Document Anaheim_doc_7bb7388872

Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 Katella Avenue/Interstate 5 Undercrossing Improvements Prepared for City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by BonTerra Consulting 2 Executive Circle, Suite 175 Irvine, California 92614 T: (714) 444-9199 F: (714) 444-9599 April 17, 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Section 1.0 Introduction 1-1 Section 2.0 Purpose of the Document 2-1 Section 3.0 Project Background 3-1 Section 4.0 Project Description 4-1 4.1.1 Project Location 4-1 4.1.2 Project Components 4-1 4.1.3 Construction Phasing 4-1 Section 5.0 Environmental Analysis 5-1 5.1 Aesthetics 5-1 5.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-1 5.1.2 Project Environmental Review 5-1 5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 5-2 5.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-2 5.2.2 Project Environmental Review 5-2 5.3 Air Quality 5-3 5.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-3 5.3.2 Project Environmental Review 5-4 5.4 Biological Resources 5-7 5.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-7 5.4.2 Project Environmental Review 5-7 5.5 Cultural Resources 5-8 5.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-8 5.5.2 Project Environmental Review 5-8 5.6 Geology and 5-9 5.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-9 5.6.2 Project Environmental Review 5-9 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5-9 5.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-9 5.7.2 Project Environmental Review 5-10 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5-10 5.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-10 5.8.2 Project Environmental Review 5-10 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 5-12 5.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-12 5.9.2 Project Environmental Review 5-13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx ii Table of Contents 5.10 Land Use and Planning 5-14 5.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-14 5.10.2 Project Environmental Review 5-15 5.11 Mineral Resources 5-15 5.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-15 5.11.2 Project Environmental Review 5-15 5.12 Noise 5-16 5.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-16 5.12.2 Project Environmental Review 5-16 5.13 Population and Housing 5-18 5.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-18 5.13.2 Project Environmental Review 5-18 5.14 Public Services and Utilities 5-19 5.14.1 Fire Protection 5-19 5.14.2 Police Services 5-20 5.14.3 School Services 5-21 5.14.4 Other Public Facilities 5-22 5.15 Recreation 5-23 5.16 Transportation and Circulation 5-23 5.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis 5-23 5.16.2 Project Environmental Review 5-24 5.17 Utilities and Service Systems 5-27 5.17.1 Wastewater Treatment and Collection 5-27 5.17.2 Water Supply and Distribution Systems 5-28 5.17.3 Storm Drain 5-29 5.17.4 Solid Waste 5-30 5.17.5 Electricity 5-31 5.17.6 Natural Gas 5-32 5.17.7 Communications 5-33 Section 6.0 Summary of Findings 6-1 Section 7.0 References 7-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx iii Table of Contents EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Page 1 Regional and Local Vicinity 1-2 2 Aerial Photograph 4-2 3 Site Photographs 4-2 4 Site Photographs 4-2 5 Site Photographs 4-2 6 Proposed Site Plan 4-2 APPENDIX A Referenced Environmental Documents B Traffic Study C Updated and Modified Mitigation and Monitoring Program ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx iv Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 1-1 Introduction SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document, Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 for the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements (referred to as the “Addendum to FSEIR No. 339” in this document), has been prepared to demonstrate that there are no new significant environmental effects, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects associated with the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project,. The proposed project would implement roadway and structure improvements along Katella Avenue at the undercrossing of Interstate 5, which was identified as an element of the Platinum Triangle project as evaluated in Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 339. The Platinum Triangle is located in the south-central portion of the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California at the confluence of I-5 and State Route (SR) 57 (Exhibit 1, Regional and Local Vicinity) The Platinum Triangle encompasses approximately 820 acres and 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. Regional access to the project vicinity is provided by I-5 via Katella Avenue/Disney Way and SR-57 via Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue. Local access to the project vicinity is provided via Orangewood Avenue, Gene Autry Way, Katella Avenue, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, and Sunkist Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 1-2 Introduction This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- U V 57 SCE Easement The Platinum Triangle Project Location Santa Ana River Katella Ave Ball Rd Lewis St Cerritos Ave Harbor Blvd Katella Ave East St Haste St Chapman Ave State College Blvd Disney Way The City Dr Anaheim Blvd Ball Rd 5 5 Melrose Abbey Memorial Park Boysen Park Juarez Park Ponderosa Park Pioneer Park Sierra Park Little Peoples Park Sycamore Park Katella High School South Junior High School Portola Middle School Paul Revere Elementary School Benito Juarez Elem School Cathedral Academy Earl Warren Elementary School James A Guinn Elementary SCH Jefferson II Elementary School Theodore Roosevelt Elem School Thomas Jefferson Elem School Parkview Elementary School Lampson Elementary School Benjamin Franklin Elem School Disneyland Regional and Local Vicinity Katella Ave/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project Exhibit 1 (Rev: 2-15-2012 JCD) Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\Ex1_LV_RL.pdf D:\Projects\Mthomas\J001\MXD\ex_LV_RL.mxd 2,000 0 2,000 1,000 Feet ² li Project Location 405 105 710 605 5 S T 1 S T 73 S T 22 S T 19 S T 90 S T 261 S T 142 S T 39 S T 72 S T 110 S T 60 S T 213 S T 55 S T 57 S T 710 S T 91 Los Angeles Orange Anaheim Los Angeles Beach Downey Irvine Carson Whittier Santa Ana Huntington Costa Mesa Seal Beach Long Beach Westminster West Covina Project Location The Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 2-1 Purpose of the Document SECTION 2.0 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT This Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously-certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred”. Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR is only required when: Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; Mitigation 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 Mitigation 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. This document is an addendum to The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (FSEIR No. 339), which was certified by the City of Anaheim in August 2010. Although the proposed project was identified as a project feature in FSEIR, a project-level analysis was not completed; therefore, the Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 provides a project-specific analysis. The purpose of Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 is to analyze the differences between the approved Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project and the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project (referred to as the “proposed project” in this document). As described in detail herein, an analysis has been conducted that confirms that the impacts from the proposed project will be no more severe than those projected to result from implementation of the previously approved project. The projected ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 2-2 Purpose of the Document impacts of the proposed project would either be the same or less than the anticipated levels associated with the approved Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project, and no new significant impacts would result with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, in accordance with the Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 is the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed project. The Addendum to FSEIR No. 339, in conjunction with the previous environmental documents prepared for the Platinum Triangle project, is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future actions associated with the proposed project. In addition, the Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 is the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project. All applicable mitigation measures in the FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, as amended—which includes relevant measures from FSEIR Nos. 332, 334, and 339—have been incorporated into this document for ease of reference. This document is intended to provide sufficient information to allow permitting agencies to evaluate the potential impacts from construction and implementation of the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 3-1 Purpose of the Document SECTION 3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency responsible for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion FSEIR No. 339 and the Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 prepared for the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements project. Since 1996, the Anaheim City Council has approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle. Appendix A to this document provides a summary of these previous actions. 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 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 3-2 Purpose of the Document 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 State 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 FSEIR No. 332 has been either developed, is under construction, or has been designated for development under approved Development Agreements. In addition, the 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 demand and to further the project objectives, 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 (hereafter, the “Platinum Triangle project”). However, following the approval of the project and the associated environmental impact report (FSEIR No. 334), a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council repealed the approval of the project and directed staff to prepare a new subsequent EIR for the “Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.” On October 26, 2010, City Council certified FSEIR No. 339, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106C for the PTMLUP, and approved associated actions to increase the permitted development within the Platinum Triangle to allow up to: • 18,909 residential units; • 4,909,682 square feet of commercial development • 14,340,522 square feet of office development; and, • 1,500,000 square feet of institutional development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 4-1 Project Description SECTION 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project site is located in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California at the Katella Avenue undercrossing at the I-5 freeway. The project site is bound by Anaheim Way to the east, Manchester Avenue to the west, and the existing freeway undercrossing structure abutments to the north and south and is located entirely within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional and local vicinity of the project site; Exhibit 2, Aerial Photograph, depicts the project site and surrounding uses as an aerial photograph. As shown on Exhibit 2, the majority of the project site is blocked from aerial view; Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 (Site Photographs) provide photographs of the site from the ground view. 4.1.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS Katella Avenue, between Disneyland Drive and State College Boulevard, is designated as an eight-lane Smart Street corridor on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element and was evaluated as such in FSEIR No. 339. The Katella Avenue undercrossing at I-5 between Anaheim Way and Manchester Avenue is a 6-lane corridor, with three 11-foot lanes in each direction. Additionally, this roadway segment includes dual left-turn pockets at both intersections. As shown on Exhibit 6, Proposed Site Plan, this project proposes to widen Katella Avenue at the undercrossing with the I-5 between Anaheim Way and Manchester Avenue and to create a fourth through lane of traffic in each direction of travel, consistent with the MPAH, the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element, and the project as evaluated and approved in FSEIR No. 339. The project proposes to maintain the dual left-turn pockets at both project intersections. The project area spans approximately 1,000 feet along Katella Avenue, from of the easterly curb returns of Manchester Avenue to the westerly curb returns of Anaheim Way, with an area of disturbance encompassing approximately 1.95 acres. The widening will be accomplished by constructing tie-back retaining walls under the I-5 freeway structure. As part of the project, some utilities within the project area would require relocation. Utilities present within the project site include both City and Metropolitan Water District water mains; City sewer lines; City electrical and fiber optic lines; Southern California Edison communication lines and a transmission electrical duct; a Southern California Gas Company natural gas main; and an AT&T telephone line. Existing drainage facilities would be extended to the new curb line; no new pipes or inlets would be constructed. The project does propose removal of catch basins and culverts on both the north and south sides of Katella Avenue to be reconstructed along the new curblines. The project would require modification to the existing landscaped areas within the project site. As part of the project, groundcover landscaping and irrigation systems would be removed along both the northern and southern sides of Katella Avenue within the project area. The majority of the landscaping consists of groundcover; however, existing palm trees would be removed and transplanted as part of the project. 4.1.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASING Project construction would occur over a continuous, 18-month period. Construction activities will be conducted in four stages: construction of the retaining walls and sidewalk; demolition of the existing eastbound sidewalk, curb, and gutter and construction of eastbound Katella ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 4-2 Project Description Avenue pavement and roadway improvements; demolition of existing westbound sidewalk and curb and gutter, and construction of westbound Katella Avenue pavement and roadway improvements; and construction of median improvements. Construction activities would require standard construction equipment for concrete demolition, roadway excavation, paving, traffic signal installation, and storm drain modifications. A drill rig would also be required for construction of the retaining walls. ---PAGE BREAK--- SCE Easement The Platinum Triangle Katella Ave Haste St Anaheim Blvd Manchester Ave Anaheim Blvd Katella Ave Lewis St Cerritos Ave Manchester Ave 5 5 Aerial Photograph Katella Ave/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project Exhibit 2 (Rev: 2-15-2012 JCD) Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\Ex2_aerial.pdf D:\Projects\Mthomas\J001\MXD\ex_aerial.mxd 500 0 500 250 Feet ² Project Location The Platinum Triangle ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Eastbound Katella Avenue. Eastbound Katella Avenue. Site Photographs Exhibit 3 Katella Ave/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project (02/27/12 JFG) Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\Ex3_SP1.pdf D:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\ex_SP1_022112.ai ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- View looking northeast from southwest corner of Katella Ave and Manchester Ave intersection. Site Photographs Exhibit 4 Katella Ave/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project (02/21/12 JCD) Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\Ex4_SP2.pdf D:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\ex_SP2_022112.ai ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Westbound Katella Avenue. Site Photographs Exhibit 5 Katella Ave/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project (02/21/12 JCD) Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\Ex5_SP3.pdf D:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\ex_SP3_022112.ai ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- (Rev 02/15/12 JCD) Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\Ex6_siteplan.pdf D:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Graphics\ex_siteplan.ai Katella Ave/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project Proposed Site Plan Source: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. 2012 Exhibit 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-1 Environmental Analysis SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This portion of the Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 examines each environmental topical issue analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, including 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, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Mitigation measures were required to reduce the impact from development of the Platinum Triangle on the environment. For each of the above-mentioned topical issues, a summary of the previous environmental analysis from FSEIR No. 339 is provided. Following this discussion, an analysis of the currently proposed project is provided and compared to the original findings in FSEIR No. 339. The required mitigation measures for the project are included. Mitigation measures no longer required are labeled as such. Any word adjustments to the previously approved mitigation measures are shown in bold for inserts, and strikethrough for any deletions or changes. 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According to FSEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle and its surrounding area are highly urbanized with no geographic features or natural resources of importance. Recent and ongoing residential, commercial, and office development within the Platinum Triangle represents a transition from light industrial to mixed-use development. Landmarks include man-made elements such as Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Honda Center. No designated scenic corridors or highways are located in the project area. Because of the predominately urban character of the Platinum Triangle, night-lighting is widespread and characterized by parking lot lighting; structural lighting for hotels and restaurants; overhead street lighting; vehicle headlights; sign/building illumination; and lighting during nighttime sporting events. Additionally, at the time of FSEIR No. 339 preparation, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, and several high-rise office and residential uses create shade and shadows throughout the project area. FSEIR No. 339 identified that increased density and height would result in increased shadow and widths beyond the existing conditions at that time. However, future development projects adjacent to uses deemed “shadow sensitive” would be required to demonstrate that they would not interfere with exposure to natural sunlight. New mixed-use development within the Platinum Triangle would be required to adhere to the design standards and principles for the PTMU Overlay Zone, which is intended to visually unify the area. FSEIR No. 339 found that potential impacts related to the Platinum Triangle project could result in significant visual impacts that could be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. 