Document Anaheim_doc_77928c7d5f

Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-1 1. Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project (“Proposed Project”). 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. In this case the City of Anaheim (“City”), as lead agency, determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the Proposed Project. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public and 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 disclosed in the Initial Study completed for the Proposed Project (see Appendix A to this DSEIR). The Proposed Project is comprised of three main elements: 1. The City proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element. The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with each property’s existing General Plan designation. Therefore, the project will not result in increased residential densities beyond those anticipated by the City’s adopted General Plan. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. In addition, the City proposes a Code amendment to permit residential development “by-right” on designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties and the proposed Code amendment would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified with an 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are also proposed for rezoning. 2. The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from CEQA. The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan. In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013. 3. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect the 42 General Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-2 July 2013 The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330 (“2004 Certified EIR”) as the environmental documentation for a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code Update. As part of these actions, General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 was adopted for the General Plan Update and Ordinance No. 5920 was introduced to amend the Zoning Code in its entirety. On June 8, 2004, the Anaheim City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 5920 for the Zoning Code Update. As part of amending the Zoning Code in its entirety, this ordinance added Chapter 18.32, Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone, to the Anaheim Municipal Code. Together, these actions are referred to as the “2004 Approved Project.” Since certification of EIR No. 330 for the 2004 Approved Project, a number of changes have occurred including: 1. 42 separate General Plan amendments have been adopted; 2. A new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in March 2012; 3. Senate Bill (SB) 97 was signed in to law requiring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be analyzed in a CEQA document; and 4. SB 226 was signed in to law allowing cities to utilize various CEQA streamlining provisions for infill projects. As a result, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is required to update the 2004 Certified EIR and provide CEQA clearance for the Proposed Project. This DSEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000, et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the City's CEQA Procedures. The overall purpose of this DSEIR is to inform the City’s decision makers and the general public whether, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, changes to the Proposed Project or a change in circumstances would result in any new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts of the 2004 Approved Project. The 2004 Approved Project is the “baseline” for the analysis in this DSEIR, and was used in preparing the Initial Study for the Proposed Project, to evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. The City, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including, without limitation, by relying on applicable City technical personnel and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Data and other information for this DSEIR was obtained from previous environmental documentation; onsite 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 analysis, GHG emissions analysis, noise analysis, and traffic impact analysis). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-3 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This DSEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Project, as well as associated anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals for the Proposed Project, all as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. 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; 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; and 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 an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis 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 environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format This DSEIR has been formatted as described below. Table of Contents: The table of contents provides a list of the chapters, sections, figures, and tables included in this DSEIR and the associated page numbers where they can be found. The table of contents also includes a list of defined terms and abbreviations used in this DSEIR. Section 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the Proposed Project, the format of this DSEIR, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project. It also includes a discussion of any critical issues remaining to be resolved and areas of controversy. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-4 July 2013 Section 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this DSEIR, background on the Proposed Project, the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/IS), the use of incorporation by reference, Final EIR certification, and mitigation monitoring requirements. Section 3. Project Description: Includes a detailed description of the Proposed Project, the objectives of the Proposed Project, the project location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the Proposed Project, the necessary environmental clearances for the Proposed Project, and the intended uses of this DSEIR. Section 4. Environmental Setting: Includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project site as they existed at the time the NOP/IS was published, from both a local and regional perspective. Ordinarily, the existing environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from a development project. However, because this is a Supplemental EIR that supplements the 2004 Certified EIR, the baseline used for the analyses in this DSEIR is the 2004 Approved 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 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. CEQA Mandated Sections: Describes the various CEQA mandated sections including alternatives to the proposed project, impacts found not to be significant, and growth-inducing impacts. However, since this is a Supplemental EIR, these topics will only be discussed if the prior analysis from the 2004 Certified EIR is determined to be inadequate for the Proposed Project, as revised. Section 8. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this DSEIR for the Proposed Project. Section 9. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR: Lists the people who prepared this DSEIR for the Proposed Project. Section 10. Bibliography: A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this DSEIR for the Proposed Project. Appendices. The appendices to this DSEIR (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: Notice of Preparation Responses  Appendix C: Senate Bill 226 Provisions  Appendix D: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-5  Appendix E: Noise Modeling Data  Appendix F: Traffic Impact Analysis  Appendix G: Draft Code Amendment  Appendix H: Revised Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DSEIR According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to: Inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This DSEIR analyzes the changes to the 2004 Approved Project with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. Since certification of EIR No. 330 for the 2004 Approved Project, a number of changes have occurred which require supplemental analysis to update EIR No. 330 including: 1. 