ground, and transit services in Orange County and would serve as a gateway for high speed and conventional rail, bus, and automobile travelers. Development of ARTIC project and the ARTIC District would facilitate the use of transit by residents in the Platinum Triangle and the surrounding region and would, therefore, improve mobility in the southern California region and could reduce transportation derived CO2 emissions in the air basin. As shown in Table 5.11-5, full implementation of transportation and energy measures of CARB’s Scoping Plan would reduce emissions by 35 percent, or 353,237 MTons of CO2e from BAU. Coupled with statewide measures to reduce GHG emissions from electric producers, vehicles, fuel, and the cap-and-trade program, the project would achieve GHG reductions consistent with the 30 percent reduction consistent with the GHG reduction goals of AB 32, as described in the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in the Scoping Plan. 5.11.4 Cumulative Impacts As described under Impact 5.11-1, project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Hence, GHG impacts are by nature a cumulative impact. Consequently, it is speculative to determine how an individual project’s GHG emissions would impact California. Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.11-1 are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but the Proposed Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact. Because the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions were considered significant even with mitigation, the project’s GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change impacts are considered cumulatively considerable and therefore significant for GHG emissions. 5.11.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions • Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 California Code of Regulations) • Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20 California Code of Regulations) • Motor Vehicle Standards (AB 1493) • AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act • Executive Order S-3-05: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets • Executive Order S-01-07: Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program • City of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.18, Water Conservation Ordinance No. 6138 (adopted April 14, 2009). • Assembly Bill 939 (Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989). 5.11.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.11-1 The Proposed Project would generate substantially more GHG Emissions compared to the Adopted MLUP and cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California. However, the project would be consistent statewide and regional GHG reductions goals. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-23 5.11.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.11-1 Applicable Mitigation Measures from Other EIR Sections Below is a list of mitigation measures included in other environmental topical sections of this EIR that also would reduce GHG emissions associated with the project and are consistent with the California Attorney General’s mitigation measures for energy efficiency, renewable energy and storage, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use, transportation and motor vehicle, and agriculture and forestry measures. It should also be noted that the proposed project is a mixed-use infill project that is consistent with the Attorney General’s recommended measures for land use. In addition, several of the mitigation measures incorporate several categories of the California Attorney General’s recommended measures energy efficiency and water efficiency measures are occasionally incorporated in the same mitigation measure). Solid Waste Measures 2-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project site. (5.2-3) 10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: (5.11-8) • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-24 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Providing on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. • Prohibiting curbside pick-up. • Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations. 10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: (5.11-9) • Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling. • Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. 10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the The property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division, and /or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site, sale to a broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if all cannot be reused on the project site. (5.11-10) Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO, NOX, ROG, and PM10 emissions: (5.2-5) • Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010, traffic study and Master Plan of Arterial Highways shall be implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed. 9-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, Tthe property ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-25 owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: (5.10-2) • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 9-2 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, and ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. following: (5.10-2) • On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services be provided. • Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. • Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs. • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transporta- tion Authority (including commute rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. A commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. Event shuttle service will be available for the guests. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program, Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-26 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Stagger work shifts. • Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. • Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.) • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants. 9-12 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Public Works, Transit Planning Division that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the project, the existing Metrolink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following: a. A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co-location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-27 the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division and ATN. The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan. b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service. e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken its place. f. That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. 9-14 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Energy Efficiency 2-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent. Plans shall show the following: a) Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs or similar websites. b) Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or similar websites. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-28 • The Planning Center August 2010 c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows. d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square feet. e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings. Implementation of energy conservation techniques installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. (5.2-6) 10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with exceed the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Department Business and Community Programs Division. in order to review Title 24 measures incorporated into the project design including energy efficient designs. This consultation shall take place during project design in order to review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient practices efficiency and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage air-conditioning, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives. (5.11-11) 10-22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, In order to conserve energy, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans implement energy-saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 10 24, which may include the following: • High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control. • Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution. • Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle. • Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. • Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. • Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors compressor motors, air- handling units, and fan-coil units). • Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces. • Use of compact fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent lamps. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-29 • Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps. • Use of Energy Star exit lighting or exit signage. • Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified. • Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots. • Use of skylights. • Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or hotel buildings, meeting facilities, theaters, or other intermittent-use spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. • Consideration for participation in Resource Efficiency’s Advantage Services Programs such as: ƒ New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering fees for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. ƒ Energy Sale for New Construction – Cash incentives ($150 300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements. ƒ Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. ƒ Thermal Energy Storage Feasibility Study – Cost sharing of up to $5,000 for the feasibility study of TES applied to new facilities. (5.11-12) • Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or less). • Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). • Use of weather-based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. • Use of drought-tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping. 10-24 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with exceed the State Energy Conservation Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code) by a minimum of 10 percent. (5.11-14) Water Conservation and Efficiency 10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881)Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325). Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following: • Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-30 • The Planning Center August 2010 • Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas; • Low-flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; • Use of self-closing valves for drinking fountains; • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors; • Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals; • Low-flow shower heads in hotels; • Infrared sensors on drinking fountains; • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances; • Cooling tower recirculating system; • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; • Use of waterway recirculation systems; • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. (5.11-1) 10-9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) (5.11-3) 10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. 10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water facets, and water efficient appliances. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 5.11-31 10-14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. 5.