5.1.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project proposes to widen Katella Avenue at the undercrossing of the I-5 between Anaheim Way and Manchester Avenue and to create a fourth through lane of traffic in each direction of travel. As shown on Exhibit 6, all proposed project actions would be contained within the project area located along Katella Avenue and would be consistent with the project site’s current aesthetics. The proposed project would modify both Katella Avenue and the I-5 undercrossing structure through reconstruction of the roadway and the addition of proposed tie-back walls. The modification would remove a portion of concrete (sidewalk and curb) and would increase the amount of asphalt within the roadway. All signs and lighting in the project area would be relocated to accommodate the widened roadway; the number and type of lighting sources would be consistent with existing conditions; no new sources of lighting or glare would be generated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-2 Environmental Analysis The proposed modifications are typical of roadway improvement projects and would not contribute to the degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Additionally, because the project involves reconstruction of an undercrossing which is mainly visible only to passing motorists, the visual impact would be minimal as it would not be visible from surrounding areas. Further, the project site and surrounding area are located within a highly urbanized portion of the City that does not contain any scenic vistas or resources and which is not visible from State and local scenic highways. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the visual resources and aesthetics analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle Project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 5.2.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According to FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to agriculture resources were identified through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR does not contain any specific analysis related to agricultural resources. FSEIR No. 339 did not provide specific analysis of forest resources. 5.2.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project; the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Data from the State of California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicates that the project site contains no land that is designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (FMMP 2010), nor does it contain land that is zoned for agricultural use. In addition, the project site is not in agricultural use or under any Williamson Act contracts, and no such designated land is nearby. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-3 Environmental Analysis impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to agricultural resources. Since the project site is in an urban area, no changes would result from converting of farm or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. The project site is not considered to be farmland of significance or land in agricultural use. The project site is not defined as forest land according to Section 12220(g) of the California Public Resources Code, which defines forest land as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits”, nor is it zoned for Timberland Production as defined by Section 51104(g) of the California Government Code. The area proposed for construction is fully built out with urban uses. Therefore, no new impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. Although the CEQA questions related to forestry resources were not on the checklist when the FSEIR No. 339 was prepared, there are no environmental impacts associated with this issue; therefore, this does not preclude the use of an addendum to the previous document. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in the FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the agricultural resources analysis provided in the FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.3 AIR QUALITY 5.3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FSEIR No. 339 provides an explanation of the local and regional conditions of air quality. The Platinum Triangle is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) of California, which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert areas of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Federal, State, and regional authorities regulate air pollution in the Basin. FSEIR No. 339 explains in detail the requirements that Southern California must meet in terms of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), and Southern California regional planning agencies such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). FSEIR No. 339 analyzed the potential air quality impacts resulting from future development within the Platinum Triangle. Thresholds for project emissions are given in detail for both the regional and local levels. Construction emissions were determined to be a temporary significant unavoidable impact for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), respirable particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and respirable particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) and cumulative ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-4 Environmental Analysis contributions of ozone (O3), PM10, and PM2.5 for regional construction emissions. FSEIR No. 339 also identified that construction emissions have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Due to the magnitude of new air pollutant emissions sources that could result with buildout of the Platinum Triangle, emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds and would cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB’s O3, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Future development projects may include private outdoor recreational areas that would expose people to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants that exceed the ambient concentrations in the project vicinity, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council related to air quality impacts. 5.3.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The main purpose of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. The two principal criteria for conformance with the AQMP are whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards and whether a project will exceed the land use assumptions in the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993). The 2007 South Coast AQMP is the plan applicable to the proposed project. The SCAQMD adopted the AQMP on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP is an update of the 2003 AQMP and incorporates new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The plan was also approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) when the State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (SIP) was adopted on September 27, 2007. The Draft SIP has been submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for review and approval. However, for CEQA analysis, projects must be analyzed for consistency with 2007 AQMP requirements. Construction associated with the proposed project would include demolition, removal, and replacement of roadway surfaces and pavement, and demolition, building, and architectural coatings of the retaining walls, all of which were included in the construction assumptions evaluated previously in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, related air pollutant emissions would be within the emissions identified in FSEIR No. 339 because there would be no new or substantially different construction equipment or methods used for the proposed project. Construction-related air quality impacts related to the proposed project would occur within a limited area and would not exceed short-term, construction-related air quality impacts previously evaluated in FSEIR No. 339, and therefore would not exceed what was anticipated in the 2007 AQMP. No new impacts would occur. The proposed project would allow for a more efficient flow of traffic along Katella Avenue beneath I-5 through the addition of a fourth through lane of traffic in each direction of travel. Because the project is a roadway improvement project intended to accommodate current and future traffic volumes associated with the approved Platinum Triangle project, the project would not increase vehicular traffic volumes beyond the assumptions analyzed previously in FSEIR No. 339. Operational emissions would be negligible, consisting of periodic repainting or maintenance of exterior surfaces. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified effect related to violation of any air quality standards; contribute to an existing or project air quality violation; create a cumulative considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant; or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-5 Environmental Analysis Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the air quality analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presented mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle Project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FSEIR No. 339 would also be applicable to the proposed Katella/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. (Note that the measure number and section from FSEIR No. 339 are listed in parentheses). Construction MM 5.3-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer City 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. 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. 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. c. The contractor shall utilize existing power sources power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary diesel-power generators, where feasible MM 5.3-2 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer City 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 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: a. During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall re-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering as quickly as ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-6 Environmental Analysis possible to achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM10 of 5 percent. b. During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers to on-site haul roads to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 85 percent compared to travel on unpaved, untreated roads. c. The property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. d. The property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. e. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall sweep 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. During active demolition and debris removal and grading, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall suspend demolition and grading operations when winds speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to achieve an emissions control efficiency for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions of 98 percent. g. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard on 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. h. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site to achieve an emissions reduction control efficiency for PM10 of 61 percent. i. During active demolition and debris removal, the property owner/developer’s City’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 City’s construction 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-7 Environmental Analysis k. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’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 MM 5.3-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans)Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer City shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing ensure that construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be are implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of, including material export to 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 City 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 MM 5.3-4 Prior to issuance of each building permitDuring construction, the property owner/developer City shall submit evidence ensure that high-solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings structures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regulations. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer’s City shall specify the use of high-volume/low-pressure spray equipment or hand application on project plans. Air-atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Plans shall also show that property owner/developers the contractor shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting, or use prepainted construction materials, to the extent feasible 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.4.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According to FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to biological resources were identified through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to biological resources. 5.4.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The area proposed for construction is fully built out with urban uses; therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact biological resources. Specifically, the proposed project would not create impacts related to habitat modification; effects on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities; federally protected wetlands; migratory wildlife corridors; or native wildlife nursery sites. The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan since no habitat, wetlands, or corridors are present on the project site or nearby. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to biological resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-8 Environmental Analysis Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the biological resources analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.5.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According to FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to cultural resources were identified through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to cultural resources. 5.5.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No additional ground disturbance would occur beyond what was evaluated and approved as part of FSEIR No. 339; therefore, the same area would be subject to impacts. Consistent with the findings of FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to cultural resources would occur. Specifically, there are no designated or eligible historical resources in the project area. As a result, the proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to cultural resources. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the cultural resources analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-9 Environmental Analysis 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.6.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According to FSEIR No. 339, impacts related to geology and soils were identified as less than significant through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to geology and soils. 5.6.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW According to Figure S-3 of the Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area designated as a seismic hazard zone. The project site is underlain by alluvium and would not be subject to significant liquefaction risk or impacts associated with settlement or fault rupture (Anaheim 2004). Therefore, impacts related to exposure of people or structures to seismic-related hazards would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings for FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Due to the nature of the proposed project and the location of the site within a relatively flat and developed area, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil, nor would it be subject to landslides. Furthermore, construction activities would be performed pursuant to the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. No additional ground disturbance beyond what was previously evaluated as part of FSEIR No. 339 would occur. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the geology and soils analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.7.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FSEIR No. 339 evaluated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with development of the Platinum Triangle project based on the Technical Advisory for addressing climate change through CEQA released in 2008 by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the amended CEQA Guidelines (released on December 30, 2009). Operational emissions were ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-10 Environmental Analysis calculated for area sources (including project-related water demand, energy use, and waste disposal) and transportation sources. An estimate of construction emissions was also generated. Build-out of the proposed Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan would generate substantially more greenhouse gas emissions compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California. Implementation of mitigation measures related to solid waste reduction, transportation and motor vehicles, energy efficiency, and water conservation and efficiency would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however, the emission levels would continue to represent a significant and unavoidable impact. Despite this finding, the Platinum Triangle would be consistent statewide and regional greenhouse gas reduction strategies to integrate land use and transportation planning. 5.7.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed previously in Section 5.3.2, the primary purpose of the proposed project is to allow for a more efficient flow of traffic along Katella Avenue beneath I-5 through the addition of a fourth through lane of traffic per each direction of travel. Because the proposed project is a roadway improvement project, intended to accommodate current and future traffic volumes associated with the approved Platinum Triangle project, the proposed project would not increase vehicular traffic volumes beyond the assumptions analyzed previously in FSEIR No. 339. Operational emissions would be negligible, consisting of periodic repainting or maintenance of exterior surfaces. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new significant impact related to GHG emissions beyond what was considered and evaluated in FSEIR No. 339. Further, the proposed project would not increase the demand for energy or water resources beyond what was considered and evaluated previously, therefore, GHG emissions related to water demand, energy production, and solid waste disposal would be similar to FSEIR No. 339. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; and would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible, or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the GHG analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.8.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According to FSEIR No. 339, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were identified as less than significant through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to geology and soils. 5.8.