Document Anaheim_doc_84eeac01d4

Addendum No. 3 to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 339 State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED] PLATINUM VISTA APARTMENTS City Of Anaheim Planning Department/Planning Services 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting P. O. Box 3905 Tustin, CA 92781‐3905 August 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED] PLATINUM VISTA APARTMENTS Prepared for: City of Anaheim Planning Department/Planning Services 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Contact: Vanessa Norwood (714) 765‐4934 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting P. O. Box 3905 Tustin, CA 92781‐3905 Contact: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal (714) 665‐8509 August 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 i ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 PLATINUM VISTA APARTMENTS ANAHEIM, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1‐1 1.1 CEQA Compliance 1‐1 1.2 Decision Not to Prepare a Subsequent EIR 1‐1 1.3 Use of an Addendum 1‐3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2‐1 2.1 Project Location 2‐1 2.2 Project History 2‐1 2.3 Approved Project 2‐4 2.4 Existing Improvements 2‐4 2.5 Amended Project Description 2‐4 2.6 Discretionary Approvals 2‐10 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 3‐1 3.1 Aesthetics 3‐1 3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources 3‐7 3.3 Air Quality 3‐9 3.4 Biological Resources 3‐16 3.5 Cultural Resources 3‐19 3.6 Geology and Soils 3‐20 3.7 Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change 3‐24 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3‐27 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3‐31 3.10 Land Use and Planning 3‐40 3.11 Mineral Resources 3‐43 3.12 Noise 3‐44 3.13 Population and Housing 3‐50 3.14 Public Facilities 3‐53 3.15 Recreation 3‐59 3.16 Transportation/Traffic 3‐62 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 3‐83 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3‐97 3.19 Cumulative Impacts 3‐98 4.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 4‐1 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Page 2‐1 Project Location 2‐2 2‐2 Approved Site Plan 2‐5 2‐3 Aerial Photograph 2‐6 2‐4 Proposed Site Plan 2‐7 3.1‐1 Proposed Elevation – Katella Avenue 3‐4 3.1‐2 Proposed Elevation – North and West Sides 3‐5 3.1‐3 Conceptual Landscape Plan 3‐6 3.9‐1 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan 3‐35 3.15‐1 Open Space Plan 3‐61 3.16‐1 Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes 3‐67 3.16‐2 Proposed Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 3‐69 3.16‐3 Existing Conditions Plus Traffic Volumes 3‐70 3.16‐4 Future (2015) Volumes 3‐73 3.16‐5 Future (2015) Plus Project Traffic Volumes 3‐74 3.16‐6 Connector Road and Driveway – Future (2015) Traffic Volumes 3‐79 LIST OF TABLES Page 2‐1 Development Intensities in the Platinum Triangle PTMU Overlay Zone 2‐3 2‐2 Summary of Proposed Floor Plans 2‐8 2‐3 Private‐Leisure Open Space 2‐9 3.6‐1 Summary of Major Active Faults 3‐21 3.9‐1 Section 303(d) Impairments and Applicable 3‐32 3.9‐2 Project Site Surface Conditions 3‐34 3.9‐3 Routine Non‐Structural BMPs 3‐37 3.9‐4 Routine Structural BMPs 3‐38 3.13‐1 Estimated Population, Housing, and Employment Generation – Platinum Triangle 3‐52 3.14‐1 Potential Student Generation 3‐56 3.16‐1 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary 3‐65 3.16‐2 Trip Generation Summary 3‐66 3.16‐3 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary 3‐68 3.16‐4 Future Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary 3‐72 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 iii Page 3.16‐5 Future (2015) Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary 3‐72 3.16‐6 Caltrans Methodology Level of Service Summary 3‐75 3.17‐1 Planning Areas Contributing to Platinum Gateway and Platinum Vista 3‐86 3.17‐2 Planning Areas Contributing to Model Area 28B Only 3‐87 3.17‐1 Domestic Water Demand 3‐89 3.17‐2 Solid Waste Generation 3‐92 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 iv This page purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Addendum No. 3 to Final SEIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 1‐1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1.1 CEQA Compliance The City of Anaheim is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Platinum Gateway Project (the “Project”). In accordance with Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration, this Addendum to the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED]) has been prepared by the City of Anaheim. Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states the following with respect to an Addendum to an EIR: The lead agency or 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. On October 26, 2004. the City of Anaheim certified the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final SEIR No. 339 (“Final SEIR”) for the project described in Section 3.0 of the Final SEIR, Project Description (the “Original Project”). Subsequently, the applicant is proposing to amend the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to replace the residential units and office commercial square footage allocated to the subject property and the public park site in order to increase the number of residential dwelling units and reduce the square footage of office and commercial development permitted within the mixed use land use designation of the Platinum Triangle. Pursuant to the analysis contained in this addendum, the City has determined that the proposed modifications to the Original Project do not require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR as discussed below. 1.2 Decision Not To Prepare a Subsequent EIR The City of Anaheim, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed modifications to the Original Project do not require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Sections 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines mandate that: Section 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Addendum No. 3 to Final SEIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 1‐2 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. Section 15163 Supplement To an EIR: A lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15807. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. When the agency decided whether to approve the project, the decision‐making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Addendum No. 3 to Final SEIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 1‐3 The potential environmental consequences of the proposed modifications to the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project have been thoroughly analyzed with respect to the conditions cited above in Section 15162 and Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on an analysis of the proposed modifications to the Original Project, no new significant environmental impacts would occur, nor would the severity of impacts previously identified substantially increase. Nor is there any new information that suggests that 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 that 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. The City of Anaheim has determined that none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines have occurred. Therefore, an addendum, pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, has been prepared and submitted to the City’s decision‐makers, along with the Final SEIR for the Platinum Triangle, for consideration prior to taking action to approve the proposed Amendment to the Original Project. 1.3 Use of an Addendum This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states: The lead agency or 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. The revisions to the Original Project described in this Addendum to Final SEIR No. 339 are considered to be a refinement of the approved plan that will not require any major revisions to the Final EIR. Most importantly, the proposed revisions have been determined to be minor and, further, would not result in significant new or more severe impacts and/or the requirement for additional mitigation measures. As a result, the proposed changes do not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR. However, should a future proposal for development of the subject property exceed the parameters described in the Final SEIR and this addendum, meeting the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, it will be subject to additional environmental review beyond this Addendum. The Anaheim City Council and, if necessary, other responsible agencies identified in the Final SEIR will consider the information contained in this Addendum along with the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final SEIR No. 339 prior to making a final decision on the proposed revisions to the Original Project, which revisions propose changes to the residential and retail commercial land uses and the locations of these and other land uses as originally approved. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Addendum No. 3 to Final SEIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 1‐4 This page purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 2‐1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The subject site parcel is situated at 1005‐1105 East Katella Avenue, northeast of the intersection of East Katella Avenue and South Lewis Street in Anaheim, California. The Platinum Vista Apartments project site encompasses approximately 4.13 acres within the 820‐acre Platinum Triangle. The rectangular‐shaped property is currently developed with a vacant restaurant building and two industrial buildings. Exhibit 2‐1 (Project Location) illustrates the location of the subject property. The subject property is located the Katella District of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) and Platinum Triangle Mixed‐Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. 2.2 Project History On August 17, 2004, the Anaheim City Council Certified Final EIR No. 332 and approved the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan for the Platinum Triangle, including serving as a blueprint for future development and street improvements. The City Council also adopted the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) and an associated standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement. At that time, the PTMU Overlay Zone encompassed approximately 375 acres and five Districts (the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Arena, and Stadium Districts) within The Platinum Triangle. The PTMU Overlay Zone provides opportunities for high quality, well‐designed development projects that could be stand‐alone residential projects or combined with non‐residential uses including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the area. Properties encompassed by the PTMU Overlay Zone can be operated, developed or expanded under their existing underlying zone or, if the property owner chooses, developed under the PTMU Overlay Zone standards. Ordinances adopting the PTMU Overlay Zone requirements and reclassifying certain properties to the PTMU Overlay Zone those properties designated for Mixed Uses by the General Plan) were finalized on September 23, 2004. In October 2010, the City certified Final Subsequent EIR No. 339 and approved the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included the following discretionary approvals: Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment; General Plan Amendment No. 2008‐00471; Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, including the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form; Amendments to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone; and Zoning Reclassification No. 2008‐ 00222. Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) 0339, which was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the project, was certified by the Anaheim City Council on October 27, 2010. As a result of the land use approvals by the City, the development intensities of The Platinum Triangle PTMU Overlay Zone were increased. Table 2‐1 provides a summary of the development intensities. In addition to the increase in development intensity, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project also included upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased intensity of land uses. The upgrades included roadway improvements, sewer upgrades, two new water wells, a new electrical substation, natural gas infrastructure improvements, and an additional fire station. Table LU‐4: “General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City” of the Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates the maximum development intensity for each of the land use designations permitted within the Platinum Triangle. Approval of the Revised Platinum Triangle Project by the City resulted in the changes summarized in Table 2‐1. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 2‐3 Table 2‐1 Development Intensities in the Platinum Triangle PTMU Overlay Zone Platinum Vista Apartments Project Land Use Originally Approved Intensity Currently Approved Intensity Increase Residential 10,266 DUs 18,988 DUs 8,722 DUs Commercial Floor Area 2,264,400 sq. ft. 4,795,111 sq. ft. 2,530,711 sq. ft. Office Floor Area 5,055,550 sq. ft. 14,131,103 sq. ft. 9,075,553 sq. ft. Institutional Floor Area 0 sq. ft. 1,500,000 sq. ft. 1,500,000 sq. ft. DUs – Dwelling Units sq. ft. – Square Feet SOURCE: SEIR NO. 0339/Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Notice of Determination (Posted October 27, 2010) The PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone further divide the portions of the Platinum Triangle designated for Mixed Use Land Use by the General Plan into seven mixed‐use districts. The Platinum Vista Project is located within the Katella District. This district allows for the development of up to: ▪ 5,786 residential dwelling units ▪ 718,043 square feet of commercial development ▪ 1,921,639 square feet office development Appendix G: PTMU Overlay Zone District Sub‐Area Development Intensity Maps, of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, indicates the permitted amount of development for certain areas within the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Vista Project is located within Katella District Sub‐Area A, which permits development of the project site with up to: ▪ 1,113 dwelling units ▪ 105,500 square feet of commercial development ▪ 1,005,760 square feet of office development Specifically, development permitted on the Platinum Vista site by the PTMU Overlay Zone District includes 350 dwelling units of the total 1,113 units permitted for the sub‐area. In addition to FSEIR No. 332 and FSEIR No. 339, two addenda have been prepared for projects located within the Platinum Triangle. Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339 was prepared for the Katella Avenue/I‐5 Undercrossing Improvements project and Addendum No. 2 was prepared for the Platinum Gateway Apartment project located adjacent to the proposed project site. Although the latter project site is located adjacent to the subject property, the analysis presented in Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339 did not directly affect the project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 2‐4 2.3 Approved Project On January 8, 2008, a Development Agreement was executed between the City of Anaheim and the property owners, to govern the development of an approximate 4.13‐acre site located at 1005 through 1105 East Katella Avenue. The original project included a 327‐unit condominium project and 9,500 square feet of commercial space. On May 29, 2012, the Anaheim City Council unanimously approved an amendment to extend the term of the Development Agreement for an additional five years, to expire on January 15, 2018. Subsequent to this action, on January 15, 2013, the City Council approved the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement in conjunction with a revision to the previously approved development project. This revision increased the number of dwelling units from 327 to 350 units and eliminated the commercial area. The property was subsequently sold to Platinum Vista Apartments, LP, on January 22, 2014. The approved Final Site Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 2‐2. 2.4 Existing Improvements The subject property is developed with three buildings, including two industrial buildings and a vacant restaurant structure. The two industrial buildings are each approximately 15,000 square feet. To the south of these buildings, is an approximately 10,000 square‐foot vacant restaurant building. A mini‐warehouse (1005 East Katella Avenue) is located to the west of the restaurant and is utilized for storage. These structures, along with related improvements, will be razed prior to the proposed new construction. Current access to the site is afforded by Katella Avenue, which bounds the property to the south; Lewis Street is west of the Platinum Vista project site. The site is also bound on the north generally by industrial development, and on the west by the Platinum Gateway residential development that is currently under construction on the former industrial property. Residential development exists adjacent to the site on the east. The A‐Town Metro property, which has been improved with a street system but is otherwise undeveloped, is located south of Katella Avenue; light industrial development is located immediately west of the A‐Town Metro property south of Katella Avenue. The existing site improvements and those surrounding the subject property are illustrated in the Aerial Photograph (refer to Exhibit 2‐3). 2.5 Amended Project Description The project applicant, Platinum Vista Apartments, LP, is proposing to construct a multiple‐family residential apartment project consisting of five‐story “wrap‐style” buildings (five levels of apartments) and a six‐story parking structure (including one subterranean parking level). No commercial areas are proposed as part of the revised project. The Platinum Vista Apartment project consists of a total of 389 multiple‐family dwelling units, including 39 studio units, 244 one‐bedroom units, and 106 two‐bedroom units as summarized in Table 2‐2. As indicated in Section 2.3 (Approved Project), the project design has been revised to include 39 additional dwelling units, necessitating the additional environmental analysis presented in this Addendum. The proposed Site Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 2‐4. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 2‐8 Table 2‐2 Summary of Proposed Floor Plans Platinum Vista Apartments Project Plan Type No. of DUs Average Square Feet Percent of Mix Total Square Feet Studio Apartments S1 20 550 5.1 11,000 S2 19 584 4.9 11,096 Sub‐Total 39 10.0 22,096 1‐Bedroom Apartments A1 88 695 22.6 61,160 A1A 24 714 6.2 17,136 A2 49 727 12.6 35,136 A3 58 795 14.9 46,110 A4 25 795 6.4 19,875 Sub‐Total 244 62.7 179,417 2‐Bedroom Apartments B1 20 1,012 5.1 20,240 B2 42 1,074 10.8 45,108 B3 40 1,077 10.3 43,080 B4 4 1,119 1.0 4,476 Sub‐Total 106 27.3 112,904 Total 389 314,417 SOURCE: Architects Orange (April 9, 2014) Open Space Based on the requirement that every residential development must provide 200 square feet of recreational‐ leisure area for each dwelling unit within private and/or common areas, the proposed project would require a total of 77,800 square feet of such open space. Table 2‐3 provides a summary of the mandatory open space requirements and the open space provided for the proposed 389 multiple‐family residential dwelling units. As reflected below, the proposed project complies with the open space requirement by providing a total of 78,232 square feet of recreational‐leisure open space, which includes private open space, within the project limits. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 2‐9 Table 2‐3 Recreational‐Leisure Open Space Platinum Vista Apartments Project No. of Dwelling Units Required Area Per DU (sq. ft.) Total Area Required (sq. ft.) Open Space Required 389 200 77,800 Total Area Provided (sq. ft.) Private Ground Floor 7,907 Upper Floor 23,505 Common Recreation Courtyard 11,825 Along Katella Avenue 734 Main Motor Court 1,808 Secondary Motor Court 4,607 Along Northerly Property Boundary 4,653 Other Roof Deck 23,193 Total Open Space Provided 78,232 DU – dwelling unit sq. ft. – square feet SOURCE: Architects Orange (April 9, 2014) Parking Based on the City’s parking code requirements, the proposed project would require a total of 627 parking spaces to serve future residents and guests, including 49 spaces for the studio apartments (1.25 spaces/DU), 366 spaces for one‐bedroom apartment units (1.5 spaces/DU), and 212 parking spaces for the two‐bedroom apartment units (2.0 spaces/DU). The applicant is providing 635 parking spaces, including 13 handicapped spaces, which exceeds the City’s parking standards by eight spaces for the 389 dwelling units. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 2‐10 2.6 Discretionary Approvals The applicant, Platinum Vista Apartments, LP, is requesting approval of several discretionary actions by the City of Anaheim, including: ▪ General Plan Amendment To amend Table LU‐5: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City to increase the number of residential dwelling units and decrease the commercial area allocated within the mixed use designation of the Platinum Triangle as reflected below: - Addition of 39 dwelling units - Elimination of 60,000 square feet allocated for commercial area ▪ Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amendment To amend the allocated number of residential dwelling units and eliminate 60,000 square feet of commercial area allocated to the property. ▪ Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone Amendment To amend the allocated number of residential dwelling units and eliminate 60,000 square feet of commercial area allocated to the property. ▪ Final Site Plan To amend the Final Site Plan exhibit of the Development Agreement to reflect the proposed project and determine its conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and PTMLUP, including the site plan, elevations, floor plans, building materials, landscape plans, signage, etc. ▪ Development Agreement Amendment To amend and restate the provisions of the Development Agreement to reflect the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The purpose of Chapter 3.0 of this Addendum to Final SEIR No. 339 for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED]) is to provide an analysis of the potential environmental consequences that are anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments Project (“Proposed Project”) that were not analyzed in the Final SEIR No. 339. Specifically, the analysis contained in this chapter includes a discussion of the potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed modifications to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion and any impacts that result from those modifications, as described in Chapter 2.0 (Amended Project Description). 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to FSEIR No. 339, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area is highly urbanized with industrial, commercial, and recreational uses, which do not exhibit any significant geographic features or natural resources of importance. Although the development of the Platinum Triangle would result in an intensification of the existing urban character of the area through demolition or renovation of existing structures and construction of new structures, after mitigation, the impacts to aesthetic resources were not found to be significant. FSEIR No. 339 also did not identify any designated scenic resources or scenic highways within the project area. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project site is not characterized by unique visual resources, and no historic structures exist within the 820 acres comprising the area. Therefore, no adverse impacts on designated scenic resources would result from future development anticipated as a result of implementing the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. A transition from light industrial to mixed‐use development within the Platinum Triangle is occurring through the development of residential, commercial, and office uses. Landmarks include man‐made elements such as Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Honda Center. 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 created 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. The issue of shade and shadow pertains to the blockage of direct sunlight by on‐site buildings, which affect adjacent properties. Shading is an important environmental issue because the users or occupants of certain land uses, such as residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas have expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun. Based on the land uses approved for the A‐Town Metro component of The Platinum Triangle, structures in A‐Town Metro could be up to 400 feet high. However, according to FSEIR No. 339, compliance with design standards would reduce shade/shadow impacts by breaking up continuous shade lines. However, despite these design guidelines, there is a potential that over 50 percent of on‐ and off‐site shadow‐sensitive areas would experience shade/shadow effects for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. Future development projects, including those in Sub‐Area A, where adjacent uses are deemed shadow sensitive, would be required to demonstrate that their projects would not interfere with those uses’ exposure to natural sunlight, and incorporate design features that allow direct sunlight for at least 50 percent of the sun‐sensitive areas for at least 50 percent of duration for the season, as appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐2 In order to visually unify the area, new mixed‐use development within the Platinum Triangle would be required to adhere to the design standards and principles for the PTMU Overlay Zone. FSEIR No. 339 found that potential impacts related to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion. Development occurring on the property in accordance with the increased development intensities would inevitably result in changes to the visual appearance of the project area as the height, size, and scale of structures increase. Although it was determined that future development within the Platinum Triangle could result in significant visual impacts, such impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. 3.1.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project The current visual character of the project site and surrounding area within the Platinum Triangle is characterized by low‐ and mid‐rise commercial buildings, light industrial uses, and residential apartment/condominium complexes with varying architectural styles. The 4.13‐acre property was the site of a restaurant, until 2013 when the restaurant closed, and is also occupied by two industrial buildings. The western portion of the site is vacant. In order to implement the proposed project, the existing vacant restaurant building and the two industrial buildings would be demolished and replaced with the proposed 389‐unit apartment development. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed. Scenic vistas may also be represented by a particular distant view that provides visual relief from less attractive views of nearby features. Other designated Federal and State lands, as well as local open space or recreational areas, may also offer scenic vistas if they represent a valued aesthetic view within the surrounding landscape. Because the site’s topography is flat and the area in which the project is located in City is extensively urbanized, distant views are obstructed by existing development. Buildings (including existing residential, commercial and industrial structures), Anaheim Stadium and the adjacent roadways and arterial highways and freeways comprise the dominant visual elements not only in the City’s environment but also in the project environs. No important scenic vistas have been identified in the immediate project environs. Project implementation includes the development of a high density, multiple‐family residential development encompassing 389 apartments in a six story “wrap style” structure. Although conversion of the undeveloped/vacant site to the proposed 389‐unit apartment and parking structure will change the character of the site, the proposed redevelopment of the site would not result in any substantial adverse effect on a designated scenic vista. The proposed building height is consistent with building heights of similar residential development along Katella Avenue and also with building heights anticipated elsewhere within the Katella District of the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As indicated above, the proposed project is located in an urbanized area and the site neither possesses any important aesthetic features nor any significant aesthetic resources such as rock outcroppings and/or historic buildings. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated as scenic highways by the State or are eligible for that designation. Neither the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) nor the County of Orange identifies any designated or eligible scenic highways within Anaheim or in its immediate vicinity, including the project area. The project area is extensively developed and is characterized by a variety of uses, including transportation facilities (Katella Avenue, State College Boulevard, Gene Autry Way, etc), high density residential, and commercial development on the north, Anaheim Stadium and commercial on the east, and industrial development is located west, ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐3 south and east of the subject property. The subject property and immediate project area are devoid of any aesthetic resources. As a result, no significant impacts to such resources would occur. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The building height of the proposed six story apartment and garage structure is approximately 70 feet, which is similar to the existing building height of nearby multiple‐family residential development along Katella Avenue. Exhibit 3.1‐1 and Exhibit 3.1‐2 illustrate the character of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project. For example, the height of the Platinum Gateway multiple‐family residential development located adjacent to the subject property on the west is approximately 62 feet. The height of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project would be substantially lower than the 400‐foot maximum building height currently permitted (subject to approval of a conditional use permit) within the A‐Town Metro Master Plan Area located south of Katella Avenue in the project environs.1 Exhibit 3.1‐3 illustrates the proposed landscaping plan, which will enhance the visual and aesthetic character of the proposed development. The project’s design, building massing, and impacts are consistent with those analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, which anticipated and analyzed the effects of light and shadow on the surrounding environment. The potential shade and shadow effects on adjacent properties and structures would not significantly affect nearby sensitive uses. Although mitigation prescribed in FSEIR No. 339 requires applicants to demonstrate that their projects would not interfere with sensitive uses’ exposure to natural sunlight, and incorporate design features that allow direct sunlight for at least 50 percent of the sun sensitive areas for at least 50 percent of duration for the season, as appropriate, this mitigation would not apply to the proposed project because there are no sensitive uses located in the immediate project vicinity as reflected in FSEIR No. 339. Potential shade and shadow impacts would be similar to those previously analyzed. Thus, design of the projects as prescribed in FSEIR No. 339 to avoid adverse effects on sensitive uses will reduce potential shade and shadow to a less than significant level. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The security lighting for the proposed residential development would create a new source of light and glare within the limits of the subject property. However, the project would comply with the applicable provisions of The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and PTMU Overlay Zone with regards to landscaping, lighting, and setback requirements. It is also anticipated that all lighting fixtures would include the necessary shielding, such as hoods, filtering louvers, and glare shields may be required to maintain adequate lighting throughout the area without undue glare impacts on adjoining residential areas. Therefore, less than significant impacts associated with additional light and glare would result from project implementation. No mitigation measures are necessary. 1Lennar has submitted an application affecting the A‐Town Metro Master Plan. If approved, building heights in the A‐Town Metro Master Plan area (Sub‐Areas A and B within the Katella and Sub‐Areas A and C within the Gene Autry Districts) of the Platinum Triangle located south of the project site would be limited to 100 feet in height. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐7 FSEIR No. 339 anticipated the effects of light and shadow on the surrounding environment. MM 1‐1 requires applicants to demonstrate that their projects would not interfere with sensitive uses’ exposure to natural sunlight, and incorporate design features that allow direct sunlight for at least 50 percent of the sun sensitive areas for at least 50 percent of duration for the season, as appropriate. The proposed project was reviewed by the City concurrently with the Platinum Gateway project located immediately adjacent to the site on the west and determined that neither project would adversely affect natural sunlight on adjacent sensitive uses. The proposed project will not result in an increase in building height or other features that would affect sunlight exposure on adjacent sensitive uses. Therefore, the proposed Platinum Vista project will not be subject MM 1‐1 because no potential significant sunlight impacts will occur as a result of project implementation.2 Cumulative Impacts Project implementation would not result in any significant cumulative impacts because the project site is not located along any designated scenic roadway or within a designated important view corridor. Furthermore, the proposed project includes a building height of approximately 70 feet, which is consistent and compatible with the adjacent Platinum Gateway multiple‐family residential development that adjacent to the subject site. The Platinum Gateway project was approved and is under construction. Furthermore, the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project has been designed in accordance with applicable development standards and requirements in the Platinum Triangle Maser Land Use Plan and also incorporates landscaping that complements the site design and enhances the aesthetic character of the proposed development. Therefore, no potential significant cumulative impacts to aesthetics will occur as a result of project implementation. Conclusion FSEIR No. 339 concluded that, with the implementation of the PTMLUP and the PTMU Overlay Zone, no unavoidable significant impacts related to aesthetics would occur. The proposed project would comply with the applicable design standards in accordance with City of Anaheim requirements and those analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the changes to the project require a major change to FSEIR No. 339. The project would not result in any new significant aesthetic impacts and there is no substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project does not require any changes to FSEIR No. 339 related to aesthetics. 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Potential impacts to agricultural resources were evaluated in the initial study prepared for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. As reflected in the initial study, no potential impacts to agricultural resources were identified through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to agricultural resources. FSEIR No. 339 did not provide specific analysis of forest resources. 2Vanessa Norwood, City of Anaheim Community Development Department; July 14, 2014. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐8 3.2.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? The project site has been substantially altered as a result of grading that has taken place in the past to create building pads to accommodate development that occupied the subject property. Consistent with the prior initial study, the project site is devoid of any agricultural soils and/or resources. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates the project site as Urban and Built‐Up Land. In addition, the project site is not currently used for agricultural production or under any Williamson Act contracts, and no such designated land is nearby. Therefore, consistent with the findings presented in the initial study for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, development of the site as proposed would not adversely affect any important agricultural resources and, furthermore, due to the nature and extent of the urbanization that has taken place in the project environs, no other agricultural uses are located in the project area that would be adversely affected by development of the site as proposed. No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is neither designated nor zoned for agriculture. As indicated above, no agriculturally‐zoned land exists on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the project and there are no existing Williamson Act Contracts covering property or in the project area. Since there are no agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts affecting the project site, project implementation would not result in any significant impacts conflicts with existing zoning or Williamson Act contract) to potential agricultural uses. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Although the CEQA checklist questions related to forestry resources were not included on the environmental checklist at the time FSEIR No. 339 was prepared, the site has been substantially altered and does not support forestry and/or timber resources. There is no zoning for forest land in the City of Anaheim and no areas within the City are classified as forest or timberland as defined by PRC section 4526, including the subject property and surrounding area. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, any forest or timberland. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? As indicated above, there are no forest lands present either on the subject property or in the City. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? As previously indicated, no important farmland, agricultural activity, or forest and/or timberlands exist on the project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, conversion of the undeveloped/vacant property to a ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐9 multiple‐family residential land use as proposed would not result in environmental changes that would convert farmland to non‐agricultural uses or forest land to non‐forest uses. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts Project implementation will not result in the loss of either prime or locally important farmlands or designated forest lands. Therefore, no cumulative impacts will occur. Conclusion Consistent with the analysis presented in the initial study prepared for FSEIR No. 339, the subject property does not support any agricultural or timber/forestry resources. Furthermore, no portion of the site is designated for such use. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not result in any impacts not previously identified an analysis in the prior environmental analysis. 3.3 Air Quality 3.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 analyzed air pollutant emissions associated with the Platinum Triangle area for build‐out of the PTMLUP. Air pollutant emissions associated with new development occurring in the Platinum Triangle area would increase carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) within the project vicinity. Short‐Term Air Quality Impacts Associated with Construction Air pollutant emissions from construction activities were included in Table 5.2‐6 of FSEIR No. 339. The primary source of construction‐related CO, SOx, VOC, and NOx emissions is gasoline‐ and diesel‐powered, heavy‐duty mobile construction equipment, such as scrapers and motor graders. The primary sources of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions is clearing and demolition activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Air pollutant emissions generated from construction activities would cause temporary increases in air pollutant emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) threshold criteria for CO, NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project’s construction‐related air quality impact was a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the Anaheim City Council. FSEIR No. 339 also concluded that due to the proximity of the existing and proposed residences within the Platinum Triangle in addition to the magnitude of construction activities, construction activities associated within build‐out of the Platinum Triangle could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction activities based on Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Consequently, this impact would be significant for both the Adopted MLUP and the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐10 Long‐Term Air Quality Impacts Associated with Operation Operation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would generate air pollutants from stationary sources and mobile sources. The stationary source emissions from operation of the proposed land uses would come from its consumption of natural gas. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project at buildout would generate 443,263 average daily trips. Emissions associated with the project were calculated and included in Table 5.2‐7 of FSEIR No. 339. As shown in that table, project‐related emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds for CO, VOC, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Mobile sources represent the largest source of operational emissions for the project. Although the development would be subject to SCAQMD rules to reduce pollutant emissions and, furthermore, mitigation measures were prescribed in FSEIR No. 339, long‐term air pollutant emissions remained above the significance threshold for each of the pollutants with the exception of SOx. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the long‐term operational) air quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project were considered Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council. CO Hotspot Analysis Localized concentrations of air pollutant emissions associated with the new development occurring within the Platinum Triangle area would increase pollutant concentrations that could contribute to violations of federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Localized concentrations of pollutant emissions from operation of the Platinum Triangle were modeled using CALINE4, for their potential to contribute to CO hotspots and were included in Table 5.2‐8 of FSEIR No. 339. As shown in this table, localized concentrations of CO at congested intersections would not exceed the most stringent AAQS. Consistency with the AQMP FSEIR revealed that the Adopted MLUP and the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project would result in an overall increase in both trips and VMT in the Platinum Triangle because the project would substantially increase the density of development in the Platinum Triangle. Although the revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project would increase VMT and trips in the local area, it would result in a net benefit to the SCAG region as a whole because it precludes the need for people to be housed in less dense development, farther away from employment centers. The anticipated decrease in average trip length is due to the proximity of employment and housing compared to housing located in outlying areas, which would result in longer home‐ to‐work trips and increased emissions. The need for residents within the project site and surrounding area to travel long distances to other commercial and entertainment centers would be reduced. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint program identifies changes to land use and transportation trends on key infill areas located near transit and existing jobs and housing in the region to reduce VMT. Portions of the Platinum Triangle, including the Platinum Vista project site, are identified in the Opportunity Area Map for Orange County. SCAG has identified these 2 percent areas as the key parts of the region for targeting growth, where projects, plans and policies consistent with the Compass Blueprint principles will best serve the mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision. Although potential impacts would be greater under the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project compared to the Adopted MLUP, the both would remain consistent with the SCAG’s strategies to reduce VMT in the SCAG region and future development would be consistent with the AQMP under the second indicator. Consequently, impacts are considered less than significant relative to project consistency with the AQMP. The consistency evaluation concluded that because the Master Land Use Plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), the project is consistent with the AQMP. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐11 3.3.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Although the proposed project would allow for an increase in the number of dwelling units, the 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area allocated to the project site would be eliminated. The increase in dwelling units would result in an increase of 260 daily trips (39 DUs x 6.65 trips/DU).3 However, the elimination of the commercial land use would result in the elimination of 2,562 trips per day (60,000 sq. ft. x 42.7 trips/1,000 sq. ft.)4 previously anticipated in FSEIR No. 339. As a result, it is anticipated that less traffic than what was approved for the Platinum Vista site and analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, which was the basis for the pollutant emissions included in the long‐range forecasts for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, would be generated from development of the project site. As a result, project‐related emissions would be less than the emissions estimated as a result of the previously approved project. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the long‐term emissions forecasts and would not obstruct the implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). SCAQMD’s most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2012 AQMP, which was adopted on December 7, 2012. Regional growth projections are used by SCAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SoCAB. For southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and are partially based on land use designations included in city/county general plans. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth projections. While the proposed project would result in an increase in population, the increase would be approximately 12 percent more than that anticipated to occur as a result of the approved residential component within Sub‐Area A, the increase would be offset by reductions in residential density that have occurred and are proposed with the Platinum Triangle. In addition, the elimination o f 60,000 square feet of retail/commercial floor area would also reduce employment in the City of Anaheim; however, it would not substantially affect the regional growth projections. The project would reduce emissions and would not affect the regional emissions inventory or conflict with strategies in the AQMP to attain the AAQS. Although the project would increase the number of residential units by 39, the applicant is also proposing to eliminate 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The net reduction of approximately 2,300 daily trips resulting from project implementation would reduce the VMT for the project within the SoCAB when compared to the approved project, and the project would continue to be consistent with the AQMP as determined in FSEIR No. 339. The proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Construction activities of the proposed project would have a short‐term impact on air quality. Temporary construction emissions would result from demolition of the existing structure, pavement, and utilities, excavation, and grading activities, and from construction of the proposed project. As a result, construction‐ related air pollutant emissions would be consistent with the pollutant emissions anticipated to occur as a result of construction activities forecast for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion analyzed in the FSEIR No. 339. The maximum development intensities permitted by the proposed project would not increase the maximum daily air pollutant emissions generated by the previously approved project during construction activities. The project would contribute to emissions of CO, NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 that exceed the 3Traffic Impact Analysis Update, Platinum Vista Residential Development; LSA Associates, Inc.; June 2014 (ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition). 4ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐12 SCAQMD’s construction emission thresholds identified in FSEIR No. 339 and would, therefore contribute to the SoCAB’s ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 non‐attainment designation. Construction impacts would be similar to those calculated under the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project and would not result in any new significant impacts which were not previously anticipated. As previously indicated, potential sensitive receptors in the project area would be exposed to pollutant concentrations that exceed LSTs established for the site. However, implementation of MM 2‐1 through MM 2‐ 4 prescribed for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would be implemented to reduce the pollutant emissions. Such measures include the use of Tier 3 (or higher) construction equipment, suspension of grading activities during periods of high winds, fugitive dust control pursuant to Rule 403, etc., in order to reduce potential construction emissions to an acceptable level. Long-Term (Operational) Impacts The primary source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor vehicles. Other pollutant emissions would be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and cooking and the generation of electricity at off‐site locations. Emissions would also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity off‐site. As discussed in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, long term operational impacts associated with vehicle trips generated from the proposed project would be approximately 47 percent less than the trips associated with the land uses estimated for the site based on the approved development of 350 multiple‐family residential dwelling units and 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area, which was analyzed by FSEIR No. 339. Based on the project as currently proposed for the Platinum Vista Apartments project, the increase in the number of dwelling units would result in an increase in of 260 vehicle trips when compared to the approved project. However, this increase in residential traffic is offset by the elimination of the commercial component, which is estimated to generate approximately 2560 trips per day.5 As a result, the proposed project would result in a net reduction of approximately 2300 vehicle trips 47 percent) and about 13,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on a daily basis when compared to the previously approved land uses 350 multiple‐family residential dwelling units and 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area), which generated over 5,000 trips per day. Since the primary source of operational emissions are the result of vehicle emissions, the reduction in vehicular trips and miles traveled would result in a reduction in operational related air emissions when compared to the approved land uses for the subject property. The operational air emissions from the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously anticipated. No new significant impacts would occur when compared to the air quality impacts analyzed for the Platinum Vista Apartments project. CO Hotspot Analysis Localized air quality effects would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase CO concentrations at congested intersections. As previously stated, the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project would generate approximately 2,300 fewer daily trips per day when compared to the approved land uses for the subject site. Therefore, the reduction in development would result in a decrease in the number of vehicles generated by the proposed project at local intersections within the vicinity of the project. Further, the proportion of project‐related vehicle trips is small in relation to the volume of traffic at local intersections. As indicated in Table 5.2‐8 (CO Concentrations at Congested Intersections in the Project Vicinity) in FSEIR No. 339, CO concentrations at the critical intersections would not be exceeded based on buildout of the Platinum Triangle as previously approved, including the more intensively developed Platinum Vista property. 560,000 square feet of commercial/retail floor area X 42.7 trips per 1,000 square feet (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition). ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐13 Therefore, because vehicle trips would be reduced by approximately 40 percent, the proposed project would also not expose sensitive‐receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations at those intersections and no new air quality impacts would occur. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? As indicated above, project implementation would result in a decrease in the number of vehicular trips and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the amount of pollutants emitted into the air basin associated with long‐ term, operations would be less than the emissions anticipated to occur as a result of the approved Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion. Although the SCAQMD is currently designated a “non‐attainment” area for ozone and PM10 and PM2.5, the reduction in pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project will not result in one or more new significant impacts or in greater severity of an impact identified for the approved Platinum Vista development analyzed in the Revised Platinum Triangle Master Plan. Therefore, potential impacts will be less than significant. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are the occupants of multiple‐family residential dwelling units located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property. Pollutants resulting from project implementation will occur during the construction phase and following completion and occupancy/use of the Platinum Vista Apartments project. The emissions will be comprised mostly of dust and particulate materials during the construction phase that will be dispersed in the area of operations. Such emissions will be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the SCAQMD as prescribed in FSEIR No. 339. In addition, post‐development operational emissions will be less than previously estimated in the prior environmental analysis due to the significant reduction in development intensity. As a result, pollutant emissions would be the same as and less than the construction and operational emissions, respectively, of the approved project. No additional significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and the surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can cause agitation, anger and concern to the general public. Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of a human breath, which is typically 2 to 5 seconds. Land uses that result in or create objectionable odors typically include agriculture livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, etc.). The proposed project includes the conversion of a vacant property to a multiple‐ family residential land use on the 4.13‐acre site. The only potential odors associated with the project are from site construction during the application of asphalt and paint. Any asphalt and paint odors, if perceptible, are common in the environment and would be of very limited duration. Therefore, any odor impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts As indicated in the preceding analysis, project implementation will generate approximately 47 percent fewer daily vehicle trips than the existing commercial land use occupying the site. As a result, air emissions are anticipated to be less than the amount currently generated by the approved Platinum Vista development ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐14 intensities 350 multiple‐family residential dwelling units and 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area). Compliance with the applicable SCAQMD rules would ensure that dust emissions are minimized during construction to further reduce short‐term cumulative impacts. Operational air emissions will likewise not be significant because the project would not exceed the City’s long‐range projections anticipated for the subject property, which are the basis for air emissions forecasts in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As a result, neither construction‐ nor operational‐related air pollutant emissions would exceed the projections in estimated in FSEIR No. 339. Although the project would contribute a smaller percentage of air pollutant emissions, conclusion in FSEIR No. 339 that the cumulative air quality impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable would not change... Conclusion The proposed project will reduce project intensity of development within Sub‐Area A of the Platinum Triangle from that allowed in FSEIR No. 339 through the reduction in the commercial floor area allocated to the subject property. As indicated above, the Platinum Vista Apartments will also generate 47 percent fewer vehicle trips than would be generated by the existing entitlements for the same area. Therefore, because the project is building out at less than anticipated in FSEIR No. 339, short‐term air quality impacts related to construction would be the same or less than the short‐term construction emissions associated with the previously approved project. Although the proposed project could result in greater pollutant emissions due to the increase in residential dwelling units (389 DUs) compared to the approved project (350 DUs), construction emissions related to the construction of the 60,000 square feet of commercial development would be eliminated. In addition, long‐term operational air emissions will be less than the air emissions projected in FSEIR No. 339 as a result of the significant reduction in vehicular trips associated with the 60,000 square feet of commercial development when compared to the trips occurring as a result of the additional 39 residential dwelling units. Additionally, implementation of FSEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures Nos. 2‐1 through 2‐6, which address emissions from grading, construction equipment operation and stationary sources will further reduce air pollutant emissions. The project will not result in any new significant environmental impact nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in FSEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339 Relevant Mitigation Measures MM 2‐1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce construction‐related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected to remain significant. 