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.11-1 As described in Impact 5.11-1, build-out of the project would be consistent with the goals of the Scoping Plan and best management practices identified for development project to reduce VMT through integrating land use and transportation and would achieve GHG reductions consistent with the 30 percent reduction associated with CARB’s Scoping Plan. In addition, the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.11.7 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible. However, as shown in Table 5.11-6, implementation of the project would generate a substantial increase (463,371 MTons or 243 percent) in GHG emissions from existing conditions. Therefore, while the project would be consistent with GHG reduction goals of the Scoping Plan, GHG emissions generated by the project would be significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.11-32 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 5.11-6 Comparison of Existing vs. Future GHG Emissions w/Scoping Plan Reductions CO2eEmissions MTons Per Year Source Existing Proposed Project W/Scoping Plan Reductions Percent of Total Transportation Sector1 138,564 380,934 58% Electricity Sector Water Demand and Treatment2, 3 783 4,147 1% Purchased Energy3 36,758 132,362 20% Total Energy Emissions 37,541 136,509 21% Recycling and Waste Sector 3,868 27,441 4% Area Sources Sector3 11,032 61,098 9% Average Annual Construction 0 48,394 7% Total GHG Inventory 191,005 654,375 100% Per Service Population4 12.4 MTons/SP 10.1 MTons/SP Net Increase from Existing 463,371 Percent Increase from Existing 243% MTons = metric tons. The emissions inventory does not include emissions from existing industrial land uses. 1 Based on a 42.8 percent increase in fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles from 2008 to 2020 in the CARB 2008 Technical Advisory. Pavley 2 would require an average fleet fuel economy of new cars of 42.5 mpg by 2020 compared to an existing average of 24.4 mpg (CARB 2008b). 2 Based on an increase in renewable energy use from 12 percent to 33 percent by 2020. (CARB 2008a) 3 Based on an increase in 15 percent energy efficiency from the 2005 to 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, California Building Code). 5 Service population includes people who live (residents) and work (employees) in the Platinum Triangle. There were estimated to be 585 residents and 14,882 employees in the Platinum Triangle for a service population of 15,407 people. The Proposed Project would generate 23,364 residents and 41,500 employees for a service population of 64,864 people. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 6-1 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 1, Executive Summary, contains Table 1-4, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. While mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact, the following impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures are applied. Air Quality Impact 5.2-1 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would reduce construction emissions associated with new development projects in the Platinum Triangle. However, due to the magnitude of construction activities that could take place with build-out of the Proposed Project, emissions of Carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5) would continue to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) regional construction regional emissions thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). As a result, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-2 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-4 through 2-6 would reduce operational phase emissions of the project. However, due to the magnitude of new air pollutant emissions sources that could result with build- out of the Proposed Project, emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. As a result, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-3 Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would reduce on-site construction emissions to the extent feasible. However, due to the magnitude of the construction grading activities, the probability that multiple construction activities could occur at the same time, and the proximity of existing and future sensitive receptors within the Platinum Triangle, construction emissions may exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds. As a result, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2-5 Placement of sensitive uses near major pollutant sources would result in significant air quality impacts from the exposure of persons to substantial concentrations of toxic air pollutant contaminants. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-7 and 2-8 would ensure that residences within the Platinum Triangle are not located in close proximity to major stationary sources of air pollution identified by California Air Resources Board (CARB). As a result, no significant impact would occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-7 would reduce the potential indoor health risk. While long-term maintenance associated with replacement of the minimum efficiency reporting value filters is not in the control of the developer for indoor air quality impacts, Mitigation Measure 2-7 would require the property manager (rentals) and homeowner’s ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 association (HOA) to require homeowners to replace filters to reduce health risk associated with diesel particulates from being located within 500 feet of Interstate 5 and State Route 57. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-7 and 2-8 would ensure that residents within the Platinum Triangle would not be exposed to levels of toxic air contaminants that exceed the ambient concentrations in the project vicinity, which are 931 to 1,086 in a million in the Platinum Triangle area (SCAQMD 2009). While Mitigation Measure 2-9 would reduce the potential outdoor health risk for parks within close proximity to the freeway, development projects may include outdoor private recreational areas within the CARB- recommended distance of 500 feet. Therefore, placement of private outdoor recreational areas would expose people to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants that exceed the ambient concentrations in the project vicinity, which are 931 to 1,086 a million in the Platinum Triangle (SCAQMD 2008), and impacts would be potentially significant. Impact 5.2-5 would be significant and unavoidable. Land Use Impact 5.4-2 No mitigation measures are available to reduce significant impacts to operation of the Southern California Gas Company’s microwave tower. The A-Town Metro project north of the microwave tower was approved on October 25, 2005, and is not a part of the current project actions to increase the intensity in the Platinum Triangle. Unless the property containing the microwave tower is redeveloped with a future mixed use and the tower is relocated, high-rise residential towers north of the microwave tower will conflict with the tower’s operation and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Noise Impact 5.5-1 Mitigation Measure 5-1 will reduce impacts related traffic noise increases to the extent feasible. However, some areas may experience noise levels in exceedance of the City’s noise ordinance prior to implementation of roadway improvements and associated noise attenuation. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.5-3 Mitigation Measures 5-2 through 5-4 would reduce exterior noise levels at noise-sensitive exterior areas from roadway source noise, railroad noise, and from stadium events. However, the exterior noise environment may still exceed the goals for noise compatibility established by the City and would require evaluation of individual project compatibility with the exterior noise environment on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, Impact 5.5-3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.5-5 Mitigation Measure 5-5 would reduce vibration impacts from pile driving, but would not eliminate vibration generated by heavy construction equipment operating within close proximity to existing or proposed units within the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, Impact 5.5-5 would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 6-3 Impact 5.5-7 Mitigation Measures 5-7 through 5-10 would reduce noise levels from construction activities to the extent feasible. Construction noise impacts would be temporary as they would only occur when construction activities are occurring and would cease by evening. However, due to the proximity of occupied units within the Platinum Triangle to construction activities and potential overlap in the construction schedule from individual development projects constructed within the Platinum Triangle, Impact 5.5-7 would remain significant and unavoidable. Transportation and Traffic Impact 5.9-1 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 through 9-17 provides means to implement traffic improvements to reduce impacted intersections and arterial segments level of service to a less than significant level. However, although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible. Where the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim such as the City of Orange and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), recommended measures may not be implemented for reasons beyond the City’s control. The City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction and the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans’s right-of-way without Caltrans approval. Should that occur, the project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Recommended improvements on the following City of Anaheim intersections are not feasible and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 1) Intersection I-1: Euclid Street/Katella Avenue 2) Intersection I-5: Disneyland Drive/Ball Road 3) Intersection I-6: Disneyland Drive/West Street/Katella Avenue 4) Intersection I-8: Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road 5) Intersection I-23: Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street/Katella Avenue 6) Intersection I-49: State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue 7) Intersection I-53: State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue Recommended improvements on the following City of Orange intersections are not feasible because the City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the implementation of these improvements; and, therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 8) Intersection I-53: State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue (shared intersection between Anaheim and Orange) 9) Intersection I-57: State College Boulevard/The City Drive/Chapman Avenue 10) Intersection I-71: Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound Ramps 11) Intersection I-80: Main Street/Collins Avenue 12) Intersection I-87: Glassell Street/Katella Avenue 13) Intersection I-102: The City Drive/Garden Grove Boulevard 14) Intersection I-98: SR-22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive The following six arterial segments within the City of Orange are identified as deficient and are located within corridors that are built out and have right-of-way constraints include existing businesses, extensive landscaping, and in the case of Struck Avenue, several homes. The City of Orange has no plans to widen the ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 identified segments within the foreseeable future but should the City of Orange decide to implement improvements along these corridors, the City of Anaheim will need to contribute a fair-share. The City of Anaheim will continue to work with the City of Orange to develop the most appropriate strategy toward improving the locations impacted by the Proposed Project. 