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Although there are no industrial uses on site requiring regular transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, there is expected to be incidental use of materials categorized as hazardous during construction and future maintenance of the proposed project. These include ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-11 Environmental Analysis paints, solvents, certain cleaners, and other corrosive materials. The use of these materials is required to comply with all regulations governing their use. Additionally, the proposed project would involve demolition of existing asphalt-paved surfaces that would require reuse or disposal. All construction and future maintenance associated with the proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous waste, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The proposed project is not located within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school; the nearest school is Paul Revere Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.7 mile northeast of the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in hazardous emissions or require the handling of hazardous materials in the proximity of schools. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. According to a recent review of federal, State, and local databases, no identified hazardous materials sites are located on the proposed project site (EDR 2010). According to the database search, the nearest listed sites and their statuses include the following: • Sioux Bee Honey, 511 East Katella Avenue. This is the site of a historic underground “product” storage tank. No leaks have been reported. • Orange County Auto, 620 Katella Avenue. This is the site of a small quantity hazardous waste generator. No violations have been reported. • Los Angeles Truck Centers LLC, 700 East Katella Avenue. This is the site of a small quantity hazardous waste generator. On-site hazardous materials include ignitable hazardous wastes, chromium, lead, and non-halogenated solvents. No violations have been reported. • Exxon Service Station #14. This was the site of a leaking underground waste oil storage tank discovered in 1997 where the soil was affected. Due to the historic nature of the reported leak, details are limited; however, the case was closed in 1997 and does not pose a hazard to the proposed project site • Cano’s, 950 Anaheim Boulevard. This was the site of a leaking underground gasoline storage tank discovered in 1989 where the soil was affected. Due to the historic nature of the reported leak, details are limited; however, the case was closed in 1999. Therefore, the site does not pose a hazard to the proposed project site. • Southwest Leasing Company, 330 East Katella Avenue. This is the site of an underground gasoline storage tank. No leaks have been reported. • Dewey Pest Control, 1813 South Manchester Boulevard. This is the site of small and large quantity hazardous waste generators. No violations have been reported. This is also a site of a historic underground gasoline storage tank. No leaks have been reported. • Satellite Cleaners, 1831 Manchester Avenue. This is the site of small and large quantity hazardous waste generators. On-site hazardous materials include halogenated solvents (chloride, methyl chloride, and perchloroethylene). No violations have been reported. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-12 Environmental Analysis • Odetics, 1859 South Manchester Avenue. This is an identified site where hazardous materials are used or generated as part of daily operations. No violations have been reported. The proposed project site is not within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop. No new impacts are anticipated. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Safety Element (May 2004), the City has an emergency preparedness plan that complies with State law and that interfaces with other cities and counties in Southern California. Proposed project implementation would neither impair implementation of, nor interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because there would be no long-term changes to local roadways or the circulation network. Throughout proposed project construction, at least one lane in each direction would be maintained for vehicular access during daytime hours and peak periods. Should full roadway closures be necessary on a temporary basis during the nighttime, off-peak hours, standard directional signage would direct drivers to alternative routes. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The proposed project site is located within an urban, developed area and would not be subject to wildland fire risks. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the hazards and hazardous materials analysis provided in the FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.9.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The portion of the Platinum Triangle east of State College Boulevard is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed and the portion of the Platinum Triangle west of State College Boulevard is located within the Westminster Watershed. According to FSEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle project site is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study area within the Zones A99 and X designations. Additionally, the Platinum Triangle is located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Although FSEIR No. 339 identified that implementation of the Platinum Triangle would increase the demand on groundwater supplies, it was determined that adequate water supplies would be available without lowering the local groundwater table level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-13 Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 incorporated the water quality analysis prepared and included in FSEIR No. 332 for the Platinum Triangle. As discussed, pollutant concentrations for the project condition are anticipated to decrease both with and without the best management practices (BMPs) as a result of changes in land use, which would result in less light industrial/commercial and more mixed use. With implementation of mitigation measures identified in FSEIR No. 332, anticipated pollutant concentrations are expected to further decrease and the project water quality impacts would be less than significant; water quality conditions are expected to be better than existing conditions. FSEIR No. 339 found that no significant unavoidable adverse effects were anticipated from the implementation of the Platinum Triangle. 5.9.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is the widening of Katella Avenue at the I-5 undercrossing. Under existing conditions, the area proposed for development is an impervious surface that functions as a roadway, sidewalk, and undercrossing structure. The proposed project would widen the roadway; however the amount of impervious area would remain similar to existing conditions. Although the proposed project would increase the surface area subject to vehicular traffic, the number of vehicles using the roadway would remain unchanged from conditions assumed in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the amount of motor vehicle pollutants that may collect in runoff would also be similar to what was assumed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not increase the demand for water supply beyond what was previously identified and evaluated. Therefore, no impacts related to groundwater levels would occur. Furthermore, the drainage system, as analyzed in the previous environmental documents, would not be altered with implementation of the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to groundwater and surface hydrology. FSEIR No. 339 presents Mitigation Measure 3-2 to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle Project to less than significant levels. Because the proposed project is located within Caltrans right-of-way, it would be subject to preparation and implementation of construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the provisions of the Caltrans Construction General Permit ((NPDES No. CAS000002) Water Quality Order 2009- 0009-DWQ, State Water Resources Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity) and any subsequent permit as they relate to construction activities for the proposed project. This will include submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board at least 30 days before the start of construction, preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and submission of a Notice of Construction Completion (NCC) to the Santa Ana upon completion of construction and stabilization of the proposed project site. The applicable permit provisions would accomplish the same result as the previously approved mitigation measure therefore, the previously approved mitigation measure is not restated. Compliance with these permit conditions would ensure that impacts related to water quality would not be significant. Consistent with the analysis in FSEIR No. 339, the proposed project site is located within Flood Zones A99 and X, which is within the 100-year flood hazard area but is protected by a federal flood protection system. Therefore, because the proposed project site is in the same location as what was previously evaluated in FSEIR No. 339, the proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects in the 100-year flood hazard area. Figure 5.5-5 of the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330 identifies that the proposed project site is located within the flood impact zone associated with the Prado Dam, which is located over 15 miles northeast of the proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-14 Environmental Analysis project site. Although the proposed project site is located within the designated flood impact zone, the actual threat of flooding is low due to the extensive development and natural features that exist between the dam and the proposed project site, including several freeways, the Santa Ana River, and portions of the Santa Ana mountain range which would act to block, reduce, or slow the risk of flooding. Additionally, the Prado Dam is subject to annual safety inspections to ensure that the dam is safe, performing as intended, and not developing problems (DWR 2010). Therefore, impacts associated with the risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding would be less than significant. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The nearest water body is the Santa Ana River Channel, located approximately 5,250 feet east of the proposed project site. Due to the development that exists between this water body and the proposed project site as well as the largely channelized nature of this portion of the Santa Ana River, the potential for inundation by seiche is low and does not represent a significant impact. Additionally, the site is located within a developed area with limited topography and limited exposed soil that would be subject to erosion; therefore, the proposed project site would not be subject to mudflow. As a result, the proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the hydrology and water quality analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.10.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FSEIR No. 339 addressed the Platinum Triangle’s consistency with the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Code. Implementation of the Platinum Triangle project, as evaluated in FSEIR No. 339, would require amendments to the General Plan, amendments to the PTMLUP, and a zoning reclassification for the PTMU Overlay Zone. Implementation of the proposed Platinum Triangle project would be inconsistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Public Services and Facilities Element related to operation of a Southern California Gas Company microwave tower, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council related to this land use impact. FSEIR No. 339 determined that the project would be consistent with the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy and the Regional Transportation Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-15 Environmental Analysis 5.10.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project would improve circulation along Katella Avenue through construction of a fourth through lane in both directions of travel. The proposed project would improve an existing transportation facility and would not introduce any new uses to the area. Therefore, the proposed project would continue to be compatible with surrounding land uses would not physically divide and established community. Implementation of this proposed project would be consistent with the MPAH and the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Circulation Element, both of which designate Katella Avenue as an eight-lane roadway. Additionally, because the proposed project site is not located within or near any designated habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the land use-related plans and policies analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to Land Use and Planning were identified in FSEIR No. 339 and none are required for the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project. 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 5.11.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According to FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to mineral resources were identified through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to mineral resources. 5.11.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW According to the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element (May 2004), the proposed project is not located in an area designated as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) or a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources Area. Because no additional excavation beyond what was previously evaluated would occur, the proposed project would not result in the loss of any mineral resources. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-16 Environmental Analysis circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the mineral resources analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to Mineral Resources were identified in FSEIR No. 339 and none are required for the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project. 5.12 NOISE 5.12.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Scales and guidelines used in assessing noise and vibration for the State of California and the City of Anaheim including the degradation of the existing noise environment are outlined in FSEIR No. 339. Noise in the FSEIR was measured by the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is an average of all measured noise levels over a 24-hour period based on the “A-weighted decibel” (dBA). Noise standards for various land uses were identified and noise measurements were taken at five locations along local roadways. Major sources of noise in 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. Additionally, noise from several new residential communities within the Platinum Triangle, vehicular traffic, occasional aircraft overflights, and rail traffic all contribute to the existing urban noise environment. According to FSEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle would result in new significant noise increases along multiple roadway segments representing a significant and unavoidable impact as identified in SEIR No. 332. Impacts to noise-sensitive uses sited in close proximity or adjacent to major arterials, freeways, railroads, industrial or entertainment uses, the proposed ARTIC District, or Angel Stadium of Anaheim would experience significant and unavoidable noise impacts, similar to those identified in SEIR No. 332. Construction activities related to build-out of the Platinum Triangle project would result in vibration levels exceeding the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) criteria for vibration-induced structural damage within the Platinum Triangle and would be considered significant and unavoidable. Construction impacts would result in temporary exceedances of the 65 dBA standard up to 446 feet from the construction site and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council related to these noise impacts. 5.12.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Construction associated with the proposed project would occur in proximity to noise- and vibration-sensitive uses, including the Comfort Inn & Suites hotel located approximately 130 feet southwest of the proposed project site, and a residential mobile home park located approximately 315 feet southwest of the proposed project site. The proposed project would modify the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing by adding an additional through lane in both directions of travel. The proposed project would also involve the construction of new retaining walls to accommodate the widened roadway. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-17 Environmental Analysis Construction would occur over a 18-month period and would involve standard contractor’s equipment typical for concrete demolition, roadway excavation, and paving equipment. Additionally, a drill rig would be used during construction of the retaining walls. Construction activities will cause annoyance to sensitive land uses when construction equipment is operating nearest to the receptors due to noise levels and exposure to substantial levels of groundbourne vibration and groundbourne noise. According to the City’s Noise Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance standards between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. While the City exempts construction noise from the 60 dBA standard at the property line when construction occurs during these hours, construction noise would have the potential to generate noise levels well above the existing ambient noise levels; vibration impacts would also result in a nuisance to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the construction site, in particular the residences southeast of the proposed project site. Implementation of MM 5.12-1 from FSEIR No. 339 is recommended; however, these impacts would represent significant, short-term noise and vibration impacts that would cease after completion of construction. Consistent with FSEIR No. 339, these impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted for this impact as part of FSEIR No. 339; therefore, no new impacts would occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Long-term noise levels would be similar to future noise levels analyzed as part of FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would serve as an operational improvement and is not expected to generate additional traffic beyond what was assumed in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, no new long-term noise impacts would occur. Anticipated short-term and long-term noise levels are not expected to increase beyond levels that have been considered previously in FSEIR No 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the noise analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. The following measure from FSEIR No. 339 would also be applicable to the proposed project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. (Note that the measure number and section from FSEIR No. 339 are listed in parentheses). MM 5.12-1 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer City shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise: a) Noise generated by construction, shall be limited by the property owner/developer City 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-18 Environmental Analysis 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. (5.7-1) 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.13.