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. low emission mobile construction. c) The contractor shall utilize existing power sources power poles) or clean‐fuel generators rather than temporary diesel‐power generators, where feasible. MM 2‐2 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce in order to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐15 implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: a) During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’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. b) During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’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 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 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 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 construction contractor shall suspend demolition and grading operations when wind 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 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 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 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 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. k) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall limit on‐site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 57 percent. MM 2‐3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off‐ site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on‐site or to an adjacent site, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects if not all can be reused at the project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐16 MM 2‐4 Prior to issuance approval of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that high‐solids or water‐based low emissions paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regulations. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer’s shall specify the use of high‐volume/low‐pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air‐atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Plans shall also show that property owner/developers shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting, or use pre‐painted construction materials, to the extent feasible. MM 2‐6 Prior to approval of building permits, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent at the time of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall show the following: a) Energy‐efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs or similar websites. B Cool pavement materials such as lighter‐colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right‐ of‐way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or similar websites. c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances appliances) and use of sunlight‐ filtering window coatings or double‐paned windows. e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings. 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The project site has been substantially altered as a result of grading and development that has taken place on the subject property. At the present time, the 4.13‐acre property is devoid of native habitat as a result of the past development of the site that supported a restaurant and light industrial development. The initial study prepared prior to the preparation of FSEIR No. 339 determined that the site does not support any important biological resources. Because it was determined through the initial study process that no significant impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of implementing the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, FSEIR No. 339 did not include an analysis related to biological resources. Based on the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element, no locally designated species or natural communities, wetland habitats, or wildlife corridors are known to exist within the Platinum Triangle, including the 4.13‐acre Platinum Vista Apartments property. The project area is not part of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and did not impact any resources within the NCCP area. As a result, implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts to biological resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐17 3.4.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Neither the 4.13‐acre site nor project environs support any native species of plants or animals. Although the project site is currently vacant, it was previously developed with commercial (restaurant) and light industrial uses that are either closed or have been removed. At the present time, the site is devoid of any native plant or animal species. All of the vegetation that exists on the site and within the project area is either ruderal or ornamental non‐native) plant materials that are common in urban landscapes. There are no species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species within the limits of either the site or in the immediate project area, which has been completely altered by development. Therefore, no significant impact would occur to any sensitive species designated by the resources agencies as a result of project implementation. Further, the Project is not directly affected by any regional plans, or policies of other resource agencies. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The subject property is located within an urbanized area and does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive habitat or natural community. Although some small rodents and mammals that adapt to urban development may exist on the site, no native habitat or grasslands exist on the subject property that would represent an important source of foraging for raptors and other sensitive or protected species. No significant biological resources are identified in the Anaheim General Plan either for the site or for the immediate project area. Due to the location and nature of the proposed project, implementation will not result in significant adverse impacts to riparian or other sensitive natural community; no mitigation measures are required. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The site is partially covered with impervious surfaces in the form of an unoccupied restaurant structure and surface parking. The remainder of the property is pervious; however, there are no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act located within the limits of the project site. Further, no marshes, vernal pools, or coastal habitats exist in the project area according to the Anaheim General Plan. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? As previously indicated, the Platinum Vista property is located in an area of the City that is extensively urbanized and devoid of natural habitat and/or species. The subject site has been improved and previously supported commercial and light industrial land uses, which have since closed or been removed in anticipation of buildout of the Platinum Triangle development as approved by the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, the area surrounding the site is intensively developed with a variety of urban uses and no native habitat that would service as a wildlife migratory corridor exists in the area. The I‐5 and SR‐57 Freeways are located in the ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐18 project environs and are also considered barriers to wildlife movement. Development of the site as proposed would not alter the existing biological character of the area. Project implementation would result in converting the existing vacant land use to a high density residential development apartments). Due to the urbanized nature of the area and lack of natural habitat and native species and the distance of the subject property from any natural habitat, implementation of the Platinum Vista Apartments project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident species of wildlife or with the migratory patterns of fish or other wildlife species. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Implementation of the proposed project will result in physical changes to the existing site; however, project implementation will not result in significant impacts to biological resources for the reasons discussed above. The City’s General Plan does not identify the project site as one that supports sensitive habitat and/or important biological resources. As indicated previously, no significant or important biological resources, including native trees, exist on the site. While the existing introduced landscaping located along the perimeter of the site and within the parking lot may be eliminated as a result of project implementation construction of the 389‐unit Platinum Vista Apartments), the landscape concept plan prepared for the proposed project will offset the loss of any existing non‐native landscape species. Similarly, the project will be designed to accommodate landscaping that complements the proposed residential development as well as the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation is required. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Neither the project site nor the surrounding area support any sensitive habitat and/or species that are protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Furthermore, the project site is not located within a designated NCCP area. Conversion of the existing professional office/commercial development to a residential development will not conflict with local, regional, or state resource preservation and/or conservation policies. Therefore no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts As indicated in the preceding analysis, the site is devoid of sensitive habitat and/or important biological resources. Project implementation will not result in any impacts to biological resources and would not, therefore, result in any significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. Conclusion As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, implementation of the proposed project will not cause any significant impacts related to biological resources, and no mitigation measures will be required. Therefore, no new impacts are anticipated that were not previously addressed in FSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐19 3.5 Cultural Resources 3.5.1 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. Based on the City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area, including the subject property, is not located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District. As such, none of the structures in the project area are identified on the Qualified Historic Structures List of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan and no impacts would result from implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. There were no known archaeological or paleontological resources, unique geologic features, or human remains at the project site, and no significant impacts to such resources were anticipated according to the initial study prepared in support of FSEIR No. 339. 3.5.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? The subject property is currently vacant although three structures (a former restaurant and two industrial buildings) currently exist on the site. No historic resources are located within the project site, although two historic resources were identified within a one‐half mile radius of the subject property. Neither the subject site nor the surrounding properties are identified as sites containing historic resources in the City’s General Plan. Although Project implementation includes the construction of a high density multiple‐family residential development on the site, no significant adverse changes to any historical resources would occur. Project implementation would necessitate some grading and site alteration in order to implement the Platinum Vista Apartments project and ancillary improvements; however, no historic resources would be directly affected. Therefore, no significant impacts to historical resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? According to the initial study prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project that was analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, no cultural resources are known to exist within the Platinum Triangle, including the Platinum Vista property. Nonetheless, because project implementation requires the approval of a General Plan Amendment, consultation with Native American representatives is required pursuant to SB 18 in order to ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources are adequately addressed. Letters requesting consultation with Native American representative were sent out by the City of Anaheim on May 20, 2014. To date, no responses from any of the Native American representatives contacted have been received. No potentially significant impacts are anticipated to occur, due to the nature and extent of surface and subsurface alternative that has occurred as a result of development that has occurred on the site and in the project area. However, consultation with Native Americans representatives will ensure that any potential cultural significance of the site would be identified, if any, and appropriate actions taken based on those consultations. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As indicated above, the proposed project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Anaheim and has been previously graded and developed/improved. Any near‐surface paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been disturbed and/or destroyed by prior development activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐20 Therefore, it is unlikely that potentially significant impacts are anticipated. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Due to the extensive landform alterative and site disturbance that has occurred in the project area, including the subject property, it is unlikely that project implementation would affect any sites or properties that possess known cultural values. It is not known to be utilized by any Native Americans for religious or other culturally important rites and no important cultural resource sites have been identified within the project area. Furthermore, no formal cemeteries are located on the site or in the project environs and no human remains are known to exist in the project area. Although project implementation will require grading and excavation to implement the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project, the discovery of human remains is not anticipated. Nonetheless, development projects must comply with applicable laws when human remains are encountered during grading and construction to ensure that no significant impacts to cultural resources, including human remains. Cumulative Impacts As indicated above, the subject property has been extensively altered as a result of the extensive landform alteration and prior site development that has taken place on the Platinum Vista property. As a result, no cultural and/or paleontological resources are expected to occur that would result in significant cumulative impacts. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis presented above, there is no evidence that the proposed project would result in a new significant impact to cultural resources or an impact of greater severity than previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Furthermore, there is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to FSEIR No. 339. 3.6 Geology and Soils 3.6.1 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. 3.6.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project A preliminary geotechnical evaluation was conducted by EEI Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions (EEI) for the proposed project. The assessment, which was prepared in July 2012, evaluated a residential development that consisted of a five‐story apartment building that included 350 dwelling units. In addition, the proposed project included 7‐level parking structure (to be constructed at‐grade), underground utilities, and drive areas and other associated improvements. Although the proposed project has been revised to include a six‐story “wrap style” building, including 389 units in five levels and associated parking garage. The findings and recommendations presented in the geotechnical analysis remain applicable and are summarized in the analysis that follows. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐21 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. The Project is located in the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. No active faults are known to project through the site nor does the Platinum Vista site lie within the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the site is considered to be low. As a result, proposed structures and future residents would not be exposed to fault rupture during a seismic event. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? As indicated above, the portion of Southern California that includes the subject site is considered to be seismically active. Due to the proximity of the site area to several nearby active faults, strong ground shaking could occur at the site as a result of an earthquake on any one of the faults. The closest faults are the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault and San Joaquin Hills Fault located at distances of about 7.7 and 8.5 miles from the site, respectively. The Whittier and Newport‐Inglewood Fault Zones are located at distances of about 8.9 and 10.4 miles from the site, respectively. Table 3.6‐1 provides a summary of the major active faults and maximum moment magnitude (Mw) associated with each potentially causative fault. Table 3.6‐1 Summary of Major Active Faults Platinum Vista Apartments Project Fault Approximate Distance From Site (miles) Maximum Moment Magnitude San Joaquin Hills 7.7 6.6 Puente Hills Blind Thrust 8.5 7.1 Whittier 8.9 6.8 Newport‐Inglewood (LA Basin) 10.4 7.1 Chino‐Central Avenue (Elsinore) 11.9 6.7 Newport‐Inglewood (Offshore) 14.8 7.1 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) 15.2 6.8 San Jose 16.3 6.4 Palos Verde 20.1 7.3 Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust 21.7 6.4 Sierra Madre 23.1 7.2 Cucamonga 24.2 6.9 Raymond 24.9 6.5 SOURCE: EEI (Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, July 3, 2012) ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐22 As indicated in Table 3.6‐1, potential maximum moment earthquake magnitudes range from 6.5 to 7.3, with potential magnitudes associated with the San Joaquin Hills and Puente Hills Blind Thrust Faults estimated to be 6.6 and 7.1, respectively. However, due to the distances of active faults from the site, ground surface rupture is not a significant hazard. As indicated above, the site lies in relative close proximity to several active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed improvements, the property will probably experience similar moderate to occasionally moderate to severe ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Based on the analysis conducted for the proposed project, the proposed multiple‐family residential/parking structure s the adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response parameters are recommended for seismic design of the project. The geotechnical evaluation recommended that the proposed structures should be designed in accordance with seismic design criteria developed by the Structural Engineers Association of California. In addition, compliance with the California Building Code, applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Anaheim, and implementation of the measures prescribed in the Geotechnical Report and subsequent detailed soils engineering reports will adequately address the issues related to potential ground shaking. As a result, potential ground shaking impacts will be less than significant; no additional mitigation measures are required. Based on the geography, topography and site‐specific geotechnical conditions encountered during our geotechnical evaluation at the site, the potential for ground lurching or shallow ground rupture at the site is considered to be low; however, due to the active seismicity of California, the possibility for such potential effects cannot be completely ruled out. Therefore, a “flexible” design for onsite utility lines and connections should be considered in the final design stage. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction and related phenomena have been responsible for substantial structural damage in historical earthquakes, and are a design concern under certain conditions. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water). This pore water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, pore water pressure is typically low; however, earthquake motion can cause the pore water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. When liquefaction occurs; the strength of the soil decreases and the ability of a soil deposit to support structural loads are reduced. Due to the observed lack of a near surface static ground water level at the site (groundwater was not encountered to a depth of 51.5 feet), along with the observed nature of the encountered materials comprising the Quaternary aged Alluvium that underlies the site, it is anticipated that the potential for liquefaction to occur is not a significant geotechnical concern at the site. Therefore, potential liquefaction impacts are considered less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Landslides typically occur along pre‐existing zones of weakness within bedrock previous failure surfaces). Additionally, landslides have the potential to occur on over‐steepened slopes, especially where weak layers, such as thin clay layers, are present and dip out‐of‐slope. Landslide potential in the project area is considered low due to the flat topography of the site and majority of the area. The project site proposed for development of the multiple‐family residential development, including the parking structure, is virtually flat and devoid of any significant natural or man‐made slopes that would be subject to failure. Therefore, no ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐23 potentially impacts associated with landslides and slope instability will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Clearing, excavation, and grading associated with future development and improvements proposed for the subject property would expose soils to substantial short‐term soil erosion or loss of topsoil, since fill material of unknown origin and varying composition currently covers most of the City. Future development would be subject to compliance with the City’s standards, as well as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit requirements, including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for erosion control, grading, and soil remediation during the grading and construction phase and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that also identifies measures to minimize the long‐term potential for erosion and loss of soil. Grading Plans prepared for proposed development must include an approved drainage and erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading. Additionally, development sites that encompass an area of 1.0 acre or greater would be subject to compliance with the NPDES program’s General Construction Permit requirements and consequently the development and implementation of an as prescribed by the City of Anaheim. In addition, compliance with the City’s grading and excavation ordinance will also ensure that potential erosion and loss of topsoil is minimized. The prepared for the proposed Platinum Vista project will identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and pollutant transport during the construction phase. Similarly, BMPs prescribed in the WQMP would also minimize potential erosion and pollutant transport following development of the Platinum Vista Apartments as proposed. Therefore, because the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the City’s standards, as well as NPDES General Construction Permit requirements for erosion control, grading, applicable soil remediation, and implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the WQMP, project‐related impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on‐site or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Seismically induced settlement can occur due to reorientation of soil particles during strong shaking of unsaturated sands, as well as in response to liquefaction of saturated loose granular soils. The potential seismically induced settlement within the upper alluvial soils was estimated. Differential earthquake induced settlements are estimated to be less than ½‐inch across a 50‐foot span. As indicated above, due to the nature of the soils and historic groundwater table that is 50 feet or great below ground surface, liquefaction potential is considered to be low. Furthermore, the site is devoid of steep slopes that would be subject to failure. Finally, the future development must comply with the applicable grading and building codes as well as the measures prescribed in the soils and geologic reports prepared for individual projects within Sub‐Area A of the Platinum Triangle. As a result, neither new or more severe impacts than previously identified would occur. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? Results of the Expansion Index laboratory testing of the upper soils on the subject property indicate a very low expansion potential. A conventional shallow foundation system appears to be suitable for use to support the structures proposed for residential development, provided the property is graded and improved in ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐24 general conformance with recommendations presented herein, as well as the effective edition of the California Building Code (CBC), the City of Anaheim and/or County of Orange grading ordinances. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The subject property and environs are currently served by a sanitary sewer system. Sewer facilities, which are located in the adjacent streets, would continue to serve the proposed multiple‐family residential development. Raw sewage generated on the site by the Platinum Vista Apartments project will be collected and conveyed by the existing sanitary sewage collection and conveyance system and not a septic system or other alternative means of collecting and treating raw sewage. As a result, potential impacts associated with a septic system are not anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts Project implementation would not result in any significant cumulative impacts associated with site soils or geology because the project will be designed to meet current CBC and City Building Code requirements to ensure that potential impacts that include the loss of property and life is minimized. In addition, mitigation measures have also been prescribed to ensure that no significant cumulative loss of property and/or lives would occur. Therefore, cumulative impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the changes to the project require a major change to FSEIR No. 339. The project would not result in any new significant environmental impact nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in FSEIR No. 339. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to FSEIR No. 339. 3.7 Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change 3.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 evaluated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with build‐out of the PTMLUP 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 calculated for area sources as well as project‐related water demand, energy use, and waste disposal, and transportation sources. An estimate of construction emissions was also generated. Build‐out of the PTMLUP would generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions 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 emission. Nevertheless, the emission levels would continue to represent a Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by City Council. Despite this finding, it was determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would be consistent with statewide and regional greenhouse gas reduction strategies to integrate land uses and improve transportation planning. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐25 3.7.