15) Arterial Segment A-15: Ball Road from SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 16) Arterial Segment A-27: Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street 17) Arterial Segment A-28: Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street 18) Arterial Segment A-32: Eckhoff Street to Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue 19) Arterial Segment A-62: Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street 20) Arterial Segment A-91: Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street Impact 5.9-2 Since the major freeway facilities within the study area, I-5, SR-22, and SR-57 have reached their design capacity or will have reached it by 2030 and the required physical improvements are largely the result of background regional traffic, consultation between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans will be necessary to reach consensus on any potential operational improvement measures. State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern and are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission; the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; Caltrans; and OCTA. Therefore, impacts to Caltrans facilities would remain significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.11-1 As described in Impact 5.11-1, build-out of the project would be consistent with the goals of the Scoping Plan and best management practices identified for development project to reduce VMT through integrating land use and transportation and would achieve GHG reductions consistent with the 30 percent reduction associated with CARB’s Scoping Plan. In addition, the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.11.7 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible. However, as shown in Table 5.11-6, implementation of the project would generate a substantial increase (463,371 MTons or 243 percent) in GHG emissions from existing conditions. Therefore, while the project would be consistent with GHG reduction goals of the Scoping Plan, GHG emissions generated by the project would be significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the Proposed Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[a] through are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR. • “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (15126.6[b]). • “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” (15126.6[e][1]). • “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (15126.6[e][2]). • “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6[f]). • “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6[f][1]). • For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (15126.6[f][2][A]). • “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (15126.6[f][3]). ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 For each development alternative, this analysis: • Describes the alterative, • Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the Proposed Project, • Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative, • Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives, and • Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project. Per the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. 7.1.2 Project Objectives As described in Section 3.2, the following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts: • Provide for a wide range of housing opportunities in close proximity to jobs and a regional transportation center. • Provide a mix of quality, high-density urban housing that is integrated into the area through carefully maintained pedestrian streets, transit connections, and arterial access. • Create a development plan that encourages residents of Anaheim to work and shop in close proximity to their homes, minimizing use of their automobiles. • Encourage extensive office development along the highly visible periphery of the area to provide a quality employment center. • Foster mixed-use development that serves to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting alternatives to driving, such as walking, biking, and use of mass transit. • Provide on-site open space and recreation amenities that further enhance the mixed-use environment of the area for both residents and employees working in the Platinum Triangle. • Encourage high density mixed use development that is synergistic with the entertainment and employment uses already established in the Platinum Triangle. • Maximize opportunities to increase tax increment received from the Redevelopment Project Area. • Allow for the continued development of the Platinum Triangle and accommodate future market demand through amendments to the General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP). ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-3 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this Subsequent EIR (SEIR). 7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (Guidelines Sec. 15126.6[f][2][A]). In general, any development of the size and type proposed by the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Without a site specific analysis, impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and mineral resources cannot be evaluated. Where a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for projects with the same basic purpose, the lead agency should review the previous document. The EIR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent the circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the alternative (Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][C]). On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council adopted the General Plan and Zoning Code Update for the City of Anaheim. Through this comprehensive General Plan Update, the City reduced allowable densities in the Hill and Canyon Area of the City which contained significant biological resources, and created a mixed-use overlay zone in the Platinum Triangle, which allows the introduction of residential units in this area through redevelopment of this predominantly industrial area. Therefore, through preparation of the General Plan, the City identified the most environmentally sensitive areas for permanent protection as open space. Less environmentally sensitive areas were designated for development. As a result, the project site is designated for a mix of residential, office, and commercial uses in accordance with the City’s General Plan. As the California Supreme Court indicated in its decisions in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553 (1990): The general plan has been aptly described as the “constitution for all future developments” within the city or county... “The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements..”.. To be sure, the general plan is not immutable, far from it. But it may not be trifled with as the limitation on the number of amendments to the general plan in any calendar year attests.” (Goleta, 52 cal.3d at 570-571) [In] some circumstances, an EIR may consider alternatives requiring a site-specific amendment of the general plan. However, an EIR is not ordinarily an occasion for the reconsideration or overhaul of fundamental land use policy. (Goleta, at 573) Consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the role of the General Plan in framing CEQA alternatives analysis, and in consideration of the General Plan Update, no alternative sites within the jurisdiction of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 City are considered to be feasible alternatives to the Proposed Project, since they would not reduce the environmental impacts associated with the project. In addition, the mixed-use opportunities within the Platinum Triangle are directly related to its location adjacent to major transportation facilities and activity centers, including SR-57 and I-5, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and Honda Center. Therefore, an alternative site could not feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project, and thus there are no available alternative sites which could accommodate the Proposed Project. 7.2.2 Southern California Gas Company Microwave Tower Relocation Alternative CEQA requires an EIR to include a range of potential alternatives to the Proposed Project that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Relocation of the Southern California Gas Company’s microwave tower would reduce the significant land use compatibility impact to a less than significant level and was considered as an alternative. However, this alternative was rejected as being infeasible. The proposed high-rise buildings surrounding the microwave tower are approved projects and development agreements have been executed. Therefore, the developers of the high-rise buildings do not have the responsibility to accommodate the rooftop microwave tower and the City does not have the enforcement authority to require the relocation. Therefore, this alternative was considered but rejected. Moreover, the alternatives included in an EIR need only relate to the Proposed Project as a whole, not to its various parts, and since the location of the microwave tower is merely one feature of the overall project design, extended analysis is not required under CEQA. (Big Rock Mesas Property Owners Association v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 218, 227.) 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Based on the criteria listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail below: • No Project/Existing Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) Alternative • Reduced Intensity Alternative • Increased Residential Intensity Alternative Table 7-1 provides a summary of the relative impacts and feasibility of each alternative. A complete discussion of each alternative is provided below. An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative’s environmental impacts are compared to the Proposed Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the Proposed Project. Only the impacts involving air quality, noise, traffic, and GHG were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.7 identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Preferred Land Use Alternative (Proposed Project) is analyzed in detail in Chapter 5 of this SEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-5 Table 7-1 Summary of Development Alternatives Alternative Description Basis for Selection and Summary of Analysis PROPOSED PROJECT • 18,909 DU (8,643 DU additional) • 4,909,682 square feet of commercial/retail (2,645,282 square feet additional) • 14,340,522 square feet of office (9,284,972 square feet additional) • 1,500,000 square feet of institutional PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1) No Project/Existing MLUP Alternative • Existing general plan and zoning designations would remain • 10,266 DU • 2,264,400 square feet of commercial/retail • 5,055,550 square feet of office • Required by CEQA • Avoids need for general plan amendment and zone change • Avoids new significant environmental impacts • Does not meet the project objectives. 