42 separate General Plan amendments have been adopted; 2. A new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in March 2012; 3. Senate Bill (SB) 97 was signed in to law requiring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be analyzed in a CEQA document; and 4. SB 226 was signed in to law allowing cities to utilize various CEQA streamlining provisions for infill projects. CEQA dictates when a supplemental or subsequent EIR is required for changes being made to a project that was previously analyzed under CEQA. Once a project has been approved based on a CEQA analysis contained in an EIR, or even in a negative declaration, and the EIR or negative declaration is no longer subject to challenge, CEQA Section 21166 provides that "no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency" unless one of three circumstances apply: 1) substantial changes to the approved project will require major revisions to the certified EIR, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the approved project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the certified EIR, or 3) new information, that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR for the approved project was certified becomes available (CEQA § 21166). In this case, in-depth review has already occurred and the time for challenging the sufficiency of the 2004 Certified EIR has long since expired (CEQA § 21167, subd. Moreover, as discussed below, no circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process. The factors used to evaluate whether a subsequent or a Supplemental EIR should be prepared are set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and relate to whether "major changes" to the EIR are required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 clarifies what constitute major changes to the EIR. According to that Section, major changes to the EIR are those that are required either: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-6 July 2013  "Due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;" (CEQA Guidelines § 15162, subd. see also, id., subd.  Where "[m]itigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or" (id., subd.  Where "[m]itigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative" (Id., subd. This DSEIR does disclose a new significant environmental effect related to GHG emissions, since this issue was not addressed in the 2004 Certified EIR. In addition, the DSEIR does not identify any substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect except for certain increases in air quality, noise and traffic impacts. Although the Proposed Project’s impacts in these areas are increased, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project, these are areas in which impacts for the 2004 Approved Project were already previously identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2004 Certified EIR. This DSEIR is a program-level document that supplements the analyses in the 2004 Certified EIR. Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that: The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: 1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and 2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. In accordance with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, this document: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-7  Incorporates the 2004 Certified EIR by reference, as discussed in Section 3.3.1, Previous Environmental Documentation.  Contains information necessary to make the 2004 Certified EIR adequate for the Proposed Project.  Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the changes to the 2004 Approved Project that are a result of changed circumstances and new information.  Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the changes to the 2004 Approved Project that are proposed by the Proposed Project, i.e., the proposed overlay zones.  Updates where necessary the discussion of cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts and other required sections of this DSEIR. The Proposed Project is summarized below in Section 1.4, Project Description, and more fully described in Chapter 3 of this DSEIR. The analysis contained in this DSEIR confirms that the 2004 Certified EIR is adequate for the Proposed Project, with the updated information contained herein. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION Located in northeastern Orange County, the City of Anaheim and its Sphere-of-Influence lie approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and seven miles north of Santa Ana. The City 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 City encompasses over 32,000 acres of land, stretching nearly 20 miles along the Riverside Freeway (State Route [SR] - 91), and includes another 2,431 acres of unincorporated land within its Sphere-of-Influence. In addition to SR-91, regional access to and from the City is provided by the Santa Ana (Interstate - Orange (SR-57) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways; the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241); and Amtrak and Metrolink passenger train services at the Anaheim and Anaheim Canyon Stations. 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The Proposed Project is comprised of three main elements: 1. The City proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties identified as Opportunities Sites in the 2006-2014 Housing Element. The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with each property’s existing General Plan designation. Therefore, the project will not result in increased residential densities beyond those anticipated by the City’s adopted General Plan. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. In addition, the City proposes a Code amendment to permit residential development “by-right” on designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties and the proposed Code amendment would implement the Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified with an 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are also proposed for rezoning. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-8 July 2013 2. The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria to be exempt from CEQA. The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013. 3. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004, as shown on Table 3-5. The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim General Plan. Please refer to Chapter 3, Project Description for additional information regarding the Proposed Project. 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 8.0 of the 2004 Certified EIR, three project alternatives were identified during the scoping process and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the 2004 Approved Project:  No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative  Corridors Alternative  Reduced Intensity Alternative 1.5.1 No-Project/Existing (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the No-Project Alternative will be the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzed the effects of continued implementation of the City’s previous (Pre-2004 Adopted Project) General Plan. This alternative assumed the previous General Plan would remain as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the City. Development would continue to occur within the City in accordance with the previous General Plan, Zoning Code, and specific plans. Buildout pursuant to the previous General Plan would allow current development patterns to remain. The previous General Plan would not allow for mixed-use developments within The Platinum Triangle, including residential units, as envisioned in the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. In addition, previous policy would allow more residential development within the Hill and Canyon Area, including more development within the Mountain Park Specific Plan (7,966 dwelling units versus 2,500 dwelling units) and the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan (1,650 dwelling units versus designated open space). The No-Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Code Update Alternative would provide 2,338 fewer ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-9 dwelling units, increase population by 14,736 fewer persons, and provide 14,082 fewer jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. 