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The data for the Population and Housing section of FSEIR No. 339 was based on the City of Anaheim General Plan and Orange County Projections 2006 prepared by the Center for Demographic Research. According to FSEIR No. 339, the 2000 Census shows a population of six persons within the Platinum Triangle boundary. The population was projected to grow to 2,365 residents upon occupation of all of the residential units constructed as of May 2010, based on the predicted population rate for the Platinum Triangle of 1.5 residents per unit. Build-out of all of the 18,909 residential units permitted within the Platinum Triangle would increase the population to 28,364 residents. As of November 2008, total commercial and office development in the Platinum Triangle was estimated at 2,627,782 square feet. Based on the employment rate of 1 employee per 500 square feet, the total employment was estimated at 5,255 jobs. Build-out of the Platinum Triangle was projected to create 41,500 jobs. Buildout of the Platinum Triangle was projected by FSEIR No. 339 to result in a jobs/housing ratio of 2.19. This jobs/housing ratio is significantly more balanced compared to the existing conditions of the area. FSEIR No. 339 also projected that the jobs/housing ratio within the City of Anaheim would decrease from 2.02 in 2003 to 1.77 in 2035 without the proposed project and 1.85 with the proposed project. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the proposed project would also help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) fair share allocation goal of 9,498 units by 2014. Additionally, 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. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to population and housing would occur. 5.13.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project proposes roadway improvements, which would better serve the current and planned traffic volumes along Katella Avenue. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth, nor would it increase the demand for housing. Temporary employment associated with the proposed project would be limited to construction crews and no long-term, permanent jobs would be created. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-19 Environmental Analysis significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the employment, population, and housing analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures No previously approved measures have been identified for impacts related to population, housing, or employment. 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 5.14.1 FIRE PROTECTION Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 indicates that fire protection and emergency rescue and medical services for the Platinum Triangle project area are provided by the City of Anaheim Fire Department (AFD). According to FSEIR No. 339, although no fire stations currently exist within the Platinum Triangle project area, the two nearest stations are both located approximately one-half mile from the Platinum Triangle project area. Fire Station 7 (Stadium) is located along Ball Road east of State College Boulevard, and Fire Station 3 (Anaheim Resort) is located along Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue. AFD has plans to construct three new fire stations to serve the Platinum Triangle area: the Battalion Headquarters Station along Santa Cruz Street and north of Orangewood Avenue; a station in the north-central area of the Platinum Triangle; and one additional station in an undetermined location. FSEIR No. 339 indicated that due to the additional population, density, and usage generated by development of the Platinum Triangle, demand for emergency medical services, ambulance transportation, and rescue operations would increase. These increases would result in delayed response times for first engine response, and additional fire facilities were identified as necessary to provide adequate fire protection services. The impact on fire protection services is considered significant. Additional fire facilities and staff needed to serve the Platinum Triangle as a result of the increase in service demands would be funded through payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee as development within the Platinum Triangle progresses. FSEIR No. 339 found that with implementation of mitigation measures, no significant and unavoidable impacts to fire protection services were anticipated. Project Environmental Review As discussed previously, the proposed project is not anticipated to create new jobs nor would it directly or indirectly induce population growth; therefore, the anticipated number of service calls would be within the projections identified in FSEIR No. 339. No additional fire protection services beyond what was evaluated as part of FSEIR No. 339 would be required to serve the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would create the need for temporary detours, potentially limiting emergency vehicle access along Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed project site. However, only one side of Katella Avenue would be under construction at any time, and planned detours would allow for through traffic flow in both directions. Therefore, emergency access would be maintained at all times. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-20 Environmental Analysis Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the fire protection analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.14.2 POLICE SERVICES Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 indicates that the Platinum Triangle project area is served by the Anaheim Police Department (APD), which is divided into four districts and one police heliport. The Platinum Triangle project area is located within the South Police District. The two nearest police facilities are Main Station, located 3.5 miles west of the Platinum Triangle at 425 S. Harbor Boulevard, and South Station, located 3.6 miles west of the Platinum Triangle at 1520 Disneyland Drive. As of July 1, 2010, the APD is authorized for 370 sworn officers. Response times for calls are based on the nature of the call and are categorized as Priority One through Priority Five. The APD identified that development of the Platinum Triangle project area would create an increase in service calls, which would create a need for additional officers and support personnel, office space, vehicles and equipment, resulting in a significant impact. However, FSEIR No. 339 found that with implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts on police protection were expected. Project Environmental Review As discussed previously, the proposed project is not anticipated to create new jobs, nor would it directly or indirectly induce population growth; therefore, the anticipated number of service calls would be within the projections identified in FSEIR No. 339. No additional police protection services beyond what was evaluated as part of FSEIR No. 339 would be required to serve the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would create the need for temporary detours, potentially limiting emergency vehicle access along Katella Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed project site. However, only one side of Katella Avenue would be under construction at any one time, and planned detours would allow for through traffic flow in both directions. Therefore, emergency access would be maintained at all times. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-21 Environmental Analysis Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the police protection services analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.14.3 SCHOOL SERVICES Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 states that the Platinum Triangle project area is located within the boundaries of Anaheim City School District (ACSD) and Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) and within the attendance boundaries of Paul Revere Elementary School, South Junior High School, and Katella High School. It was determined that the Platinum Triangle project would generate new students within these school district boundaries that would necessitate the need for new school facilities. Additionally, the serving elementary school is located outside the boundaries of the Platinum Triangle project area; therefore, project implementation would create a need for additional buses and supporting services. However, implementation of mitigation measures, including payment of school impact fees in compliance with Senate Bill 50, would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Project Environmental Review As discussed previously, the proposed project is not anticipated to create new jobs, nor would it directly or indirectly induce population growth; therefore, the proposed project would not introduce additional school-aged children to the local school districts’ service areas. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the solid waste analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-22 Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.14.4 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Anaheim Public Library system consists of a central library, five branch libraries, and two bookmobiles. The nearest library facility to the Platinum Triangle project area is the Sunkist Branch Library at 901 South Sunkist Avenue. FSEIR No. 339 also identified that a joint use library with the Anaheim City School District was under construction at the time of EIR preparation. The population in the Platinum Triangle project area is also served by virtual Anaheim Library services through the network at the Central Library. According to FSEIR No. 339, implementation of the Platinum Triangle project would increase demand for library collections, staff, space, and services, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation. Privately owned and operated day care and child care centers are located throughout the City of Anaheim. It was determined that development of the Platinum Triangle project would increase the service needs for local day care facilities; however, because day care facilities are privately developed, owned, and operated, this impact would not be considered a significant impact. Project Environmental Review As discussed previously, the proposed project is not anticipated to create new jobs, nor would it directly or indirectly induce population growth; therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for library services beyond what was analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand for daycare or child care services beyond what was analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the other public facilities analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-23 Environmental Analysis 5.15 RECREATION Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Anaheim Community Services Department maintains parks and recreational facilities within the City of Anaheim. Within the Platinum Triangle project area, the recently constructed 0.77-acre Magnolia Park is the only existing park facility. Based on the City’s goal of providing 2 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, development of the Platinum Triangle project would require approximately 31 acres of parkland. According to FSEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle project area is located within an area largely classified as a Park Deficiency Area. Therefore, it was determined that development of the Platinum Triangle project would increase the demands on existing parks and recreational facilities that are already subject to overuse, resulting in a significant impact. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation; the dedication of property to the City for park and recreational facilities; the development and maintenance of pocket parks by the developer or homeowners’ associations; and the payment of enhanced park-in-lieu fees as required under Section 18.20.110 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code. Project Environmental Review As discussed previously, the proposed project would not create new jobs, nor would it directly or indirectly induce population growth; therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for recreational uses or park facilities beyond what was analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the parks analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 5.16.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Platinum Triangle project-related trip generation would impact levels of service for the area roadway system. 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-24 Environmental Analysis responsibility to do so, including Caltrans and the City of Orange, the Platinum Triangle project’s intersection, impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. According to FSEIR No. 339, 31 intersections were identified as impacted by the Platinum Triangle project and would require mitigation. After implementation of proposed improvements roadway widening, restriping, facility upgrades, etc.), all 31 locations and all intersections within the study area would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS). Additionally, mitigation measures were identified for four arterial segments in the City of Anaheim and six arterial segments in the City of Orange that would impacted by the Platinum Triangle project. Implementation of the recommended improvements were projected to reduce impacted intersections LOS to a less than significant level. However, mitigation measures recommended for 13 impacted intersections were determined to be infeasible and project impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable. Not all identified improvements would be 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. Additionally, it was anticipated that a number of improvements would have been 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 would lie with agencies other than the City of Anaheim City of Orange and Caltrans), the potential was identified 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) and the project’s traffic impact would remain significant. 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 was determined to 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 were 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 were identified as significant and unavoidable. 5.16.2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As previously discussed, the proposed project would widen Katella Avenue beneath the I‐5 to provide a fourth westbound through lane through the undercrossing, and a fifth lane between Anaheim Way and the I‐5 North on‐ramp. The additional capacity delivered with this proposed project will serve both passenger and transit vehicles destined to and from The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle, as evaluated in FSEIR No. 339. The following analysis is summarized from the Katella Avenue Undercrossing Improvements I‐5 Freeway from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way Project Traffic/Circulation Study prepared by Iteris (2012) and included as Appendix B. The proposed project would provide additional travel lanes along Katella Avenue to serve multimodal traffic and would not generate additional traffic volumes to the area roadway network. For purposes of the Traffic Impact Analysis, the study area is limited to the intersections and roadway segment within and at the ends of the proposed project limits. This ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-25 Environmental Analysis includes the intersections of Katella Avenue with Manchester Avenue/I‐5 Southbound Ramp and Anaheim Way, and the Katella Avenue roadway segment between the two intersections. All of the level of service (LOS) analyses for the analyzed intersections along Katella Avenue adjacent to the proposed project limits were performed using the software program to develop intersection capacity utilization (ICU) volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) results and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) delay‐based capacity results based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies. Queue estimates were also identified from the analysis results for the busiest AM or PM peak hour. Existing Conditions Intersection turning movement counts were collected in October 2011 along with hourly roadway segment volumes along Katella Avenue in September 2011. That count data was used as the baseline for the traffic analyses. Capacity analyses were conducted for the two intersections and the mid‐block segment of Katella Avenue. The analysis results indicate that the intersections and the roadway segment are currently operating at an acceptable LOS. Accident data for the last three years was also reviewed. No patterns of accidents were evident in the area based on data collected from Caltrans and the City of Anaheim. Future Without Project Conditions The opening year for the proposed project is Year 2013 and the horizon year for the analysis is Year 2035. Traffic forecasts were developed for each time period. Volumes for Year 2013 were developed by factoring the Year 2011 ground counts up by an annual growth factor of 4.68 percent, based on information provided by the City of Anaheim. The Year 2035 volume projections were developed by calculating the total growth from 2008 to 2030 that was listed in the traffic study prepared for the Platinum Triangle and factoring that growth to account for development and growth from 2011 to 2035. That growth value was determined using the existing counts as a base to generate Year 2035 traffic volumes at the two analyzed intersections and the connecting segment of Katella Avenue. The intersection capacity and roadway segment analyses indicate that in Year 2013, without implementation of the proposed project, both of the study area intersections and the roadway segment would operate at acceptable LOS. However, by Year 2035, if the completion of the Katella Avenue corridor widening identified in the Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program is not completed, the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Southbound I‐5 Off‐Ramp with Katella Avenue would have a failing LOS (LOS The intersection of Anaheim Way with Katella Avenue and the roadway segment to the west would operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) based on the V/C ratios. However, The Anaheim Way intersection is projected to have a failing LOS when analyzed with the HCM methodology. Existing and Future Plus Project Conditions The Existing, Year 2013, and Year 2035 intersection and roadway operating conditions were analyzed for all three years with implementation of the proposed project. The analyses indicate that for the Existing and Year 2013 scenarios with proposed project, the intersections and roadway segment would operate with acceptable LOS. For Year 2035 with proposed project, the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Southbound I‐5 Off‐Ramp with Katella Avenue would have a failing LOS. The segment of Katella Avenue between the intersections and the intersection of Anaheim Way with Katella Avenue would have ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-26 Environmental Analysis acceptable levels of service based on the V/C ratios. However, The Anaheim Way intersection is projected to have a failing LOS when analyzed with the HCM methodology. To improve the V/C ratios at the Manchester Avenue intersection to acceptable levels and improve the intersection delay values to LOS E or better, the full widening of both intersections as identified in the Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program would be required. The improvements require a fourth westbound through lane at the Anaheim Way intersection and a fourth through lane and second dedicated right‐turn lane on the eastbound approach of the Manchester Avenue intersection. Therefore, the proposed project will add needed capacity to the Katella Avenue corridor and will provide improved traffic conditions beyond 2013 to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes as analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. By Year 2035, the full improvements identified in the Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program would be required to maintain acceptable level of service and operating conditions. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System designation of the proposed project allows the forecast LOS E to meet the City of Anaheim Circulation Element provision that the LOS at CMP Highway System locations may be LOS E or better for CMP roadways and intersections. FSEIR No. 339 includes a list of public infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle project and surrounding areas, including the proposed street network and streetscape design and additional roadway widening to the east and west of the proposed project. These additional widening projects include: • Provide a fourth through lane and second dedicated right‐turn lane on the eastbound approach of the Manchester/I‐5 Off‐Ramp and Katella Avenue intersection. • Provide a fourth through lane on the westbound approach of the Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue intersection. The proposed project would not result in any new impacts beyond what was evaluated in FSEIR No. 339. Implementation of the proposed project would support use and development of alternative transportation, including transit and pedestrian transportation. Roadway widening will allow for more efficient transit movement via the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), Anaheim Resort Transit (ART), and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the proposed project would include the reconstruction of pedestrian walkways via the undercrossing. Due to the Smart Street designation of Katella Avenue, there are no striped or marked bicycle facilities within the proposed project. Bicycle facilities are planned along parallel facilities of Orangewood Avenue to the south and Cerritos Avenue and the Southern California Edison Easement to the north and the proposed project would not impede future development of these bicycle facilities. This segment of Katella Avenue is not a designated bicycle facility in the OCTA Bikeways Map. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-27 Environmental Analysis mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the transportation and circulation analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.17.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND COLLECTION Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 indicates that the Platinum Triangle project area is served by the City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer collection system, which is a tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Wastewater from City sewers is conveyed through to OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The Platinum Triangle project area is served by the Newhope-Placentia Trunk (State College Avenue), the Olive Subtrunk, the Orangewood Diversion Sewer, and the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line. Development of the Platinum Triangle was projected by FSEIR No. 339 to trigger the need for sewer improvements to accommodate project buildout. With implementation of these improvements, the sewer system was anticipated to accommodate development within the Platinum Triangle based on future buildout conditions. With implementation of the mitigation measures in FSEIR No. 339, no significant unavoidable impacts were identified. Further, it was determined that the potential for sewer spills during a ten-year storm event would be low and would not represent a significant impact. Project Environmental Review The proposed project would involve improvements to the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing. Proposed improvements would not increase the population within the City beyond what was previously assumed and, consequently, would not result in increased demand for wastewater services. The proposed project would not involve construction of any facilities that would generate wastewater and would not tie into the City’s sewer system; therefore, expected wastewater volumes would be within projections identified in FSEIR No. 339. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the wastewater analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-28 Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.17.2 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Water service is provided to the Platinum Triangle project area by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Division. As of 2007–2008, the majority of the City’s water (approximately 79 percent) is pumped from the local groundwater basin. Additional water is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The MWD contracts for water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River. According to FSEIR No. 339, buildout of the Platinum Triangle would result in a total water demand of 5,249 acre-feet per year. Comparison of projected demand and supply concluded that there are adequate water supplies to meet the water demand created by the Platinum Triangle project. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) concluded that there would be surplus water through the 20-year planning period. 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. According to FSEIR No. 339, compliance with Rule 15-D would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve the Platinum Triangle project. Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan would not adversely impact the water delivery system. Project Environmental Review The proposed project would involve improvements to the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing. Proposed improvements would not increase the population within the City beyond what was previously assumed and, consequently, would not result in increased demand for water. The proposed project would not involve construction of any facilities that would require water and would not tie into the City’s water system; therefore, expected demand for water would be within projections identified in FSEIR No. 339. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the water analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-29 Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. 5.17.3 STORM DRAIN Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to FSEIR No. 339, the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area (prepared in January 2006) identifies that the existing storm drainage system under the existing condition in the Platinum Triangle at the time of EIR preparation was deficient. The analysis determined that specific projects would be evaluated by the City Engineer to determine if they are located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities as identified in the appropriate drainage study; it also determined that the developments in the Platinum Triangle would be required to incorporate additional local systems into their plans 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 effect. Project Environmental Review As discussed previously in Section 5.9, the proposed project would widen Katella Avenue at the I-5 undercrossing. Under existing conditions, the area proposed for development is an impervious surface that functions as a roadway, sidewalk, and undercrossing structure. The proposed project would widen the roadway; however the amount of impervious area would remain similar to existing conditions. Therefore, the volume of runoff entering the storm drain system would be similar to existing conditions and would not exceed the volumes assumed and analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the storm drain analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-30 Environmental Analysis 5.17.4 SOLID WASTE Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to FSEIR No. 339, development of the Platinum Triangle would increase the service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions and would provide more solid waste to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. In total, development associated with the Platinum Triangle would generate 372,457 pounds (168 tons) of solid waste per day. However, the Orange County Landfill System has demonstrated this capacity and regularly imports solid waste from Los Angeles County. Therefore, it was determined that there would be available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfills to accommodate the anticipated solid waste stream generated by the Platinum Triangle development, individually and cumulatively. Additionally, implementation of the Platinum Triangle development would generate increased construction and operational solid waste in the area. However, it was determined that 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 would be 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. Project Environmental Review The proposed project would involve improvements to the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing. Due to the nature of the proposed use as a transportation facility, the proposed project is not expected to contribute a significant volume of waste to the City’s current solid waste stream. Consistent with the analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339, construction activities have the potential to generate construction-related waste; however, compliance with MM 5.17-1 would ensure that a significant impact would not occur. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the solid waste analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. The following measures from FSEIR No. 339 would also be applicable to the proposed project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. (Note that the measure number and section from FSEIR No. 339 are listed in parentheses). ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-31 Environmental Analysis MM 5.17-1 Prior to the 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 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 initiation of construction, the City shall include identificationidentify 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 City 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 (10-20). 5.17.5 ELECTRICITY Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to FSEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle’s electricity demand would be served by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD). Development of the Platinum Triangle would increase the electrical load on existing facilities and require upgrades to the existing 12 kilovolt distribution systems. A number of electric utility improvements were identified as either in the planning stages or would be required in the future to serve the Platinum Triangle development, including a new electrical substation. The APUD anticipates that impacts resulting from the Platinum Triangle project, assuming all identified improvements are implemented, would be within the expansion capabilities of the existing service and such expansion would not be detrimental to the environment. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that impact on electrical service would be considered less than significant. Project Environmental Review The proposed project involves improvements to the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing. Although the proposed project would include lighting, light standards would either be replaced or relocated from existing locations. The proposed project would not generate a significant new demand for electricity due to the nature of the proposed improvements. The amount of electricity required would not exceed the demand analyzed as part of FSEIR No. 339, and no new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the electricity analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-32 Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project. 5.17.6 NATURAL GAS Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 states that development of the Platinum Triangle would increase the natural gas demand in the Platinum Triangle project area and would require an additional 1.5 miles of transmission pipelines; placement of at least two additional pressure limiting stations; and alteration of at least three miles of existing gas mains in the area to increase capacity. FSEIR No. 339 identified that, with necessary system upgrades and facility improvements, the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) would be able to service the Platinum Triangle 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. Although the Platinum Triangle was found to create additional demands on natural gas supplies and distribution infrastructure, the increased demands would be within the service capabilities of SCG, provided necessary improvements are made in coordination with SCG. FSEIR No. 339 found that the Platinum Triangle development would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts to natural gas service or resources. Project Environmental Review The proposed project involves improvements to the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing. The proposed project would not involve any uses that would create new demand for natural gas; therefore, the amount of natural gas required would not exceed the demand analyzed as part of FSEIR No. 339. No new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the natural gas analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. The following measure from FSEIR No. 339 would also be applicable to the proposed project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. (Note that the measure number and section from FSEIR No. 339 are listed in parentheses). MM 5.17-2 The City shall coordinate all future street and infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle with other service providers, including Southern California ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-33 Environmental Analysis Gas Company and the Orange County Sanitation District so that required infrastructure upgrades maybe constructed concurrently (10-27). 5.17.7 COMMUNICATIONS Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to telephone service systems or cable television service were identified through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to telephone service systems or cable television service. Project Environmental Review The proposed project involves improvements to the Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing. Consistent with the analysis in FSEIR No. 339, none of the proposed project actions would affect telephone service; therefore, no new impacts would occur. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not propose substantial changes; would not have circumstantial changes when the project is undertaken; would bring about no new information of substantial importance which would create new significant impacts, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or introduce mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous documents. For these reasons, there are no major revisions required to the telephone service systems or cable television service analysis provided in FSEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measures FSEIR No. 339 presents mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the Platinum Triangle project to less than significant levels. However, none of the identified mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 5-34 Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 6-1 Summary of Findings SECTION 6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As demonstrated throughout this document, the proposed Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvement Project would not result in any impacts that are considered to be substantially different from or greater than the Platinum Triangle as evaluated in FSEIR No. 339. Because the proposed project would not meet any of the criteria identified in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent document, it can be concluded that the Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 is the appropriate document type for the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 6-2 Summary of Findings This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 7-1 References SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES Anaheim, City of. 2004 (May). Final Addendum General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330. Anaheim, CA: the City. California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DWR). 2010 (November 18, last updated). Frequently Asked Questions: General Information Questions. Sacramento, CA: DWR. http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/FAQAnswer/index.cfm #safety. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012 (January). Katella/I-5 Underpass Katella Avenue Anaheim, CA 92802. Milford, CT: EDR. Iteris. 2012 (January). Katella Avenue Undercrossing Improvements I-5 Freeway from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way Project Traffic/Circulation Study Anaheim, California. Santa Ana, CA: Iteris. Planning Center, The. 2010 (August). The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 SCH #[PHONE REDACTED]. Santa Ana, CA: The Planning Center. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993 (November, as revised). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD (Updates found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/hdbk.html). 2008 (October). Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx 7-2 References This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A REFERENCED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Katella Avenue/I-5 Undercrossing Improvements Project Addendum No. 1 to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 339 R:\Projects\MThomas\J001\Addendum-041712.docx A-1 Appendix A REFERENCED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS Document Name Environmental Impact Report Number Date Sportstown 320 May 30, 1996 Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP 321 March 2, 1999 General Plan and Zoning Code Update 330 May 25, 2004 Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone 332 October 25, 2005 Platinum Triangle Expansion Project 334 December 2007 and April 2008 Revision to the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project 339 December 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B TRAFFIC STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. December 19, 2011 Revised January 31, 2012 17‐J11‐1772 Submitted by: ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page i Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis DOCUMENT VERSION CONTROL Comment Date Version No. Draft for Review December 14, 2011 1.01 Final Draft December 19, 2011 1.02 Final Report January 31, 2012 1.03 File name: final report draft 1.02 12‐19‐11.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page ii Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Introduction 3 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION 3 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 2.3 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 3 2.4 STUDY AREA 4 3.0 Analysis Methodology 6 3.