2) Reduced Intensity Alternative • Reduces proposed intensity increases by 30% • 16,316 DU (6,050 DU additional) • 4,116,097 square feet of commercial/retail (1,851,697 square feet additional) • 11,555,030 square feet of office (6,499,480 square feet additional) • 1,050,000 square feet of institutional • May lessen some impacts • Does not avoid significant environmental impacts • Meets all of the project objectives but not to the degree of the Proposed Project 3) Increased Residential Intensity Alternative • Converts some office uses to residential intensity. • Commercial/retail square footage would remain. • 23,500 DU (13,234 DU additional) • 4,909,682 square feet of commercial/retail (2,645,282 square feet additional) • 11,714,038 square feet of office (6,658,488 square feet additional) • 1,500,000 square feet of institutional • Does not avoid significant environmental impacts • Improves City’s overall jobs/housing balance • Meets all of the project objectives but not to the degree of the Proposed Project. DU = dwelling units Alternatives Comparison The following statistical analysis provides a summary of general socioeconomic build-out projections determined by the three land use alternatives, including the Proposed Project. It is important to note that these are not growth projections. That is, they do not anticipate what is likely to occur by a certain time horizon based on market projects, but rather provide a build-out scenario that would only occur if all the areas of the City were to develop to the probable capacities yielded by the associated General Plan land use designations and if the Platinum Triangle were to be built-out to the maximum permitted amount of ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 development in the Proposed Project. The following statistics were developed as a tool to understand better the difference between the alternatives analyzed in the SEIR. Table 7-2 identifies information regarding dwelling unit, population and employment projections, and also provides the jobs to housing ratio for each of the alternatives. Table 7-2 Alternatives Comparison Proposed Project No Project/Existing MLUP Alternative Reduced Intensity Alternative Increased Residential Intensity Alternative Dwelling Units 18,909 DU 10,266 DU 16,316 DU 23,500 DU Population 28,364 15,399 24,474 35,250 Employment 41,500 14,640 33,442 36,247 Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 2.19 1.43 2.05 1.54 1. Population generation is calculated at 1.5 persons per unit for the Platinum Triangle. 2. Employment is based on ratio of 500 square feet per employee. 3. Current jobs/housing ratio (2005) for the City of Anaheim is 1.79 which increases to 1.94 at build-out of the adopted General Plan. 7.4 NO PROJECT/EXISTING MLUP ALTERNATIVE This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the Adopted MLUP and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone would remain unchanged. The properties designated by the General Plan for Mixed Use, Institutional, Industrial, Office-High and Office-Low land use would remain unchanged. The Katella and Orangewood Mixed Use Districts would not be expanded. The Office District and ARTIC Mixed Use District would not be created. Therefore, this alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment or amendments to the Platinum Triangle MLUP. As a result, the No-Project/Existing MLUP Alternative assumes a total of 10,266 dwelling units, a maximum overall commercial density of 2,264,400 square feet, and a maximum overall office density of 5,055,550 square feet. The impacts of the No-Project/Existing MLUP Alternative as compared to those of the Proposed Project are discussed below: 7.4.1 Aesthetics Under this alternative, aesthetic impacts would be reduced because there would be less building area to be constructed and the mass and height of the buildings would be reduced. Additionally, all development within the project area would be guided by extensive design guidelines to provide a comprehensive and visually attractive urban environment. Construction activities would be staged over approximately 20 years and construction time period would be shortened in comparison to the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.2 Air Quality This alternative would generate construction-related air pollutant emissions and increase long-term traffic- related emissions beyond existing levels. However, the level of construction and operational air impacts would be less than the Proposed Project because the construction duration and related vehicle trips would be less under No Project/Existing Use Alternative. However, under this alternative, i) no additional housing opportunities would be provided in close proximity to existing and future employment centers and transportation facilities, and ii) reductions to air pollutant emissions from a reduction in vehicle trips from residential units would be specific to the project area, and not a regional reduction. Regionally, implementation of this alternative would result in air quality impacts greater than the Proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-7 Project, because of the unique mixed use nature of the Platinum Triangle that integrates pedestrian oriented development and an intermodal transportation system to reduce reliance on traditional automobiles, thereby having the effect of reducing auto-related emissions. As with the Proposed Project, short-term construction impacts from reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are anticipated. Both the Proposed Project and this alternative would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. This alternative would have less air quality impacts locally and greater air quality impacts regionally compared with the Proposed Project. Significant unavoidable air quality impacts would occur under this alternative as well as with the Proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Under this alternative, additional 1,804 acre feet of water demand per year for the Proposed Project would not be warranted and the additional groundwater extraction would not be necessary. Because increasing the initial production rate and drilling an extra groundwater well would not be necessary, impacts to water quality would be less than the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.4 Land Use and Planning This alternative would not require any General Plan or Zoning Code Amendments as currently proposed by the expansion. Therefore, the impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.5 Noise Under this alternative, the short-term construction noise and long-term traffic-related noise would be similar when compared to the Proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter 5.5, Noise, construction noise impact under the No Project condition and the Proposed Project would be similar because the construction intensity mass grading, utility installation, etc.) would be similar assuming that construction occurs for eight hours a day. Additionally, under both the No Project alternative and the Proposed Project, construction impacts that result in temporary exceedances of 65 dBA up to 446 feet from the construction site would remain as significant, unavoidable impact. While the magnitude of impact is considered similar under both conditions, the frequency exposed and the number of sensitive receptors would be fewer under this alternative, thus, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. Additionally, as shown in Table 5.5-9, the overall noise environment with the Proposed Project would degrade when compared to the No Project alternative, as the traffic noise along the project area roadway segments would increase from 0.1 to 1.8 dBA CNEL (as shown in Chapter 5.5, Noise, Table 5.5-9). In an ambient noise environment of less than 65 dBA CNEL, a 5 dBA increase is considered substantial impact and in 65 dBA CNEL or more, 3 dBA is considered substantial impact. Therefore, the project-generated maximum increase of 1.8 dBA CNEL is not considered a substantial increase. While the impact is not considered substantial, operational noise would worsen with the project implementation, thus this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. Regardless, because the existing ambient noise environment under the No Project condition exceeds the thresholds, operational noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-8 • The Planning Center August 2010 7.4.6 Population and Housing Under this alternative, a total of 10,266 dwelling units, 5,055,550 square feet of office use, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses would be permitted to be constructed in the project area. No changes to industrial square footage (permitted up to 0.50 floor area ratio [FAR]) and institutional square footage (permitted up to 3.0 FAR) would occur. The direct and indirect population growth resulting from this alternative would be less than the Proposed Project and would result in a more balanced jobs/housing ratio within the Platinum Triangle. Jobs/housing ratio under this alternative is 1.43 and the Proposed Project is 2.19. This alternative would have an improved jobs/housing ratio and would be environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.7 Public Services Under No Project/Existing MULP Alternative, the overall demand for public services would be less than the Proposed Project since there would be less population to serve. However, all standard conditions and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still be applicable. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.8 Recreation Under No Project/Existing MLUP Alternative, the demand for parks and recreational facilities would be less than the Proposed Project. Several parks are planned within the Platinum Triangle as a part of approved development agreements and would be constructed under this alternative. These parks are a result of compliance with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement. Therefore, with or without the Proposed Project, compliance with the dedication standards and conditions identified for the Platinum Triangle would ensure that adequate recreational facilities are provided. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.4.9 Transportation and Traffic Under this alternative, the vehicle trips associated in each traffic analysis zone (TAZ) would be less than the Proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter 5.9, Transportation and Traffic, more street intersections, arterial segments, and Caltrans freeway ramps and mainlines would perform deficiently under the Proposed Project when compared to the No Project alternative. For example, under the 2030 No Project condition, 15 ICU intersections and one arterial segment are anticipated to perform deficiently compared to 32 ICU intersections and 10 arterial segments with the Proposed Project. In addition, for Caltrans facilities, one freeway ramp intersection and 21 freeway mainlines are anticipated to perform deficiently under this alternative compared to 5 ramp intersections and 23 freeway mainlines with the Proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. This is a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.10 Utilities and Service Systems Under No Project/Existing MULP Alternative, the project’s impact on utilities and service systems would be less than the Proposed Project. However, all planned improvement and mitigation measures identified under the Proposed Project would be required in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-9 7.4.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under this alternative, there would be 357,161 MTons of GHG emissions from existing conditions. This increase is less than an increase of 816,608 MTons expected from the Proposed Project. GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be substantially greater than the No Project alternative. Although significant unavoidable air quality impacts would occur under this alternative as well as with the Proposed Project, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 7.4.12 Conclusion Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project in nine of the eleven resource areas, including noise, transportation and traffic, and GHG, which are significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project in air quality, another significant and unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. Although No Project/Existing MLUP Alternative would reduce three of the four identified unavoidable significant impacts of the Propose Project, the amount lessened would not be substantial and similar mitigation measures would be required. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would meet all of the project objectives identified in Section 3.2, but not to the extent attained by the implementation of the Proposed Project. Comparative Merits This alternative would insubstantially reduce impacts compared to the Proposed Project in the categories of aesthetics, hydrology, land use, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and greenhouse gases. This alternative would also satisfy all of the project objectives to a certain degree. However, it would not do so to the extent that can be achieved by implementing the Proposed Project. Moreover, this project alternative would require relatively the same infrastructure improvements and other mitigation measures in order to reduce some of the potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. 7.5 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE This alternative would reduce proposed intensity increases by 30 percent. Implementation of this alternative would result in a total of 16,316 residential units, 4,116,097 square feet of commercial uses, 11,555,030 square feet of office uses, and 1,050,000 square feet of institutional uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The intent of this alternative is to reduce the impacts associated with implementation of the Platinum Triangle MLUP while achieving the basic goals and objectives established in the City’s General Plan. The impacts of the Reduced Intensity Alternative as compared to the Proposed Project are discussed below: 7.5.1 Aesthetics Under this alternative, the aesthetic impacts would be fewer than the Proposed Project. While implementation of this alternative would involve the development of uses similar to that of the Proposed Project, the overall decrease in development intensity would potentially result in fewer impacts from ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-10 • The Planning Center August 2010 shade, shadow, and illumination. It should be noted that all development would be guided by extensive design standards to provide a comprehensive and visually attractive urban environment throughout the project area. As the individual project develops over an extended period of time, each project would be required to comply with various urban design attributes incorporated in the master land use plan, which would ensure that combined effects of individual projects exhibit an attractive overall visual character of the area. As with the Proposed Project, short-term construction impacts are anticipated. However, because there would be less construction, the construction time frame would also be reduced and impacts would be fewer than with the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.5.2 Air Quality The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce local air quality impacts by approximately 30 percent since the traffic would be reduced by approximately 30 percent. This alternative would reduce the projected exceedance of the SCAQMD Threshold Criteria for project generated carbon monoxide (CO), ROG, NOX, and coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10) emissions. However, any reductions to air pollutant emissions from a reduction in vehicle trips from residential units would be specific to the project area, and not a regional reduction. Regionally, implementation of this alternative would result in air quality impacts greater than the Proposed Project, because of the unique mixed use nature of the Platinum Triangle that integrates pedestrian oriented development and various transportation options to reduce reliance on traditional automobiles, thereby having the effect of reducing auto-related emissions. Reduction in development intensity within the Platinum Triangle would result in development in other areas of the City or in the region. As with the Proposed Project, short-term construction impacts from ROG and NOX are anticipated. Both the Proposed Project and this alternative would be consistent with the AQMP. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative would have fewer air quality impacts locally and more air quality impacts regionally compared with the Proposed Project. Significant unavoidable air quality impacts would occur under this alternative as well as with the Proposed Project. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. This is a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.5.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Under Reduced Intensity Alternative, water consumption would be reduced by approximately 30 percent, from 1,804 afy to 1,263 afy. To meet the project water demands the City currently proposes to upgrade the initial production rate of the previously proposed groundwater well in the Platinum Triangle and drill additional water well. Although less groundwater would be extracted for water supply under this alternative, construction of a water well would still be necessary to supply the additional 1,263 afy and construction could not be avoided. Therefore, impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.5.4 Land Use and Planning This alternative would require all of the amendments proposed under the Proposed Project. Therefore, even with the reduced intensity, potential land use impacts would be similar to that of the Proposed Project. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-11 7.5.5 Noise Under this alternative, the short-term construction noise and long-term traffic-related noise would be similar when compared to the Proposed Project. The analysis included in Chapter 5.5, Noise, indicated that construction noise impact under the No Project condition and the Proposed Project would be similar because the construction intensity mass grading, utility installation, etc.) would be similar assuming that construction occurs for eight hours a day. Similarly, with the 30 percent reduction in intensity, assuming eight hours of construction a day, this alternative would have comparable construction noise impact to the Proposed Project. And as with the Proposed Project, construction impacts that result in temporary exceedances of 65 dBA up to 446 feet from the construction site would remain as significant, unavoidable impact. However, although not substantial, the frequency exposed and the number of sensitive receptors would be fewer under this alternative, thus, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. Considering that the overall traffic noise impact with the Proposed Project would not exceed 1.8 dBA CNEL, it is anticipated that the operational noise impact under this alternative would generally not exceed 1.3 dBA CNEL (30 percent less than 1.8 dBA CNEL) along the project area roadway segments. In an ambient noise environment of less than 65 dBA CNEL, a 5 dBA increase is considered substantial impact and in 65 dBA CNEL or more, 3 dBA is considered substantial impact. Therefore, the project-generated maximum increase of 1.3 dBA CNEL is not considered a substantial increase. While the impact is not considered substantial, operational noise would worsen with the project implementation, thus this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. Regardless, because the existing ambient noise environment under the No Project condition exceeds the thresholds, operational noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 7.5.6 Population and Housing Under Reduced Density Alternative, the direct and indirect population growth impacts would be reduced by approximately 30 percent and the jobs/housing ratio would improve from 2.19 to 2.05 compared to the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.5.7 Public Services The demand for public services generated at the project site would be reduced by approximately 30 percent, including the project’s impact on police, fire, schools, and libraries. However, all standard and additional mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still be applicable under this alternative in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.5.8 Recreation Under Reduced Density Alternative, the demand for parks and recreational facilities would be less than the Proposed Project. Several parks are planned within the Platinum Triangle as a part of approved development agreements and would be constructed under this alternative. These parks are a result of compliance with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement. Therefore, compliance with the dedication standards and conditions identified for the Platinum Triangle would ensure that adequate recreational facilities are provided. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-12 • The Planning Center August 2010 7.5.9 Transportation and Traffic The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce project-generated average daily trips by approximately 30 percent and would have fewer traffic-related impacts than the Proposed Project. Although no quantitative analysis has been performed, project-related traffic impacts under this alternative on area intersections and Caltrans facilities would be less than the Proposed Project. When comparing the No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project, approximately 110 percent more local intersections, 10 times more arterial segments, 5 times more Caltrans freeway ramp intersections, and 10 percent more Caltrans freeway mainlines were anticipated to perform deficiently. Therefore, if the project-generated average daily trips were to be reduced by 30 percent, it is anticipated that traffic impacts to these local and Caltrans facilities would be diminished, although not by 30 percent exactly. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, this is a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. However, although reduced, since it is reasonable to anticipate that impacted facilities under this alternative would also include facilities under the jurisdiction of the City of Orange and Caltrans, impacts to transportation and traffic would remain significant, unavoidable impact. 7.5.10 Utilities and Service Systems Under Reduced Density Alternative, the project’s impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste would be reduced by approximately 30 percent. However, it is anticipated that the majority of planned improvement and mitigation measures identified under the Proposed Project would still be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.5.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under this alternative, GHG emissions would be reduced by approximately 30 percent since the land use intensity would be reduced by 30 percent. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate 492,597 MTons of GHG emissions compared to the Adopted MLUP, therefore, under this alternative, approximately 344,818 MTons of GHG emissions are anticipated. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. However, although to a lesser degree, significant and unavoidable impact is anticipated. 7.5.12 Conclusion Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project in eight of the eleven resource areas, including noise, transportation and traffic, and GHG emissions, which are significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project in air quality, another significant and unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. While reducing three of the four identified unavoidable significant impacts of the Proposed Project, the amount lessened would not be substantial and similar mitigation measures would be required. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would meet all of the project objectives as described in Section 3.2 but not to the degree of the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-13 Comparative Merits This alternative would insubstantially reduce impacts compared to the Proposed Project in the categories of aesthetics, hydrology, noise, population and housing, public services, traffic and circulation, utilities and service systems, and GHG emissions; and would have similar impacts in the categories of regional air quality, land use and planning, and recreation. This alternative would satisfy all of the project objectives to a certain degree. However, it would do so to the extent that can be achieved by implementing the Proposed Project. Moreover, this project alternative would require relatively the same infrastructure improvement and other mitigation measures in order to reduce some of the potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. 7.6 INCREASED RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would convert some of office uses to residential intensity and commercial/retail and institutional square footages would remain. This Alternative would allow a maximum of 23,500 dwelling units, 11,714,038 square feet of office, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial/retail, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The increased Residential Intensity Alternative would reduce 2,626,484 square feet of office use from the Proposed Project and add 4,591 additional residential units. The resulting intensities would result in a more balanced jobs/housing ratio but exacerbate other environmental impacts associated with residential increases such as the need for additional recreation and education facilities where there may not be adequate available sites. The impacts of the Increased Residential Intensity Alternative as compared to the Proposed Project are discussed below: 7.6.1 Aesthetics Additional 13,234 dwelling units in the project area would potentially result in greater impacts resulting from shade, shadow, and illumination. Additional units would likely result in greater building square footage, therefore, taller and more compact development. However, the same design guidelines and landscaping scheme would be implemented to enhance the overall aesthetic character of the project area. As with the Proposed Project, short-term views would be impacted during construction, though these activities will be staged over approximately 20 years and would not result in significant effects. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.2 Air Quality This alternative would result in similar short-term construction and long-term operation impacts because any reduction in office square footage would be compensated by the additional residential construction. Adding more housing units may generate more CO, ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions locally, but cause a regional reduction by promoting an intermodal transportation system that reduces reliance on traditional automobiles. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would have similar air quality impacts locally and less air quality impacts regionally compared to the Proposed Project. Significant unavoidable air quality impacts would occur under this alternative as well as with the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality The Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would require more water than the Proposed Project, therefore more groundwater may be extracted. Water demand factor for residential unit is 105 gallons per day (gpd) per unit and for office use is 60 gpd/1,000 square feet of building area. Therefore, water demand ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-14 • The Planning Center August 2010 for additional 4,591 units would exceed the reduction in water demand for 2,626,484 square feet of office use. Implementation of the Proposed Project would require upgrade to the initial production rate of the planned water well in the Platinum Triangle and construction of second water well at a location to be determined. Under this alternative, further upgrades to the planned production rate or construction of the third water well may be necessary. Therefore, Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would have greater hydrology and water quality impacts compared to the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.4 Land Use and Planning Similar to the Proposed Project, this alternative would require amendments to the General Plan, PTMU Overlay Zone, and Platinum Triangle MULP, and zoning reclassification. This alternative would be consistent with most of the relevant General Plan policies as the Proposed Project and no substantial difference is anticipated. Instead, increased residential development could require more residence supporting services such as recreation and education facilities where there may not be adequate available sites. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in impacts greater than those anticipated from the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.5 Noise Additional housing units would replace some of office uses, therefore, short-term construction impacts and long-term traffic noise would be similar to the Proposed Project. However, there would be more sensitive receptors under this alternative than the Proposed Project. Significant noise impacts could not be avoided under this alternative and mitigation measures proposed for the Proposed Project would also be required. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.6 Population and Housing Construction of additional housing and less office square footage would result in a more balance in jobs/housing ratio from 2.19 under the Proposed Project to 1.54 under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.6.7 Public Services Under Increased Residential Intensity Alternative, the demand for public services would be increased in the areas of schools, police, fire, and libraries. Additional mitigation measures may be required to accommodate the increased demand. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.8 Recreation Increased number of dwelling units in the Platinum Triangle would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities. Several parks are planned within the Platinum Triangle as a part of approved development agreements and would be constructed under this alternative. These parks are a result of compliance with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement. Therefore, compliance with the dedication standards and conditions identified for the Platinum Triangle would ensure that adequate recreational facilities are provided. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-15 7.6.9 Transportation and Traffic Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would generate comparable traffic levels as the Proposed Project. Although there would be reduced office square footage, additional residential units would be allowed and other uses such as commercial and institutional uses would remain. Under this alternative, there would be 35,250 residents and 36,247 jobs compared to 28,364 residents and 41,500 jobs under the Proposed Project. Therefore, although the jobs/housing ratio under this alternative would improve, the overall project- generated vehicle trips in the Platinum Triangle are not anticipated to decrease. Therefore, the equivalent or comparable number of local and Caltrans facilities are expected to perform deficiently. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. This is a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project and would remain as a significant, unavoidable impact under this alternative. 7.6.10 Utilities and Service Systems Under the Increased Residential Intensity Alternative, the project’s impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste would be increased. Additional mitigation measures may be required to those of the Proposed Project resulting in reduced for public services which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would have similar GHG emissions impact compared to that of the Proposed Project. Construction emissions would not be reduced under this alternative and construction GHG impact would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Operational GHG would also be similar to that of the Proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project. 7.6.12 Conclusion Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project in two of the eleven resource areas, including air quality, which is significant and unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project; and inferior in six of the eleven resource areas, including noise, another significant and unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. This alternative would have comparable impacts in three resource areas, recreation, transportation and traffic, and GHG emissions. Increased Residential Intensity Alternative would result in similar or inferior environmental impacts and would not substantially lessen project impacts. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would meet all of the project objectives as described in Section 3.2. Comparative Merits This alternative would insubstantially reduce impacts compared to the Proposed Project in the categories of air quality and population and housing; and would have similar impacts in the categories of recreation, transportation and traffic, and GHG emissions. The Increased Residential Intensity would increase the level of impacts on categories including aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. The main merit of this alternative would be the improved ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-16 • The Planning Center August 2010 jobs/housing balance from 2.19 to 1.54. However, other housing related impacts would either be the same or worse than the Proposed Project. This alternative would satisfy all of the project objectives to a certain degree. However, it would do so the extent that can be achieved by implementing the Proposed Project. Moreover, this project alternative would require relatively the same infrastructure improvement and other mitigation measures in order to reduce some of the potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No-Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. Two alternatives have been identified as “environmentally superior” to the Proposed Project: 1. No-Project/Existing MLUP Alternative 2. Reduced Density Alternative The No Project/Existing MLUP Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it is environmentally superior alternative with regard to aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and GHG emissions. Other impacts, including air quality and recreation resources, would have the similar impacts to the Proposed Project. However, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior development alternative. Table 7-3 shows impact comparison matrix for each impact category. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 7-17 Table 7-3 Alternative Impact Comparison Matrix Superior Same Inferior Aesthetics *Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Land Use & Planning *Noise Population & Housing Public Services *Transportation and Traffic Utilities & Service Systems No Project *GHG Total 9 2 0 Aesthetics *Air Quality Recreation Hydrology Land Use and Planning *Noise Population and Housing Public Services *Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Reduced Density *GHG Total 7 3 1 *Air Quality Recreation Aesthetics Population and Housing *Transportation and Traffic Hydrology *GHG Land Use and Planning *Noise Public Services Increased Residential Utilities and Service Systems Total 1 3 6 Note: * Significant unavoidable project impact. The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce environmental impacts compared to the Proposed Project in eight of the eleven resource areas, including aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and GHG emissions by approximately 30 percent. The Reduced Density Alternative would have impacts similar to the Proposed Project with respect to air quality, land use and planning, and recreation. The Reduced Density Alternative, while having the least amount of environmental impacts, is not capable of eliminating any significant unavoidable adverse effects associated with the development nor will it reduce the level of significance of any of the identified environmental impacts without incorporating the equivalent mitigation measures that are proposed as part of the Proposed Project. Reducing the project density by 30 percent would not result in avoidance of significant environmental impacts. While meeting all of the project objectives to a certain degree, it would not do so to the extent that can be achieved by the Proposed Project. For example, the Reduced Density Alternative would meet the project objective to provide for a wide-range of housing opportunities in close proximity to regional transportation centers consistent with regional growth management policies, however, the benefit of providing such housing and employment opportunities afforded by this alternative would be lessened by approximately 30 percent. Reducing the project density by 30 percent would not be the best possible utilization of the project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-18 • The Planning Center August 2010 Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” [Guidelines Sec. 15126.6(c)]. These are factors which will be considered by the City of Anaheim decision-makers in determining whether to approve the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives identified above. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 8-1 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant California Public Resources Code Section 21003 states: “…it is the policy of the state that…all persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15162.2(a), which states that “a[n] EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project” and Section 15143 which states that “the EIR shall focus on the significant effects of the environment.” The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant (Guidelines Section 15063[a]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. 8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY It is anticipated that the Proposed Project would tier off of Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332 for The Platinum Triangle MLUP and Associated Actions. Based on the FSEIR No. 332, the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project in December 2008 determined that impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this Subsequent EIR (SEIR) No. 339 with the exception of impacts identified under Section XV, Transportation/Traffic(c) and Section XI, Noise(f). In response to the comments made by the Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County during the Notice of Preparation period, impacts associated with the air traffic has been included in the SEIR analysis even though the Initial Study determined the impact to be less than significant. SEIR also includes noise impact associated with the eliminated Threshold XI, Noise(f) because the analysis in the Initial Study did not evaluate noise associated with helicopter overflights of the project site. Please refer to Appendix A for explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial Study. Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 8-3 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact iv) Landslides? No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Less Than Significant Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less Than Significant Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Less Than Significant Impact l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affect the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Would the project: c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less Than Significant Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 8-5 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? Less Than Significant Impact k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? Less Than Significant Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page has been left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 9-1 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the permitted residential, office, commercial, and institutional development intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone. Therefore, additional commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources, natural resources, and human resources would be necessary. Irreversible construction materials such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metal, water, etc. would be consumed and increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services such as police, fire, schools, libraries, sewer, water, solid waste, natural gas services, etc. would also be required. These energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations and once these commitments are made, it is improbable that the project area would revert to its current condition. However, the project area is already developed; therefore, the use of existing infrastructure is possible with some upgrades and improvements and environmental impacts can be minimized. Additional development intensities can be more readily accommodated with minimal physical impact, relieving development pressure from other areas where use of more intensive nonrenewable resources would be necessary. Nonetheless, the proposed project would result in significant irreversible changes to the environment throughout the lifespan of the structures. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Page 9-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 10-1 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assessment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions: • Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? • Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? • Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this EIR. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project Area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? The Platinum Triangle is located at the confluence of I-5 and SR-57 and encompasses a variety of urban uses such as industrial structures, restaurants, office towers, hotels, residential units, the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, and The Grove of Anaheim. Although existing infrastructure facilities are available to serve the project area with upgrades, the current allowable development intensity is limiting the growth within The Platinum Triangle. The proposed increase in development intensities and amendments to various planning documents would remove this obstacle and would have a direct growth inducing effect. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? As discussed in Section 5.7, the proposed project will require additional public services to maintain the City’s desired level of service standards. However, existing regulations and the funding mechanisms provided through the Standardized Development Agreement would ensure that the service capability will grow proportionate to the increase in uses and will not result in service capacity beyond what is approved. This project would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing consequences with respect to public services. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Page 10-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. This would last until project construction is completed, where the estimated build out year is 2030. This would be a direct, growth inducing effect of this project. Additionally, as new dwelling units are developed and occupied, residents of the proposed project would seek shopping, entertainment, employ- ment, home improvement, auto maintenance and other economic opportunities in The Platinum Triangle and also in surrounding area. This would represent an increased demand for such economic goods and services and would, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses, and/or the expansion of existing busi- nesses which address these economic needs. The proposed increase in the permitted amount of office, retail, and institutional uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone would also facilitate economic activities in and around the project area and create additional employment opportunities. However, the close proximity of future housing units and office, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses envisioned by the proposed project would reduce vehicle trips, and thereby reduce air quality impacts. Therefore, although the proposed project will have a direct growth inducing effect, indirect growth-inducing effects will be minimized due to the balance of land uses set forth by the proposed project. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The proposed project involves amendments to the City of Anaheim General Plan, The Platinum Triangle MLUP, Zoning Code, and The Platinum Triangle Development Agreement form. No changes to any of the City’s building safety standards building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement this project. Mitigation measures have been identified in the preceding Sections 5.1 to 5.11 to ensure that subsequent subdivision maps and site-specific development projects comply with all applicable City plans, policies, ordinances, etc., to ensure that there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations and that environmental impacts are minimized. Pressures to develop other land in the surrounding area may derive from regional economic conditions and market demands for housing, commercial, office and industrial land uses that may be directly or indirectly influenced by the proposed project. As the development intensity associated with the proposed project is allocated through development agreements, proposals may arise to further amend the General Plan, PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle MLUP. However, these amendments would require a full environ- mental analysis of the impacts of such actions. Therefore, although the project may be considered a precedent setting action, the impacts of subsequent similar actions would require environmental analysis and associated mitigation to ensure that such subsequent impacts would not significantly affect the environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 11-1 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted CITY OF ANAHEIM (Lead Agency) Planning Department Sheri Vander Dussen Planning Director Susan Kim Senior Planner Tracy Sato Senior Planner Public Works Department Natalie Meeks Director of Public Works David Kennedy Associate Transportation Planner Jamie Lai Transit Manager Khanh Chu Sandip Budhia Principal Civil Engineer, Design Services Associate Engineer, Design Services Leticia M Mercado Sanitation Contract Specialist Raul Garcia Principal Civil Engineer, Subdivision/Development Section Linda Johnson Principal Planner City Attorney Mark Gordon Assistant City Attorney Police Department John Welter Police Chief Minh Nguyen Police Officer Fire Department Jeff Lutz Fire Marshal Robert Logue Deputy Chief Community Services Terry Lowe Director of Community Services Pamela Galera Principal Project Planner ---PAGE BREAK--- 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Page 11-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 Library System Carol Stone City Librarian Audrey Lujan Library Operations/Branch Services Manager Anaheim City School District Tom Rizzuti Facilities Planning Director Public Utilities Sara Mathis Principal