1.5.2 Corridors Alternative The Corridors Alternative does not represent a drastic change from the 2004 Approved Project in terms of the goals and policies that are defined by the General Plan in the 2004 Approved Project. This Alternative would take advantage of existing and potential transportation linkages throughout the City by assuming that four major transit routes for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would be established to traverse portions of the City. The first, located along the entire length of La Palma Avenue, would connect the Hill and Canyon Area and The Canyon to the North Central Industrial Area and West Anaheim. In addition, this Alternative assumes another major east-west transit route along Katella Avenue, and two north-south routes along Beach Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard. This Alternative would provide an additional 29,052 dwelling units, increase population by 44,261 persons, and provide 67,529 additional jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. The additional units, population, and employment are related to the potential for increased mixed use opportunities along transit routes. 1.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the remaining growth potential associated with the 2004 Approved Project by 20 percent. The 20 percent reduction was based on the total remaining buildout potential of the 2004 Adopted Project as compared to existing land uses and applied on a City-wide basis. This Alternative would reduce total dwelling units at buildout by 5,474, decrease population at buildout by 13,215 persons, and provide 9,804 fewer jobs at buildout, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Land use designations would remain the same, although allowable intensities would be reduced. Other components of the project, including creation of a Mixed Use Overlay Zone for the Platinum Triangle, expansion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and increased open space in the Hill and Canyon Area, would remain the same as the 2004 Adopted Project. 1.5.4 Conclusion The 2004 Certified EIR identified air quality, noise, and traffic and circulation as significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the 2004 Approved Project. These impacts are also significant for the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the adopted General Plan, and various alternatives to the 2004 Approved Project were already considered as part of the 2004 Certified EIR, no additional alternatives to the Proposed Project are considered necessary as part of this DSEIR. 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 Proposed Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City, as lead agency, related to the following: 1. Whether this DSEIR adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project; 2. Whether the benefits of the Proposed Project override its environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance; ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-10 July 2013 3. Whether the overlay zones proposed by the Proposed Project are compatible with the character of the existing area; 4. Whether the identified mitigation measures should be adopted and/or modified; 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be adopted for the Proposed Project in addition to the mitigation measures recommended in the DSEIR; and 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the Proposed Project that would reduce or avoid any of its significant impacts and achieve most of its basic project objectives. 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the DSEIR must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. No areas of controversy concerning the Proposed Project have been identified. This DSEIR has taken into consideration the comments received from the various agencies and jurisdictions in response to the NOP. Written comments received during the NOP period, which extended from October 15, 2012, to November 16, 2012, are contained in Appendix B of this DSEIR. A summary of the NOP comments is provided in Section 2.2, Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, of this DSEIR. Prior to preparation of this DSEIR, a public scoping meeting was held on November 7, 2012, at Anaheim City Hall. The scoping meeting was held to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies, stakeholders, and the community regarding the Proposed Project. No issues were raised by members of the public at the meeting. 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analyses contained in this DSEIR. Table 1-1 includes a summary of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project; mitigation measures that reduce potential significant impacts of the Proposed Project; and the level of significance of each significant impact after implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the 2004 Approved Project, and any additional mitigation necessary for the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-11 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.1 AIR QUALITY (As updated by this DSEIR) AQ-2 Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? AQ-3 Would the Project 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 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 5.1-1: Construction emissions associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would, like the 2004 Approved Project, result in a substantial increase in criteria air pollutants that could exceed the Southern California Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) emissions thresholds and contribute to the ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR The proposed project is expected to generate emissions levels in exceedance of the Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) threshold criteria for carbon dioxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and PM10 in the SCAB, which is classified as a non-attainment area. Goals and Policies are included in the General Plan will facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to achieve regional air quality improvement goals, promotion of energy conservation design and development techniques, encouragement of alternative transportation modes, and implementation of transportation demand management strategies. In addition to these policies, the following mitigation measures will be required to reduce air quality impacts: 5.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans which requires the construction contractor to implement the following measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at the pregrade conference.  Use low emission mobile construction equipment.  Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.  Use low sulfur fuel for stationary Although the mitigation measures listed will reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible, associated air quality impacts remain a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-12 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation construction equipment.  Utilize existing power sources power poles) when feasible.  Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.  Minimize obstruction of through- traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.  Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.  Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). AQ-2 Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? AQ-3 Would the Project 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)? Impact 5.1-2: Long-term operation of the Proposed Project would, like the 2004 Approved Project, exceed SCAQMD’s emissions thresholds and contribute to the O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SCAB. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.2-2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques that include traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. 