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES 6 3.2 INTERSECTIONS 8 3.3 ROADWAY SEGMENTS 9 3.4 CITY OF ANAHEIM THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 10 3.5 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 10 4.0 Existing Conditions 12 4.1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE 12 4.2 ACCIDENT DATA 14 4.3 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND USAGE 16 4.4 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES AND USAGE 16 5.0 Future Year Baseline (No‐Build) Traffic Operations 17 5.1 OPENING YEAR 2013 AND HORIZON YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS 17 5.2 OPENING YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 17 5.3 HORIZON YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 17 5.4 FUTURE YEAR INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS 18 5.5 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT ARTERIAL STREET TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 20 6.0 Existing and Future Year Plus Project Operating Conditions 21 6.1 TARGET LOS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS 21 6.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 21 6.3 OPENING YEAR 2013 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 21 6.4 HORIZON YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 22 6.5 FUTURE YEAR PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS 23 6.6 FUTURE PLUS PROJECT ARTERIAL STREET TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 24 6.7 ENHANCEMENTS TO ADDRESS FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS 24 7.0 Summary and Conclusions 26 8.0 Appendix 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page iii Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS (ICU) 7 TABLE 2: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS (HCM) 8 TABLE 3: ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS 9 TABLE 4: EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS 13 TABLE 5: EXISTING INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS 14 TABLE 6: EXISTING ROADWAY LOS 14 TABLE 7: TASAS TABLE B SUMMARY‐SELECTIVE ACCIDENT RATES CALCULATION ACCIDENT RATES 07/01/07 THROUGH 06/30/10 15 TABLE 8: YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS 17 TABLE 9: YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS 18 TABLE 10: FUTURE YEAR NO PROJECT INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS 19 TABLE 11: FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT ROADWAY LOS 20 TABLE 12: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS 21 TABLE 13: YEAR 2013 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS 22 TABLE 14: YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS 22 TABLE 15: FUTURE YEAR PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS 23 TABLE 16: FUTURE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY LOS 24 TABLE 17: YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT PLUS FULL KATELLA CORRIDOR WIDENING PER PLATINUM TRIANGLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS 25 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT VICINITY MAP 5 FIGURE 2: PROJECT STUDY INTERSECTIONS 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 1 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This report summarizes the analyses, findings, and recommendations of a traffic operations study for the Katella Avenue Undercrossing Improvements Project between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. It examines existing and future traffic operations in the project vicinity with and without the proposed arterial improvements. Project Location, Description, and Study Area This Katella Avenue undercrossing of Interstate 5 (I‐5) widening, the proposed project, is located in the City of Anaheim along Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. Widening of the Katella Avenue undercrossing of I‐5 to provide a fourth westbound through lane through the undercrossing, and a fifth lane between Anaheim Way and the I‐5 North on‐ramp is one of several projects identified to accommodate development of the mixed‐use Platinum Triangle. The additional capacity delivered with this project will serve both passenger and transit vehicles destined to and from The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle. The Project is providing additional travel lanes along Katella Avenue to serve multimodal traffic. It will not generate additional traffic volumes to the area roadway network. The study area is therefore limited to the intersections and roadway segment within and at the ends of the project limits. This includes the intersections of Katella Avenue with Manchester Avenue/I‐5 Southbound Ramp and Anaheim Way, and the Katella Avenue roadway segment between the two intersections. Methodology All of the level of service (LOS) analyses for the analyzed intersections along Katella Avenue adjacent to the project limits were performed using the software program to develop intersection capacity utilization (ICU) volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) results and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) delay‐based capacity results based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies. Queue estimates were also identified from the analysis results for the busiest AM or PM peak hour. Existing Conditions Intersection turning movement counts were collected in October 2011 along with hourly roadway segment volumes along Katella Avenue in September 2011. That count data was used as the baseline for the traffic analyses. Capacity analyses were conducted for the two intersections and the mid‐block segment of Katella Avenue. The analysis results indicate that the intersections and the roadway segment are operating at a acceptable LOS’. Accident data for the last three years was also reviewed. No patterns of accidents were evident in the area based on data collected from Caltrans and the City of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 2 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis Future Without Project Conditions The opening year for the Proposed Project is Year 2013 and the horizon year for the analysis is Year 2035. Traffic forecast were developed for each time period. Volumes for Year 2013 were developed by factoring the Year 2011 ground counts up by an annual growth factor of 4.68% based on information provided by the City of Anaheim. The Year 2035 volume projections were developed by calculating the total growth from 2008 to 2030 that was listed in the traffic study prepared for the Platinum Triangle and factoring that growth to account for development and growth from 2011 to 2035. That growth value was determined using the existing counts as a base to generate Year 2035 traffic volumes at the two analyzed intersections and the connecting segment of Katella Avenue. The intersection capacity and roadway segment analyses indicate that in Year 2013 both of the intersections and the roadway will operate at acceptable LOS’. However, by Year 2035 if the completion of the Katella Avenue corridor widening identified in the Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program is not completed the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Southbound I‐5 Off‐ Ramp with Katella Avenue will have a failing LOS (LOS The intersection of Anaheim Way with Katella Avenue and the roadway segment to the west will operate at acceptable LOS’ (LOS D or better) based on the V/C ratios. However, The Anaheim Way intersection is projected to have a failing LOS when analyzed with the HCM methodology. Existing and Future Plus Project Conditions The Existing, Year 2013, and Year 2035 intersection and roadway operating conditions were analyzed for all three years with the Proposed Project widening. The analyses indicate that for the Existing and Year 2013 scenarios the intersections and roadway segment will operate with acceptable LOS’. For Year 2035, the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Southbound I‐5 Off‐Ramp with Katella Avenue will have a failing LOS. The segment of Katella Avenue between the intersections and the intersection of Anaheim Way with Katella Avenue will have acceptable levels of service based on the V/C ratios. However, The Anaheim Way intersection is projected to have a failing LOS when analyzed with the HCM methodology. To improve the V/C ratios at the Manchester Avenue intersection to acceptable levels and improve the intersection delay values to LOS E or better, the full widening of both intersections as identified in the Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program will be required. Those improvements call out a fourth westbound through lane at the Anaheim Way intersection and a fourth through lane and second dedicated right‐turn lane on the eastbound approach of the Manchester Avenue intersection. Summary The Proposed Project will add capacity to the Katella Avenue corridor and will provide improved traffic conditions beyond 2013. By Year 2035, the full improvements identified in the Platinum Triangle Mitigation Monitoring Program will be required to maintain acceptable level of service and operating conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 3 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 2.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the analyses, findings, and recommendations of a traffic operations study for the Katella Avenue Undercrossing Improvements Project between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. The Katella Avenue Undercrossing Improvements Project is a mitigation measure within FEIR 339, which identified that widening to an 8‐lane Stadium Smart Street would improve the forecast 2030 LOS F conditions to LOS E. Existing and future year 2035 traffic operations are examined in the project vicinity with and without the proposed arterial improvements. The analyses are intended to demonstrate the improved capacity and reduced vehicular delay resulting with project implementation. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION This Katella Avenue undercrossing of Interstate 5 (I‐5) widening, the proposed project, is located in the City of Anaheim along Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. Figure 1 illustrates its regional context as a gateway from I‐5 to both The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Widening of the Katella Avenue underpass of I‐5 adding a fourth westbound through lane through the underpass, and a fifth lane between Anaheim Way and the I‐5 North on‐ramp is one of several projects identified to accommodate development of the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle is approximately 820 acres in size. It is approved for a mixed‐use development centered by a major intercity/commuter railroad station, and is planned to provide multimodal travel options. The additional capacity delivered with this project will serve both passenger and transit vehicles destined to and from The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan relies on the established Community Facilities District to fund backbone infrastructure, including this project. This widening is programmed for 2013. 2.3 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The City of Anaheim completed the Platinum Triangle Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 in 2010. EIR No. 339 and the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle are the basis for the public infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle project and surrounding areas described herein, including the proposed street network and streetscape design. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 4 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 2.4 STUDY AREA The Project is adding a fourth westbound through lane through the underpass, and a fifth lane between Anaheim Way and the I‐5 North on‐ramp along Katella Avenue to serve multimodal traffic. It will not generate additional traffic volumes to the area roadway network. Rather it is intended to accommodate additional person trips that will be generated with approved new development in the Platinum Triangle. In view of the regional growth forecast for over 300,000 new population in Orange County by 2035, the City of Anaheim gained approval of FEIR 339 for the continued development of the Platinum Triangle to accommodate future market demand via transit oriented development. This Katella Avenue widening project is a mitigation measure of the FEIR. Trips generated by the new Platinum Triangle development of 18,909 residential units, 4.9 million square feet (msf) of commercial, 14.3 msf of office, and 1.5 msf of institutional uses were forecast to require the need for the additional lanes to be constructed with this Project. The Platinum Triangle’s creation of urban density to accommodate future growth is a key component of the Regional Sustainable Communities Strategy. This project is planned to serve person trips by both vehicle and bus transit. In addition to the existing OCTA local bus service along Katella Avenue, new Rapid Bus service is planned for operation starting in 2018. Further, the City is exploring supplemental person trip capacity parallel with Katella Avenue through the Anaheim Resort Connector fixed guideway. Induced demand concerns that are often raised with new lane capacity are greatly reduced with this Katella Avenue widening project. The Intelligent Transportation Society of California has dialogued the induced demand issue with representatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club (the latter organization is on record as supporting The Platinum Triangle development). The definition of sustainable transportation was agreed to as "Meeting, and sometimes re‐defining, the mobility needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs". The NRDC challenged the transportation profession to redefine mobility needs by addressing the EPA belief that as much as 80% of capacity improvements may be wiped out over time by induced demand. The requested redefinition called for the transportation profession to leap from managing capacity to promote managing demand. Starting points suggested were for consideration of deployments for toll collection, parking availability and price information, real time travel information to inform motorists of travel time and travel mode choices, and transit arrival information such as connecting modes "Development Oriented Transit" shuttles, and bicycle rental availability). Separate from but related to this project are demand management programs planned with the OCTA Rapid Bus, Anaheim Resort Transit connections with commuter and intercity train service, and Caltrans use ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 5 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis of freeway Changeable Message Signs to inform motorists of real time comparative travel time information between vehicle and rail. The study area is therefore limited to the intersections and roadway segment within and at the ends of the project limits. This includes the intersections of Katella Avenue with Manchester Avenue/I‐5 Southbound Ramps and Anaheim Way, and the Katella Avenue roadway segment between the two intersections. The locations of the study intersections and roadway links are shown in Figure 2. FIGURE 1: PROJECT VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: PROJECT STUDY INTERSECTIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 6 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 3.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY All of the LOS analyses for the selected intersections along Katella Avenue adjacent to the project limits were performed using the software program to develop intersection capacity utilization (ICU) volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) results and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) delay‐based capacity results based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies. All HCM intersection calculations include capacities based on data in Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual¸ Sixth Edition, September 1, 2006. The analysis of the traffic operations and queues at the intersections was conducted using the microsimulation program Version 7. The queue estimates identified from the analysis results are the 95th percentile queue for the busiest AM or PM peak hour. 3.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES The efficiency of traffic operations at a location is measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a description of traffic performance at intersections. The LOS concept is a measure of average operating conditions at intersections and roadway segments. Levels range from to with representing excellent (free‐flow) conditions and representing extreme congestion. Specific criteria are used to define LOS for different types of facilities as discussed below. In order to evaluate traffic impacts within the immediate vicinity of the project, the following level of service (LOS) analyses were performed: • Peak‐hour signalized intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis • Arterial segment daily analysis • Arterial segment peak hour analysis 3.1.1 ICU ANALYSIS The City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires a volume‐to‐ capacity ratio of 0.90, or LOS D, as the lowest acceptable service level at intersections. Intersections that operate at a level of service below LOS D are deemed to be operating at insufficient levels. However, the City’s Circulation Element establishes that the LOS at Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System locations may be LOS E or better for CMP ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 7 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis roadways and intersections. As illustrated in the image, this project is a part of the CMP Highway System. The CMP is required per California Government Code Section 65089(b) to include Traffic Level of Service Standards for a system of highways and roadways designated by OCTA. It includes the Project area. The LOS must not be below level of service The City requires study area intersections to be evaluated through intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis that compares forecast peak‐hour traffic volumes to intersection capacity. A minimum clearance interval of 0.05 in association with lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes was assumed for the ICU calculations. Table 1 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. 3.1.2 HCM ANALYSIS In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The level of service analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The HCM‐based delay and LOS values are shown in Table 2. TABLE 1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS (ICU) LOS Interpretation Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) A Very low delay. Most vehicles do not stop at the intersection. 0.00 – 0.60 B More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher delays. 0.61 – 0.70 C The number of vehicles stopping becomes significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 0.71 – 0.80 D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. 0.81 – 0.90 E Results in delay considered to be unacceptable. 0.91 – 1.00 F Considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, when arriving traffic exceeds the capacity at the intersection. Over 1.00 Source: City of Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 8 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 2: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS (HCM) LOS Interpretation Signalized Intersection Delay (seconds) A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. ≤10 B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. >10 and ≤20 C Good operation. Occasionally backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. >20 and ≤35 D Fair operation. There are no long‐standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. >35 and ≤55 E Poor operation. Some long‐standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches. >55 and ≤80 F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movements of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop‐and‐go type traffic flow. >80 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 3.2 INTERSECTIONS 3.2.1 CITY OF ANAHEIM GUIDELINE The City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires a volume‐to‐ capacity ratio of 0.90, or LOS D, as the lowest acceptable service level at intersections. Intersections that operate at a level of service below LOS D are deemed to be operating at insufficient levels. The City requires study area intersections to be evaluated through intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis that compares forecast peak hour traffic volumes to intersection capacity. A minimum clearance interval of 0.05 in association with lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes was assumed for the ICU calculations. 