Water Engineer Aladdin Shaikh Principal Water Engineer Michael LeBlanc Senior Power Systems Planning Engineer ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 12-1 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR THE PLANNING CENTER William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services • BA University of California, Irvine, Social Ecology, 1988 • JD, Chapman University School of Law, 1999 Elizabeth Kim Associate Planner • BA University of California, Irvine, Environmental Analysis and Design, 1998 • Masters of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, 2001 Tin Cheung Senior Environmental Scientist • BA, Environmental Studies and Geography, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1993 Nicole Vermilion Associate Planner • BA Environmental Studies and BS Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2002 • Master of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine, 2005 John Vang Assistant Planner • BA, Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2001 • JD, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, 2007 • Master of Urban Planning, Design, & Development, Cleveland State University, 2007 Cary Nakama Graphic Designer • BA, Business Administration: Data Processing and Marketing, California State University, Long Beach • AA, Computer Graphic Design, Platt College of Computer Graphic Design ---PAGE BREAK--- 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR Page 12-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 13-1 13. Bibliography 13.1 REFERENCES Auffhammer, Maximilian and Carson, Richard T. 2008, May. Forecasting the path of China’s CO2 emissions using province-level information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 229-247. Berger, Elliott, Rick Neitzel, and A. Kladden. 2006, February. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with over 1,700 Measurement Values. Version 1.0. E-A-R 88-34/HP. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2008, June. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. 2000, October. California’s Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, 2001–2007, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California. May 2008. California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits for 2008, 2008. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02-01-R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC-600-2005-025. Sacramento, California. 2006, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC-600-2006-013-SF. 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report CEC-600-2007-008-SD. CH2MHill. 2009, June. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) – Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR NO. 339). ---PAGE BREAK--- 13. Bibliography Page 13-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 City of Anaheim. 2008. City of Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. 2005, May.Platinum Triangle Draft Environmental Impact Report, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 2004, August 17 (amended). The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 2004, May 25 (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan Update. Energy Information Administration, United States (EIA). 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997, June. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 2007, Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet. http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/environment/planning_environment_2233.html Holland, David. 2007, December. Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and its Implications. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7+8, Pg. 954. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press. International Energy Agency. 2006. World Energy Outlook 2006. LSA Associates, Inc. 2006. Platinum Triangle Adopted Master Land Use Plan Traffic Study. Michael Ruane. 2007. Orange County 2007 Community Indicators, Orange County Community Indicators Project. Merit Civil Engineering, Inc. 2007, May 15. Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision (June 2006), Errata Sheet No. 3. 2007, April 1. Summary Letter for Supplemental Sewer Study – Addendum to EIR 332. 2007, March 25. Summary Letter for Supplemental Sewer Study – Platinum Triangle Stadium North Density Revision (Basin 122). 2007, February 20. Summary Letter for Supplemental Sewer Study – Platinum Triangle Stadium North Density Revision (Basin 122). ---PAGE BREAK--- 13. Bibliography SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 13-3 2007, February 20. Summary Letter for Supplemental Sewer Study – Platinum Triangle Establishment of ARTIC District. 2007, January 25. Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision (June 2006), Errata Sheet No. 2. 2006, July. Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to the First Revision (June 2006), Errata Sheet. 2006, June. Platinum Triangle Sewer Study, Addendum to First Revision. Monckton, Christopher. 2008, September. Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick? Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Commentary and Essay Series. Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas. 2010, May. Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Traffic Study Report. May 2010. Psomas. 2009, June. The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment. Public Economics, Inc. 2006, June 5. Addendum to March 17, 2004 Fee Justification Study. Singer, S. Fred. 2008, March. Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, The Heartland Institute. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1995. Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1996, March. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2004. Regional Transportation Plan Forecast 2030. Southern California Geotechnical. 2005, April 19. Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed Stadium Business Park, SWC Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California. Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 2007, January 26. SCCRA Strategic Assessment. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2005, May. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. 2007, June. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. 2008, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III). ---PAGE BREAK--- 13. Bibliography Page 13-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 2009, December. Final PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Adopted December 30, 2007, effective March 18, 2010. The Economist. 2008, June 5. Melting Asia. The Economist. The Planning Center. 2005, October The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332. Tol, Richard S. 2007, December. Biased Policy Advice From The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7-8, Pg. 933. U.S. Senate Minority Report. 2008, December. More than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man- Made Global Warming Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus. 13.2 WEBSITES Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Update & Affordable Housing Commission. City of Anaheim, Live and Archived Media Resource, Workshop Meeting Videos, August 21, 2007. http://anaheim.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2. Accessed on September 7, 2007. Airnav, LLC. 2007. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports. BBK News. 2007, December. US sets terms for climate talks. BBK News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7145608.stm. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Anaheim. Jurisdiction Diversion and Disposal Profile: California Waste Stream Profiles. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim Accessed on January 26, 2006. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2007. Solid Waste Landfilling Data: 2005 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Landfills/Tonnage. Accessed on January 26, 2007. California Department of Education. Education al Demographics Unit. DataQuest Graph. Time Series – Public School Enrollment. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SearchName.asp?rbTimeFrame= oneyear&rYear=2006-07&cName=anaheim&Topic=Enrollment&Level=School. Accessed on March 14, 2007. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, January. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13. Bibliography SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim • Page 13-5 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007, July. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, March. 2010 State Area Designations. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/2010statedesig.htm. Delingpole, James. 2009, November 20. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of “Anthropogenic Global Warming? Telegraph.co.uk. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the- coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/. Environment Canada. 2010, May. A Summery of Trends: 1990-2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges- ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=0590640B-1. Gray, Louise. 2010, April 14. Hockey stick” graph was exaggerated. Telegraph.co.uk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was- exaggerated.html. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2010, January 20. IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf. Kestenbaum. 2007, October 1. Japan Wrestles with Kyoto Accord Promises. National Public Radio (NPR). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14087783. Leake, Jonathan. 2010, February 7. Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008, December. Economy-Wide Cap & Trade Proposals in the 110th Congress. http://www.pewclimate.org/federal/analysis/congress/110/cap-trade-bills. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2007. 2% Strategy Opportunity Area Maps. Compass Blueprint, Strategic Opportunity Areas Maps. http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/orange-county.pdf. The Times of India. 2009, December 10. China emissions could double by 2020. The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-emissions-could-double-by-2020- Experts/articleshow/5321352.cms. US Census Bureau. Fact Sheet. 2000. Anaheim city, California. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id= 16000US0602000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0602000&_street=&_c ounty=anaheim&_cityTown=anaheim&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&Active AFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=&_keyword=&_industry=. Data Profile: Anaheim city, California. Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005 American Community Survey http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_ street=&_county=anaheim&_cityTown=anaheim&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse ---PAGE BREAK--- 13. Bibliography Page 13-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html. 2010, June. US Climate Policy and Actions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html. Watts, Jonathan. 2007, June 4. China unveils climate change plan. Guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/china.jonathanwatts. Webster, Ben. 2010, February 4. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacial error, The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Anaheim Monitoring Station (ID No. 040192). Accessed 2009. 13.3 MODELS California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006, November 1. EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA-RD77-108. Rimpo and Associates, Inc. 2007. URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.4. Sonoma Technology, Inc. CALINE4 Computer Model, Version 1.31. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, August. Waste Reduction Model (WARM).