5.2-3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity centers, and developers of large new developments to participate in transportation management associations. Although the mitigation measures listed will reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible, associated air quality impacts remain a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-13 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.2-4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non- recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. At the individual development project level, it is recommended that the City apply the following mitigation measures to future development projects: 5.2-5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e. installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric 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) in new developments. 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments. AQ-4 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 5.1-3: As compared to the 2004 Approved Project, operation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of CO at intersections. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-14 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation AQ-4 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 5.1-4: Operation of the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project may result in placement of sensitive land uses proximate to major sources of air pollution. Potentially significant impact. Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project 5.2-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer for residential or residential mixed-use projects within: 1) 1,000 feet from the truck bays of an existing distribution centers that accommodate 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; 2) 1,000 feet of an industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants; or 3) 500 feet of Interstate 5 SR-91, SR-57 or SR- 55, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD. The HRA shall be submitted to the City Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits for any future discretionary residential or residential mixed-use project. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in 100,000 (1.0E-05), or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or if the PM10 or PM2.5 ambient air quality standard exceeds 2.5 µg/m3, the HRA shall identify the level of high-efficiency Minimum Efficiency Less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-15 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reporting Value (MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to achieve the cancer and/or noncancer and/or ambient air quality threshold. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for units that are installed with MERV filters shall maintain positive pressure within the building’s filtered ventilation system to reduce infiltration of unfiltered outdoor air. The property owner/developer shall be required to install high efficiency MERV filters in the intake of residential ventilation systems, consistent with the recommendations of the HRA. Heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit power designed to force air through the MERV filter. To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV 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 for affected units. b) For rental units, the owner/property manager shall maintain and replace MERV filters in accordance with the manufacture’s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-16 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation c) For residential owned units, the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open. e) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, air intakes on residential buildings shall be placed as far from the freeway as possible. f) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, the residential buildings should be designed to limit the use of operable windows and/or balconies on portions of the site adjacent to and facing the freeway. 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (As updated by this DSEIR) GHG-1 Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact 5.2-1: The Proposed Project's GHG emissions would be greater than the 2004 Approved Project's GHG emissions. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.2-2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques that include traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. 5.2-3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity centers, and Although the mitigation measures listed will reduce greenhouse gas emissions impacts to the extent feasible, associated greenhouse gas emissions impacts remain a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-17 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation developers of large new developments to participate in transportation management associations. 5.2-4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non- recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. At the individual development project level, it is recommended that the City apply the following mitigation measures to future development projects: 5.2-5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e. installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric 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) in new developments. 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments. Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project 5.2-8 The City shall evaluate strategies to reduce truck idling during the peak hour period of the roadway network, such as ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-18 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation staggered work/delivery schedules, truck routes, and/or intersection improvements. 5.2-9 The City shall support and promote the use of low- and zero-emission vehicles, by:  Encouraging the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the use of zero- emission vehicles and clean alternative fuels, such as electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently-located alternative fueling stations.  Encouraging new construction to include vehicle access to properly wired outdoor receptacles to accommodate zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and/or plug-in electric hybrids (PHEV).  Encouraging transportation fleet standards to achieve the lowest emissions possible, using a mix of alternate fuels, partial ZEV, or newer fleet mixes. 5.2-10 The City shall encourage the performance of energy audits of buildings prior to completion of sale, and that audit results and information about opportunities for energy efficiency improvements be presented to the buyer. 5.2-11 The City shall develop protocols for safe storage of renewable and alternative energy products with the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-19 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation potential to leak, ignite, or explode, such as biodiesel, hydrogen, and/or compressed air. 5.2-12 The City shall recognize businesses in the City that reduce GHG emissions reduced energy use) as a means to encourage GHG reductions and recognize success. GHG-2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact 5.2-2: The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. 5.3 NOISE (As updated by this DSEIR) N-1 Would the Project result in 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? N-3 Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 5.3-1: As compared to the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not substantially elevate traffic noise levels above local noise standards at noise-sensitive receptors. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.10-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits 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 City Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to meet City interior and exterior noise standards. Like the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the Proposed Project, many roadways within the City would still be expected to generate significant noise impacts. Mitigation Measures 5.10-1 and 5.10-2 would reduce operational noise impacts to the extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.3-1 would remain significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of mitigation. N-1 Would the Project result in 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? Impact 5.3-2: Like the 2004 Approved Project, stationary sources of noise generated by the Proposed Project would comply with the City’s Noise Element and Municipal Code Standards and would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors proximate to proposed Opportunity Sites. Potentially significant impact. See above for Mitigation Measure 5.10-1. Less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-20 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation N-3 Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? N-2 Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact 5.3-3: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. N-4 Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 5.3-4: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels during construction. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. 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, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels; 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? According to the Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, the City contains five heliports, which could impact existing and proposed land uses. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measure from the 2004 Certified EIR 5.10-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, new development project property owner/developers shall use the most current available AELUP as a planning resource for evaluating heliport and airport operations as well as land use compatibility and land use intensity in the proximity of Los Alamitos Joint Training Base and Fullerton Municipal Airport. Less than significant. 5.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (As updated by this DSEIR) T-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian Impact 5.4-1: Traffic volumes associated with buildout of the proposed project would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. Potentially significant impact. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR The following mitigation measures were included in the 2004 Certified EIR. These mitigation measures are proposed for inclusion in the Proposed Project, and additional mitigation measures have been added for the purposes of this DSEIR. This DSEIR proposes to make certain The General Plan Circulation Element includes improvements necessary to maintain adequate levels of service in the City at buildout. However, the improvements necessary to maintain adequate levels of service at seven intersections could impact adjacent land uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-21 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation and bicycle paths, and mass transit. T-2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. modifications to the mitigation measures adopted by the City for the 2004 Approved Project. Modifications to the original mitigation measure are identified in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined to signify additions. 5.15-1 The City shall continue to coordinate with Caltrans (designated as lead agency) and the City of Yorba Linda to implement the planned grade separation at the intersection of Imperial Highway/Orangethorpe Avenue. 5.15-2 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway Network Map, the following improvements will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan:  Intersection of Dale Avenue/Lincoln Avenue; add an additional east bound right turn lane  Intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road; add a 4th As a result, a significant impact would remain if the City chooses not to implement the required improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-22 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation west bound through lane  Intersection of Sportstown Way /Katella Avenue; change north bound lane configuration from 1/1/2 to 1.5/.5/2  Intersection of Tustin Avenue/La Palma Avenue; change south bound lane configuration from 2/3/1 to 2/4/0 (would require triple left turn lanes and add a third left turn lane on the north bound or west bound approach to mitigate to LOS D  Intersection of Tustin Avenue/SR- 91 west bound ramps; add a 2nd north bound left turn lane  Intersection of Imperial Highway/Santa Ana Canyon Road; add a north bound right turn lane (a 4th through lane north bound to mitigate PM peak hour to LOS D)  Intersection of Weir Canyon Road/SR-91 east bound ramps; add a 4th south bound through lane 5.15-3 The City shall pursue all available funding, including Measure M2 funding, necessary to implement the circulation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. Implementation of transportation improvements identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2 shall be conducted in coordination with Caltrans, the County ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-23 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation of Orange, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and surrounding jurisdictions. To qualify for Measure M funds, the City must comply with the Countywide Growth Management Program component requirements and have an established policy framework for the required Growth Management Program through the adoption of a Growth Management Element. The updated Growth Management Element will maintain provisions of the existing Growth Management element which: 1) establishes policy statements that identify acceptable traffic LOS; 2) commits the City to implement a development mitigation program; and 3) commits the City to implement a development phasing and monitoring program. 5.15-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development 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, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City for all costs associated with updating the applicable Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-24 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS or depending on the location), the property owner/developer shall be responsible for constructing its fair share of necessary improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service for the anticipated theoretical buildout of the General Plan as identified in the City’s Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2. 5.15-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Traffic Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City 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. 5.15-6 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, and subject to nexus requirements, the property owner/developer shall ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Draft Supplemental EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-25 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of- way as shown in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element adjacent to their property. 5.15-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer of projects anticipated to employ 250 or more employees shall join and participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association. Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project 5.15-8 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned Roadway Network Map, the improvements identified in Table 5.4-7 will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Executive Summary Page 1-26 July 2013 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts / Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections), or incompatible uses farm equipment). Impact 5.4-2: The Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. Impact 5.4-2: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Impact 5.4-3: The Proposed Project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.