3.2.2 CALTRANS GUIDELINE The two analyzed intersections are under the control of Caltrans and were analyzed in (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology per Caltrans requirements. Lane configurations and various other parameters such as signal timing were based on current operating characteristics. Future lane configurations were assumed for the No Project and With Project scenarios per Anaheim General Plan buildout conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 9 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 3.3 ROADWAY SEGMENTS 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. The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis identified in Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine level of service under peak hour traffic volumes on deficient daily segments. The peak hour link analysis determines directional AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for each link that exceeds the daily LOS threshold. The peak hour capacity is determined by using Equation 15‐7 of the HCM, multiplying the mid‐block number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, then multiplied by the percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersection for that arterial segment. The percentage of green time is estimated by dividing the directional V/C ratios by the total V/C ratio at signalized intersections along the arterial segment. The highest resulting percentage is the estimated percentage of green time for that arterial segment. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements should be considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. LOS analysis of forecast daily traffic volumes was applied to the Katella Avenue segment. The City of Anaheim has established maximum road capacities for various roadway street classifications as shown in Table 3. The maximum roadway capacities are based on daily traffic volume, number of lanes and roadway classifications. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. TABLE 3: ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Lane Configuration LOS E (V/C=1.0) 8‐lane divided 75,000 6‐lane divided 56,300 4‐lane divided 37,500 4‐lane undivided 25,000 2‐lane undivided 12,500 Source: City of Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 10 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 3.4 CITY OF ANAHEIM THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Circulation Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan sets LOS D as the threshold for an acceptable service level for intersections. The City of Anaheim considers LOS C as the maximum acceptable service level of roadway segments. However, the Project is on the Orange County CMP highway system and the City of Anaheim Growth Management Element establishes that the Project segment maximum acceptable LOS, as part of the CMP Highway System, operate at not worse than LOS E. For City of Anaheim arterial segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. Because this project will increase roadway capacity and will not generate any additional volumes it by definition would not have a significant impact on the Katella Avenue. 3.5 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES The future traffic growth for this analysis are based on the volumes derived for and presented in the Draft Traffic Study Report, August 2010 prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff for The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project and on traffic counts conducted on Wednesday, October 26, 2011. The Platinum Triangle traffic study used the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to analyze existing conditions (2008) and Year 2030. The future horizon year for this analysis will be 2035 with a projected project opening year of 2013. To provide a consistent analysis with the Platinum Triangle study, the growth projected in that study between 2008 and 2030 was applied here in addition to an additional amount of growth to additional background growth from 2030 to 2035. Volumes for Year 2013 were developed by applying an annual growth factor. 3.5.1 YEAR 2013 TRAFFIC GROWTH The growth in traffic volumes from 2011 (existing year) and 2013 (project opening year) was based on projected growth rates for the area provided by the City of Anaheim based on information derived during the Platinum Triangle study and the ATAM model. Based on that data, the annual short‐term growth rate in background traffic is about 4.68% per year. That factor was applied to the existing intersection volumes to estimate the 2 years of traffic growth from 2011 to 2013. 3.5.2 YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC GROWTH The year 2035 traffic volume projections will include growth in background volumes and the development of the Platinum Triangle area consistent with the information provided in the ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 11 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis August 2010 Draft Traffic Study Report. As previously noted, the Platinum Triangle Traffic Study projected future conditions out to Year 2030. Therefore, an additional amount growth needed to be applied to the 2030 values to estimate Year 2035 traffic volume levels. The Year 2035 traffic volumes were developed in a three step process. The first was to subtract the existing traffic volumes shown in the Platinum Triangle report from that study’s Year 2030 volumes. This difference is the total projected growth from 2008 to 2030, including both Platinum Triangle project traffic and other background growth. The second step was to add that difference to the Year 2011 intersection volumes. The sum is the updated Year 2030 projected volumes based on a Year 2011 base. This value essentially assumes that the previously projected growth that would have occurred between 2008 and 2030 will now happen between 2011 and 2030. The third step is to adjust the Year 2030 values to Year 2035. Based on data from the City of Anaheim, the Year 2030 volumes were multiplied by a factor of 1.0242 (2.42% total growth) to develop the Year 2035 values. This factor was based on previous work conducted by and for the City, including the traffic analyses for the Gene Autry Extension project. Worksheets showing the intersection volume tabulations are provided in the Appendix. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 12 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the existing intersection level of service based on current weekday traffic volume counts and the previously described methodologies. The existing conditions analysis establishes the framework for the future forecasts for the Proposed Project. The analysis is based on existing intersection and arterial segment traffic counts on a typical weekday in 2011. Traffic flow is measured and analyzed on a weekday daily basis for roadway segments, and during weekday peak hours for intersections. Roadway segment traffic flow is measured at mid‐ block locations to determine the overall level of travel demand and LOS. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) values are developed that represent the typical daily traffic flow on each analyzed segment. During the peak hours, intersection traffic volumes are counted to determine the operating conditions during the peak hours of travel demand. Typically, intersection traffic demand is measured for the peak morning (7 to 9 AM) and afternoon (4 to 6 PM) commute peak periods. Then the single busiest hour in each period is determined and used to develop intersection LOS estimates. Each study intersection was field reviewed to determine the geometric characteristics including the number of lanes on each intersection approach by type (through lanes, left turn lanes, right turn lanes and shared lanes), type of traffic control and other relevant information. Existing intersection counts were collected on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at the two study intersections. Existing roadway segment counts were conducted from Thursday, September 22, 2011 to Wednesday, September 28, 2011. The existing conditions analysis reflects these count volumes as well as existing lane configurations for all circulation system elements in the study area. Traffic count sheets are provided in the Appendix. The intersection volumes were compared with other recent traffic count data provided by the City and were found to be similar to the counts used in the report. The data at the Manchester/Katella intersection was also compared to the ramp data in the Caltrans PeMS system. While the count data is reasonable, a direct comparison was not possible since the detector for the PeMS system is located prior to the split between southbound Manchester traffic lanes and the southbound loop off‐ramp to Katella Avenue. Therefore, the southbound I‐5 off‐ramp PeMS volumes are higher volumes during both peak periods and without data for the Manchester Street exit the exact value for the Katella ramp is not known. 4.1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE 4.1.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 4.1.1.1 CITY OF ANAHEIM The AM and PM peak‐hour level of service analyses were conducted at the two analyzed intersections. Using the ICU and HCM methodologies, the level of service analysis was performed using the software, version 7. Table 4 illustrates the current intersection LOS ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 13 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis at each study intersection. The analysis results indicate that with both the ICU and HCM methodologies, the intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours are operating at acceptable levels of service. 4.1.1.2 CALTRANS Per Caltrans requirements, the two analyzed intersections were analyzed in (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology per Caltrans requirements. Lane configurations and various other parameters such as signal timing were based on current operating characteristics. Future lane configurations were assumed for the No Project and With Project scenarios per Anaheim General Plan buildout conditions. Table 4 also presents Caltrans HCM intersection delay and LOS results. TABLE 4: EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS 1 Manchester Street and Katella Avenue ICU 0.59 B 0.58 B HCM 22.4 C 19.6 B 2 Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue ICU 0.42 A 0.60 B HCM 21.8 C 26.6 C Source: Iteris, Inc. 4.1.2 EXISTING RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS Table 5 presents the off‐ramp queue and control delay determined by for the intersections of Katella Avenue at the Southbound Off‐Ramp /Manchester Avenue intersection under Existing conditions. The analysis indicates that the intersection does not have a queue length that is greater than the existing off‐ramp approach storage length. 4.1.3 ROADWAY SEGMENT Table 6 summarizes the existing LOS for the segment of Katella Avenue between the Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way intersections based on the V/C ratio standards from the City of Anaheim. LOS capacity values were used to determine the volume‐to‐capacity value for each segment. The results indicate that the roadway segment is operating at LOS A. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 14 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 5: EXISTING INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS Intersection Off‐Ramp # of Lanes / Off‐Ramp Storage / Queues Intersection Control Delay (sec) Deficient? L T R L T R Katella / Manchester / I‐5 # of Lanes 1.5 ‐ 1.5 Queue Storage (ft) 720 720 1,710 AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 43 76 70 53.0 19.7 18.4 No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 70 65 58 58.2 20.4 18.0 No Katella / Anaheim Way # of Lanes 1.5 3 0.5 Queue Storage (ft) 1,540 1,060 ‐ AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 295 213 ‐ 46.7 38.1 ‐ No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 348 271 ‐ 38.7 33.2 ‐ No Source: Iteris, Inc. TABLE 6: EXISTING ROADWAY LOS Street Location Street Classification Lanes Daily Volume LOS Capacity V/C LOS Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Manchester Avenue Major Arterial 6 28,650 56,300 0.51 A Source: Iteris, Inc. 4.2 ACCIDENT DATA 4.2.1 CALTRANS ACCIDENT DATA Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis Systems (TASAS) data was collected for the southbound on and off ramps and the northbound on ramp. The northbound off ramp is located several hundred feet from the project area and was therefore not analyzed. The actual accident rates are compared with average accident rates for similar highway facilities throughout the state. The accident histories on the three analyzed ramps are less than the average accident rates based upon the statewide averages with the exception of the northbound on‐ramp from Katella Avenue. A review of the types of accidents and primary collision factors involved at that ramp does not indicate that the current intersection design has contributed to higher than average accident rates. Table 7 summarizes the TASAS Table B accident data. Summaries of the accident data are provided in the Appendix. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 15 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis Of the accidents that occurred at the Northbound Katella On‐Ramp, only two occurred at the intersection with Katella Avenue. Both of those accidents occurred outside of the peak hours. One involved a rear end collision. The other was a broadside collision with one driver failing to yield the right‐of‐way. Neither accident was contributed to by the geometrics of the intersection or would be affected by the proposed Project or ultimate design of the intersection.. The Caltrans TASAS Table C data identifying potential investigation locations was also reviewed and it was found that no locations were identified in the project vicinity. TABLE 7: TASAS TABLE B SUMMARY‐SELECTIVE ACCIDENT RATES CALCULATION ACCIDENT RATES 07/01/07 THROUGH 06/30/10 Location Post Mile Statistical Data Actual Accident Rates Average Accident Rates Number of Accidents Fatal Injury Total Fatal Fatal + Injury Total Fatal Fatal + Injury Southbound On Ramp From Katella PM 36.088 6 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.12 Southbound Off Ramp To Katella PM 36.385 6 0 2 1.00 0.00 0.33 1.10 0.00 0.36 Northbound On Ramp From Katella PM 36.491 6 0 2 1.14 0.00 0.38 0.75 0.00 0.26 Source: Caltrans TASAS Table B – Selective Accident Rate Calculation Accident rates are expressed as accidents per million vehicle miles travelled. 4.2.2 CITY OF ANAHEIM TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DATA Accident data was also collected from the City of Anaheim Police Department for the segment of Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way, including the intersections. The accident data covered the most recent three year period available, from December 1, 2007 to November 30, 2010. The data indicated that seven accidents occurred at or in the vicinity of the Manchester Avenue intersection. Five of the seven accidents were rear end accidents, which typically occur because of congested conditions or other factors including unsafe speeds. None of the accidents occurred during the commuter peak hours and no pattern of accidents was evident from the data. Near the Anaheim Way intersection, five accidents occurred during the survey period with three of the five accidents involving rear end collisions. Only one of the accidents occurred during the peak hours and no pattern of accidents were evident from the data. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 16 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis The proposed project should improve accident conditions within the project limits by providing additional roadway capacity and will not significantly change the configuration of either intersection in a manner that would negatively affect accident rates or frequencies. 4.3 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND USAGE Pedestrian activity counts were also conducted at the two study intersections along Katella Avenue to determine the level of pedestrian activity and the need for any additional pedestrian accommodations in the future. The pedestrian counts were conducted during the AM and PM peak periods. Summary tables of the pedestrian count results are provided in the Appendix. The counts showed that there is currently limited pedestrian activity at the study intersections in the study area. 4.4 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES AND USAGE Bicycle usage in encouraged within the City of Anaheim. However, due to the Smart Street designation of Katella Avenue, there are no striped or marked bicycle facilities within the project. Bicycle facilities are planned along parallel facilities of Orangewood Avenue to the south and the Union Pacific (UP) rail line to the north. This segment of Katella Avenue is not a designated bicycle facility in the OCTA Bikeways Map. Bicycle activity counts were conducted at the two analyzed intersections and the results indicate that some bicyclists do utilize the area streets, but overall bicycle activity in the area during the peak hours is relatively low. Summary tables of the bicycle activity count results are provided in the Appendix. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 17 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 FUTURE YEAR BASELINE (NO‐BUILD) TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 5.1 OPENING YEAR 2013 AND HORIZON YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS As previously discussed, traffic volume projections for the project’s opening year 2013 and the horizon year 2035 were developed using an annual growth factor for the opening Year 2013 traffic volume estimates and the Platinum Triangle incremental growth projections plus an annual growth factor for the horizon Year 2035. A summary table of the traffic growth projections is included in the Appendix. 5.2 OPENING YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The traffic analyses results listed in Table 8 for Year 2013 Without Project show that both analyzed intersections will be operating at good levels of service using both the ICU and HCM methodologies. Under the ICU methodology the intersections will operate at LOS A and B. The intersection LOS values using the HCM methodology is LOS C. TABLE 8: YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS 1 Manchester Street and Katella Avenue ICU 0.62 B 0.62 B HCM 23.7 C 28.8 C 2 Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue ICU 0.45 A 0.64 B HCM 22.3 C 30.0 C Source: Iteris, Inc. 5.3 HORIZON YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The traffic analyses results listed in Table 9 for Year 2035 without the Project show that the intersection of Manchester Avenue/I‐5 Off‐Ramp and Katella Avenue will having a failing level of service with both the ICU and HCM methodologies. The intersection of Anaheim Way with Katella Avenue is projected to operate with an acceptable level of service based on the ICU methodology, but would have a failing level of service in the PM peak hour under the HCM methodology. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 18 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 9: YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS 1 Manchester Street and Katella Avenue ICU 1.27 F 1.17 F HCM 191.4 F 130.1 F 2 Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue ICU 0.77 C 0.87 D HCM 46.0 D 166.1 F Source: Iteris, Inc. 5.4 FUTURE YEAR INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS Table 10 presents the off‐ramp queue and control delay determined by for the off‐ramp termini at the intersections under Future Without Project conditions. Detailed queuing analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix. The analysis indicates that no Caltrans intersection ramp approaches have a queue length that is greater than the existing off‐ramp storage length. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 19 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 10: FUTURE YEAR NO PROJECT INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS Intersection Off‐Ramp # of Lanes / Off‐Ramp Storage / Queues Intersection Control Delay (sec) Deficient? L T R L T R Katella / Manchester / I‐5 # of Lanes 1.5 ‐ 1.5 Queue Storage (ft) 720 720 1,710 Year 2013 AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 44 81 72 52.6 19.7 18.1 No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 74 69 61 58.6 20.1 17.7 No Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 128 393 376 47.1 56.8 54.3 No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 242 137 68 69.2 28.7 11.9 No Katella / Anaheim Way # of Lanes 1.5 3 0.5 Queue Storage (ft) 1,540 1,060 ‐ Year 2013 AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 308 225 ‐ 43.8 36.6 ‐ No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 388 306 ‐ 37.7 32.0 ‐ No Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 416 314 ‐ 37.6 32.1 ‐ No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 803 576 ‐ 54.3 38.2 No Source: Iteris, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 20 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 5.5 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT ARTERIAL STREET TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Table 11 summarizes the Future Without Project LOS for the segment of Katella Avenue between the Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way intersections based on the V/C ratio standards from the City of Anaheim. LOS capacity values were used to determine the volume‐to‐capacity value for each segment. The results indicate that the roadway segment will be over capacity with the current six‐lane cross‐section. TABLE 11: FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT ROADWAY LOS Street Location Street Classification Lanes Daily Volume LOS Capacity V/C LOS Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Manchester Avenue Major Arterial Year 2013 6 28,880 56,300 0.51 A Year 2035 6 72,800 56,300 1.35 F Source: Iteris, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 21 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE YEAR PLUS PROJECT OPERATING CONDITIONS 6.1 TARGET LOS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS The target LOS for the analyzed intersections is LOS D based on the ICU analysis results as was previously discussed. At locations where the LOS D threshold cannot be met after the project is completed alternative strategies and/or longer‐term concepts have been suggested to address future needs. 6.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The traffic analyses results listed in Table 12 for Year 2013 Plus Project show that both analyzed intersections will be operating at good levels of service using both the ICU and HCM methodologies. Under the ICU methodology the intersections will operate at LOS A and B. The intersection LOS values using the HCM methodology are LOS B and C. TABLE 12: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS 1 Manchester Street and Katella Avenue ICU 0.59 B 0.58 B HCM 22.3 C 19.3 B 2 Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue ICU 0.42 A 0.60 B HCM 21.6 C 26.6 C Source: Iteris, Inc. 6.3 OPENING YEAR 2013 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The traffic analyses results listed in Table 13 for Year 2013 Plus Project show that both analyzed intersections will be operating at good levels of service using both the ICU and HCM methodologies. Under the ICU methodology the intersections will operate at LOS A and B. The intersection LOS values using the HCM methodology is LOS C. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 22 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 13: YEAR 2013 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS 1 Manchester Street and Katella Avenue ICU 0.62 B 0.62 B HCM 23.7 C 18.9 B 2 Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue ICU 0.44 A 0.64 B HCM 22.1 C 29.9 C Source: Iteris, Inc. 6.4 HORIZON YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS With Project widening only no further widening of Katella Avenue east of Anaheim Way) the traffic analyses results listed in Table 14 for Year 2035 Plus Project show that the intersection of Manchester Avenue/I‐5 Off‐Ramp and Katella Avenue will having a failing level of service under with both the ICU and HCM methodologies. The intersection of Anaheim Way with Katella Avenue is projected to operate with an acceptable level of service based on the ICU methodology, but would have a failing level of service in the PM peak hour under the HCM methodology. TABLE 14: YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS 1 Manchester Street and Katella Avenue ICU 1.27 F 1.17 F HCM 190.8 F 137.3 F 2 Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue ICU 0.65 B 0.87 D HCM 35.8 D 103.2 F Source: Iteris, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 23 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 6.5 FUTURE YEAR PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS Table 15 presents the off‐ramp queue and control delay determined by for the off‐ramp termini at the intersections under Future Plus Project conditions. Detailed queuing analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix. The analysis indicates that no Caltrans Ramp intersections have a queue length that is greater than the existing off‐ramp storage length. TABLE 15: FUTURE YEAR PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS Intersection Off‐Ramp # of Lanes / Off‐Ramp Storage / Queues Intersection Control Delay (sec) Deficient? L T R L T R Katella / Manchester / I‐5 # of Lanes 1.5 ‐ 1.5 Queue Storage (ft) 720 720 1,710 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 43 76 70 53.0 19.7 18.4 No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 70 65 58 58.2 20.4 18.0 No Year 2013 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 44 81 72 52.6 19.7 18.1 No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 74 69 61 58.6 20.1 17.7 No Year 2035 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 128 393 376 47.1 56.8 54.3 No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 281 146 67 74.5 31.7 11.9 No Katella / Anaheim Way # of Lanes 1.5 3 0.5 Queue Storage (ft) 1,540 1,060 ‐ Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 295 213 ‐ 46.7 38.1 ‐ No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 348 271 ‐ 38.7 33.2 ‐ No Year 2013 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 308 225 ‐ 43.8 36.6 ‐ No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 388 305 ‐ 37.7 32.0 ‐ No Year 2035 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 416 314 ‐ 37.6 32.1 ‐ No PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft) / Delay 930 742 ‐ 130.2 111.8 No Source: Iteris, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 24 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 6.6 FUTURE PLUS PROJECT ARTERIAL STREET TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Table 16 summarizes the Future Without Project LOS for the segment of Katella Avenue between the Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way intersections based on the V/C ratio standards from the City of Anaheim. LOS capacity values were used to determine the volume‐to‐capacity value for each segment. The results indicate that with the proposed widening of this segment of Katella Avenue to eight lanes the roadway segment will operate at an LOS E. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System designation of the project allows the forecast LOS E to meet the City of Anaheim Circulation Element provision that the LOS at CMP Highway System locations may be LOS E or better for CMP roadways and intersections. The forecast year 2035 LOS E daily conditions along the widened segment of Katella Avenue resulting with the forecast 72,800 year 2035 vehicle trips do not consider mode shift opportunities that are being planned for the area. New OCTA Rapid Bus service, currently planned for year 2018, will attract person trips and reduce vehicle trips. Similar consideration of increased Anaheim Resort Transit service may also be expected to reduce vehicle demands. TABLE 16: FUTURE PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY LOS Street Location Street Classification Lanes Daily Volume LOS Capacity V/C LOS Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Manchester Avenue Major Arterial Year 2013 8 28,880 75,000 0.39 A Year 2035 8 72,800 75,000 0.97 E Source: Iteris, Inc. 6.7 ENHANCEMENTS TO ADDRESS FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS The Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle includes a list of public infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle project and surrounding areas, including the proposed street network and streetscape design and additional roadway widening to the east and west of the Proposed Project. These additional widening projects include: • Provide a fourth through lane and second dedicated right‐turn lane on the eastbound approach of the Manchester/I‐5 Off‐Ramp and Katella Avenue intersection. • Provide a fourth through lane on the westbound approach of the Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 25 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis Analyses were conducted with these additional roadway improvements in place. With the completion of these additional roadway lane additions, as listed in Table 17, both of the analyzed intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better based on the ICU methodology. Based on the HCM methodology, both intersections would operate at LOS E or better. With the addition of other corridor operations measures the delay values at the intersections would be reduced. The analyses conducted for this evaluation assumed that the intersections would operate with their existing traffic signal timing parameters. TABLE 17: YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT PLUS FULL KATELLA CORRIDOR WIDENING PER PLATINUM TRIANGLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS 1 Manchester Street and Katella Avenue With Proposed Project Only ICU 1.27 F 1.17 F HCM 190.8 F 137.3 F With Full Corridor Widening – 4th Thru Lane and 2nd Right‐Turn Lane on EB Approach ICU 0.90 E 0.87 D HCM 73.2 E 63.9 E 2 Anaheim Way and Katella Avenue With Proposed Project Only ICU 0.65 B 0.87 D HCM 35.8 D 103.2 F With Full Corridor Widening – 4th Thru Lane on WB Approach ICU 0.65 B 0.87 D HCM 35.6 D 79.4 E Source: Iteris, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 26 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The results of the traffic capacity analyses, queuing analyses, and arterial daily traffic analyses all indicate that the intersections of Katella Avenue with Manchester Avenue /I‐5 Off‐Ramps and Anaheim Way currently operate and will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service at the Project’s opening. By Year 2035, the increase in traffic volumes generated by area growth and the development of the Platinum Triangle land uses will create failing intersection operating conditions unless the full widening of Katella Avenue is completed as it is proposed in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle. With completion of the planned widening, the CMP Highway System required LOS E will be achieved for both daily and peak period conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- KATELLA AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS I‐5 FREEWAY FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO ANAHEIM WAY PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION STUDY Ver. 1.03 Page 27 Mark Thomas & Company Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 APPENDIX A. 2011 Traffic Count Worksheets – Intersection Turning Movement and Roadway Segment Volumes B. Future Year Traffic Volume Development Worksheets C. Analysis Worksheets D. Caltrans and City of Anaheim Accident Summary Worksheets ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 CEQA Action: Addendum to Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 Terms and Definitions 1. Property Owner/Developer − Any owner or developer of real property within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 2. Environmental Equivalent/Timing − Any mitigation measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent timing” and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City’s adopted Fee Schedule. 3. Timing − This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will occur because routine City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is “to be shown on approved building plans” subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensure compliance. 4. Responsibility for Monitoring − Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure. 5. Ongoing Mitigation Measures − The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year demonstrating how compliance with the subject measure(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored “Ongoing During Construction,” the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring; monitoring will be discontinued after construction is completed. A final annual letter will be provided at the close of construction. 6. Building Permit − For purposes of this Mitigation Monitoring Plan, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building, but shall not include any permits required for interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building. UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 106C FOR KATELLA AVENUE/I-5 UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion AIR QUALITY MM 5.3-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer City 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. 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. 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. c. The contractor shall utilize existing power sources power poles) or clean- fuel generators rather than temporary diesel-power generators, where feasible (FSEIR No. 339 MM 2-1). South Coast Air Quality Management District; Public Works Department, Construction Services Division; Planning Department, Planning Services Division MM 5.3-2 Ongoing during grading and construction, Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer City 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 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: d. During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall re-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. e. During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers to on-site haul roads to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 85 percent compared to travel on unpaved, untreated roads. f. The property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. g. The property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. h. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s South Coast Air Quality Management District; Public Works Department, Construction Services Division; Planning Department, Planning Services Division ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion construction contractor shall sweep 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. i. During active demolition and debris removal and grading, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall suspend demolition and grading operations when winds speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to achieve an emissions control efficiency for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions of 98 percent. j. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard on 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. k. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’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. l. During active demolition and debris removal, the property owner/developer’s City’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. m. During scraper unloading and loading, the property owner/developer’s City’s construction 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. n. During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s City’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 (FSEIR No. 339 MM 2-2). MM 5.3-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans)Ongoing during construction, Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans)Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer City shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing ensure that construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be are implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of, including material export to 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 Planning Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer City 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 (FSEIR No. 339 MM 2-3). MM 5.3-4 Prior to issuance of each building permitDuring construction, Prior to issuance of each building permitDuring construction, the property owner/developer City shall submit evidence ensure that high-solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings structures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regulations. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer’s City shall specify the use of high-volume/low-pressure spray equipment or hand application on project plans. Air-atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Plans shall also show that property owner/developers the contractor shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting, or use prepainted construction materials, to the extent feasible (FSEIR No. 339 MM 2-4). South Coast Air Quality Management District NOISE MM 5.12-1 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer City shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise: a. Noise generated by construction, shall be limited by the property owner/developer City 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. (FSEIR No. 339 MM 5- 7) Planning Department, Building Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MM 5.17-1 Prior to the 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 a Demolition and Import/ Export Prior to the 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 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 initiation of construction, the City shall include identificationidentify of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division Public Works Department, ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division and /or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans initiation of construction, 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 City 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 (FSEIR No. 339 MM 10-20). Traffic Engineering Division MM 5.17-2 Ongoing, 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 (FSEIR No. 339 MM 10-27). Public Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division; Southern California Gas Company; Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 This page intentionally left blank