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The proposed Platinum Vista Apartments Project involves an increase in the number of residential units and the elimination of the commercial floor area approved for the property. Specifically, the proposed project would result in the development of 389 apartment units, which equates to an increase of 39 dwelling units based on the 350 dwelling units approved for the property. In addition, the 60,000 square feet of commercial area would be eliminated. Operational GHG emissions include the direct emissions from vehicle trips and natural gas use and the indirect emissions resulting from the off‐site generation of electricity used on‐site and used to obtain, transport, and treat water used on‐site. The average daily trips associated with development of the site is approximately 50 percent less than the trips associated with the land uses analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 for the same project area within the Platinum Triangle. Similarly, the proposed project will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by about 13,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, GHG emissions from vehicle trips would be reduced as a result of project implementation. In addition, it is determined in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems of this addendum that the proposed project would generate less demand for utilities including natural gas, electricity, and water. This decrease in both vehicular trips and demand for utilities would result in a reduction in GHG emissions related to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project would not increase GHG emissions levels beyond what was analyzed in FSEIR No. 339, and no new or more severe long‐term GHG emissions impacts would occur. The proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project is considered to be infill development that would provide housing opportunities in close proximity to retail, service, entertainment and office opportunities available within the Platinum Triangle. Although the proposed project would result in more residential development than previously approved for the site, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides several bus routes along the project site which connect users to the Anaheim Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), further reducing the number of vehicular trips. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to comply with Title 24 of the State Building Code to reduce energy consumption and would meet building efficiency requirements per the relevant mitigation measures identified in FSEIR No. 339. Finally, several mitigation measures prescribed in FSEIR No. 339 would be implemented by the project, which would facilitate a reduction in project‐related GHG emissions. These measures include those prescribed for Air Quality (MM 2‐3, MM 2‐5 and MM 2‐6) as listed, Traffic/Transportation (MM 9‐14), and Utilities and Service Systems (MM10‐9, MM 10‐12 through MM 10‐14, MM 10‐18 through MM 10‐22, and MM 10‐24). Refer to Section 3.3 (Air Quality), Section 3.16 (Transportation/Traffic), and Section 3.17 (Utilities and Service Systems) for a listing of each measure. Therefore, similar to FSEIR No. 339, the proposed project is consistent with statewide and regional greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The General Plan Update for the City of Anaheim was adopted in May 2004. The City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element, while not specifically addressing GHG emissions or climate change, addresses topics concerning conservation of natural resources including vehicle emissions reduction; reducing vehicle work trips; expanding transit trips; sound land use planning; efficient, clean‐burning public transit; energy conservation; and building performance standards (see also Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning). ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐26 In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected year statewide 2020 BAU GHG emissions GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from year 2020 BAU. Therefore, the Scoping Plan defines the future baseline emissions scenario to mean in the absence of the statewide emissions reduction strategy. In order to determine whether the project’s GHG emissions are consistent with the overall goal of AB 32, emissions shown previously in Table 5.11‐4 are compared to GHG emissions with implementation of the Scoping Plan GHG emissions reduction measures. Additionally, the Scoping Plan identified several early action measures to reduce GHG emissions in the State of California. These early action measures include: • Green Building: Implementation of newer, more energy‐efficient California Building Standards within the California Building Code (CBC). The new 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 standards. • Renewable Energy Portfolio: Requiring that California use renewable energy to represent 33 percent of California’s energy portfolio. Renewable energy currently comprises 12 percent of the state’s energy portfolio. • Per‐Capita Water Reduction: Reducing per‐capita water use by approximately 20 percent. The draft 20X2020 water conservation plan identifies strategies to reduce water use in the state. In addition, plumbing and landscaping codes amended with the new CBC result in a 50 percent reduction of water use for new commercial and residential plumbing fixtures. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Adoption of a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS requires the carbon content of fuels sold in California to be reduced by 10 percent by year 2020. • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards: Adoption of higher fuel efficiency standards (Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards). The United States Environmental Protection Agency granted the waiver to California to implement higher fuel efficiency standards on July 1, 2009. California’s fuel efficiency standards require the average fleet fuel economy of cars to be 43 miles per gallon (mpg) by year 2020. This results in an increase in fuel efficiency of 42.8 percent from the current 23 mpg average fleet economy in California. Table 5.11‐5 in FSEIR No. 339 shows the GHG emissions inventory at build‐out of the Revised Platinum Triangle Master Plan with the associated GHG emissions (654,375 MT CO2e/year), reductions (353,237 MT CO2e/year) and the percent reduction (35 percent) from business as usual (BAU). To be consistent with GHG reduction targets of AB 32 for year 2020, the City would need to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from BAU by year 2020. As shown in this table, the statewide GHG emissions reduction measures identified in the Scoping Plan and that are being implemented over the next 10 years would reduce GHG emissions by 353,237 MTCO2e or 35 percent, from the BAU scenario. Because the GHG emissions reductions for transportation, buildings, energy, and other economic sectors would be implemented by year 2020, the percent reduction associated with the Scoping Plan for the project for 2030 would be similar for forecast year 2020. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the reduction of GHG emissions by approximately 45 percent compared to the approved Platinum Vista land use plan, which would further reduce the total Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan emissions presented in FSEIR 339 and would, therefore, be consistent with the previous analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐27 Cumulative Impacts Similar to cumulative air quality impacts, project‐related cumulative impacts would be reduced proportionate to the reduction in stationary and mobile‐source emissions generated by the proposed project when compared to the approved residential and commercial land uses; however, the GHG emissions would continue to contribute to the significant unavoidable adverse GHG impacts identified for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project in FSEIR No. 339. Conclusion The proposed project does not result in a new significant environmental impact nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not require any changes to FSEIR No. 339 related to greenhouse gas emissions. FSEIR Relevant Mitigation Measures Refer to Section 3.3 (Air Quality), Section 3.16 (Traffic/Transportation), and Section 3.17 (Utilities and Service Systems. 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to FSEIR No. 339, no impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were identified through the initial study process. Consequently, FSEIR No. 339 does not contain any specific analysis related to hazards and hazardous materials. 3.8.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The applicant is proposing to increase the number of apartment units on the Platinum Vista property from 350 to 389 and eliminate the 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area. It is anticipated that construction activities would involve the use of commonly used hazardous materials such as oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint associated with the construction of the multiple‐family residential development. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground would be required to ensure that potentially significant hazards are not created either during construction or in the future. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials would not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential uses. On‐going operation of the site as a multiple‐family residential development within Sub‐Area A of the Katella District in the Platinum Triangle will not result in the storage and/or use of ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐28 hazardous materials that would rise to the level of creating a potentially significant adverse impact. Thus no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As previously indicated, the Platinum Vista property previously supported commercial and industrial development. During the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted for the proposed project, minor quantities of cleaning products, lubricants, and or paint were noted in the existing structures occupying the site. In addition, small quantities of motor oil, waste oil, and fuel, as well as used tires, were noted. In general, housekeeping was adequate to good, with no evidence of significant spillage/leakage, or significant accumulation of waste. All interiors of the former industrial structures were paved with concrete, minimizing concerns in that regard. No potentially hazardous groundwater and/or soils conditions are known to exist within the limits of the project area that would result in the release of hazardous materials from the site. Furthermore, future land uses include only residential, retail/commercial and park uses, which are compatible uses that would neither utilize hazardous materials nor create hazardous conditions that would expose the public to such conditions through the discharge of hazard materials into the environment. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The property is generally bordered by commercial/industrial and residential development. It is immediately bound by Omni Duct (1700 South Lewis Street) to the north, A‐Town Metro south of Katella Avenue, residential development to the east, and the Platinum Gateway residential development that is currently under construction and Lewis Street to the west. A former gas station (Former Unocal ‐1818 South Lewis Street) was located to the southwest at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Lewis Street. None of the adjacent properties were identified as having environmental related issues on any of the databases researched. Several nearby sites have reported releases; however, these sites are not considered an environmental concern. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Paul Revere Elementary School at 140 W. Guinida Lane (northwest of the project site) and the Ponderosa Elementary School at 2135 South Mountain View Avenue (southwest of the project site) are within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan area and are located approximately one‐quarter of a mile from the subject property. Additionally, the Anaheim City Unified School District operates the Family Oasis at 131 W. Midway Drive and the Facilities and Operations Center at 1411 South Anaheim Boulevard. These facilities, operated by the school district, are also about one‐quarter mile from the Platinum Vista project site. Nonetheless, as indicated previously, use or handling of hazardous materials or substances within the project area would comply with appropriate state and federal rules and regulations through permitting process. No unauthorized use of hazardous materials would be allowed. The project area is occupied by various industrial uses and implementation of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments Project would not result in substantial adverse impact to school population due to increased amount of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. No additional analysis in the EIR is warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐29 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Database records searches were conducted as part of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan FEIR No. 321 in 1999 and the FSEIR No. 332 in 2005 to identify properties that could potentially pose a variety of environmental hazards within the boundaries and immediately adjacent to The Platinum Triangle. Action status on many of the identified properties were “closed” and required no further remediation and some were undergoing environmental remediation. However, these impacts are site‐specific and implementation of mitigation measures prescribed pursuant to FSEIR No. 332 would ensure that identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material is handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. FSEIR No. 332 and, subsequently FSEIR No. 339, determined that development of The Platinum Triangle, including the Platinum Vista project site, would not create a significant hazard to the environment through the release of hazardous materials and the proposed project does not involve actions that would affect the impact finding. In addition, existing Federal and State regulations that govern hazardous material and waste management help to minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Phase I ESA conducted for the proposed project included records searches of all applicable data bases and determined that the subject property is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 66962.5. Furthermore, the Phase I ESA concluded that there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the property. Therefore, the conclusion of the FSEIR No. 339 remains valid and no further analysis is required. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? There are two public airports in Orange County: John Wayne Airport (JWA) located approximately 8.25 miles south of the site and Fullerton Municipal Airport (FMA), which is located seven miles to the north. Based on the location of the airports, the subject property is not located within a two‐mile radius of either airport and, therefore, is neither subject to nor affected by an adopted airport land use plan. Furthermore, development of the Platinum Vista Apartments project as proposed would not subject future residents to safety hazards associated with aviation operations at either airport. No aviation‐related impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? As indicated above, two airports are located in northern and central Orange County; however, no private airstrips are located within the project environs. Future development as proposed would not be subject to any safety hazards associated with operations at a private airstrip. In addition, although three heliport facilities are located in the vicinity of the project area, the initial study prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion determined that operations of these heliports would not pose safety hazards to future residents of the project area and that future development pursuant to the PTMLUP, including the subject Platinum Vista property, would not expose future residents to heliport safety hazards based on the analysis included in FSEIR No. 332, which preceded FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐30 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City of Anaheim has an emergency preparedness plan that complies with State law and interfaces with other cities and counties within Southern California. The plan outlines the operations that shall be taken in the event of a disaster. It also allows for coordination with other agencies in the event that Anaheim is affected by a disaster elsewhere. The plan addresses a warning system, emergency broadcast system (EBS), Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and shelter system. The plan provides a foundation to conduct operations and coordinate the management of critical resources during emergencies. It also provides the framework for which nongovernmental agencies and organizations that have resources needed to meet emergency requirements are integrated into the program. The City of Anaheim also participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi‐agency responses to disasters. SEMS is required by the California Government Code and was developed to provide a “common language” for emergency response personnel to request resources and equipment from other agencies. In addition to resource allocation, SEMS was established to minimize the duplication of efforts during emergency response by defining common tactics and identifying a clear chain of command. The SEMS program is developed to respond to incidents as they occur, and does not provide long‐term recovery guidelines. Although project implementation would result in an increase in the number of dwelling units within Sub‐Area A in the Katella District, it would eliminate the potential development of 60,000 square feet of commercial development allocated to that sub‐area. Although it is not anticipated that development within the PTMLUP would adversely affect emergency response or evacuation plans, new development, including the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project, would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles. Furthermore, the City of Anaheim has several policies in place to minimize risks to life and property through emergency preparedness and public awareness. Therefore, no additional impacts are anticipated and no further analysis is warranted. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The subject property is neither located within nor adjacent to a designated wildland area and would not, therefore, be exposed to the potential for wildland fire. As indicated above, the Anaheim Fire Department provides fire protection and would respond to fire and/or emergency situations occurring in the project area, including the subject site. No significant wildland fire impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts Compliance with all regulatory requirements related to the use and storage of hazardous materials would ensure that any potential health hazard is eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level, which would also eliminate the potential for cumulative hazards to occur. Furthermore, project implementation does not include any feature that would be considered a hazard or create hazardous conditions. As a result, no cumulative impacts would occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐31 Conclusion The proposed project does not result in a new significant environmental impact nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in FSEIR No. 339. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not require any changes to FSEIR No. 339 related to greenhouse gas emissions. 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Hydrology According to FSEIR No. 339, 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. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project site is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study area within the Zones A99 and X. In the pre‐project condition, runoff from the graded pad areas is contained within each paid and allowed to infiltrate into underlying soils. Runoff from the paved street areas are allowed to flow northerly to Katella Avenue and southerly to Gene Autry Way. Runoff from both Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way is conveyed westerly to Lewis Street storm drain system (County Facility No. C05P21) and conveyed approximately one mile south to the East Garden Grove‐Wintersburg Channel (County Facility No. C05) and Haster Basin (County Facility No. C05B02). receiving waters include Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay. The project site does not receive off‐site run‐on from adjacent properties. 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. Water Quality 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 were anticipated to decrease both with and without the best management practices (BMPs) as a result of changes in land use, which in general would result in a reduction in light industrial/commercial and a greater amount of mixed uses, including residential development. With implementation of mitigation measures identified in FSEIR No. 332, anticipated pollutant concentrations were expected to further decrease and the project water quality impacts would be less than significant; water quality conditions were expected to be better than the existing conditions at the time of the report. FSEIR No. 339 found that no significant unavoidable adverse effects were anticipated from the implementation of the Platinum Triangle. 3.9.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The project is located within the Anaheim Bay‐Huntington Harbor Watershed and is tributary to the East Garden Grove‐Wintersburg Channel. Currently, there is no approved Watershed Infiltration and Hydromodification Management Plan (WIHMP) for the Anaheim Bay‐Huntington Harbor Watershed. The project’s receiving waters are considered impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Table 3.9‐1 reflects the Section 303(d) impairments for each of the water bodies as well as the applicable total maximum ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐32 daily loads There are no Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) or ESA’s within the project site. Table 3.9‐1 Section 303(d) Impairments and Applicable Platinum Vista Apartments Project Water Body Section 303(d)Impairment Applicable Anaheim Bay Pesticides Metals/Metalloids Other Organics Toxicity Dieldrin (tissue) Nickel PCBs Sediment Toxicity Huntington Harbor Pesticides Metals/Metalloids Other Organics Pathogens Toxicity Chlordane Copper/Lead/Nickel PCBs Pathogens Sediment Toxicity SOURCE: Hall & Foreman, Inc., Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (September 2012) The primary pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project include suspended solids/sediment, pathogens (bacteria/virus), and pesticides. Other pollutants of concern include nutrients, oil and grease, trash, and debris. The proposed project will incorporate best management practices during construction prescribed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and post‐construction as required in the Water Quality Management Plan. Implementation of the BMPs will ensure that water quality standards would not be exceeded; no additional mitigation measures would be required. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The primary source of groundwater for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) that underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote Hills and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminating at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. As discussed in FSEIR No. 339, from a hydrogeological standpoint, City wells are ideally located within the Basin, that they pump from geological structures and that they are relatively high up and geologically differentiated from other parts of the OCWD groundwater basin. In addition, because the City’s wells are located relatively near to the Prado Dam outlet to the Santa Ana River, particularly as compared to the well locations of other producers in the Basin, the City’s well fields draw water from easily accessible groundwater tables that are recharged on a naturally‐occurring priority basis due to: 1) the location of OCWD recharge basins in or adjacent to the City, and 2) the City’s wells’ location in or near the upper reaches of the Santa Ana River. In essence, Santa Ana River water has the natural effect of recharging the portion of the OCWD Basin that provides groundwater to the City wells prior to such Santa Ana River water reaching the lower portion of the river. Thus, construction of an additional groundwater well in the City would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐33 substantially affect the production of groundwater production wells operated by other producers located in other portions of the Basin. According to the preliminary geotechnical evaluation prepared for the project, the depth to groundwater was measured between 80 to 124 feet below ground surface (bgs) at various locations near the project site. Goundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings to the maximum depths explored of 51.5 feet below existing grades during the subsurface exploration. Groundwater is sufficiently deep that it is not anticipated to adversely impact the proposed development. The project site is not located in a groundwater recharge area. The site will not utilize groundwater for operation; water would be supplied by the local municipal water service. Therefore, no impacts related to groundwater supplies or recharge would result from the proposed project. The proposed project encompasses the same area as previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 for the subject property. As concluded in FSEIR No. 339, project implementation would not result in a potential significant adverse affect groundwater recharge within the basin. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site? No stream or river exists within the limits of the 4.13‐acre Platinum Vista site. As previously indicated, the existing site had been significantly altered in order to support commercial (restaurant and industrial development that existed on the property. Although project implementation would result in the conversion of the property from a commercial/industrial development to a multiple‐family residential development and would result in alterations that would affect existing drainage conditions, it is anticipated that the existing surface drainage conditions and characteristics would generally be maintained as discussed below. Although additional grading and landform alteration necessary to prepare the site for development as proposed could result in some erosion during that phase of construction, best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented pursuant to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in order to prevent transport of sediments resulting from site grading. BMPs are required pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and also prescribed by the City and reflected in FSEIR No. 339. As stipulated in that document, the property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The in conjunction with the WQMP, would describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short‐term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long‐term operation of the Project Area. Long‐term measures could include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage, designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. Implementation of the BMPs will ensure that potential erosion and siltation would not be transported and, therefore, will not adversely affect drainage features. No significant impacts would occur. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site? As previously indicated, the Platinum Vista Apartments property encompasses approximately 4.13 acres. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plans has been prepared for the project that addresses pre‐ and post‐development drainage conditions. Currently, the project site generally drains from the northeast to the southwest. All drainage is taken by surface flow into a network of concrete gutters prior to discharging into Katella Avenue through existing driveways. An existing catch basin in Katella Avenue collects the drainage from the site and ultimate joins the existing 54‐inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐34 Katella Avenue. All discharge from the site is ultimately received by the existing 78‐inch RCP storm drain in Lewis Avenue. Table 3.9‐2 summarizes the pre‐ and post‐development surface conditions of the proposed project. As reflected in the table, 64.4 percent of the site is currently pervious. However, after development of the property as currently proposed, the pervious surfaces on the site would increase by approximately 21 percent to 78 percent. Table 3.9‐2 Project Site Surface Conditions Platinum Vista Apartments Pervious Impervious Acres Percent Acres Percent Pre‐Project Conditions 0.43 10 3.89 90 Post‐Development Conditions 1.21 28 3.11 72 SOURCE: Hall & Foreman, Inc. (September 2012) As indicated in Table 3.9‐2, development of the site would result in a reduction of the impervious surface coverage on the site. Based on the site plan, the impervious coverage would be reduced from 90 percent to 72 percent coverage. As previously indicated, the runoff conditions and storm drain system under the post‐ development condition would closely mimic the existing conditions. Multiple sump‐areas are proposed within the common areas in order to collect drainage before routing it off the site by the underground storm drain system. The on‐site drainage system would discharge at the same locations as under existing conditions. Hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) do not exist. The goal of the low impact development (LID) strategy to address project‐related drainage is to infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85th percentile, 24‐hour storm event design capture volume). There are no known constraints on the project site that would cause infiltration strategies to be infeasible. As a result, infiltration is proposed as the primary low impact development (LID) strategy; the full design capture volume will be infiltrated. LID performance criteria can be satisfied using infiltration BMPs. Pre‐treatment of underground infiltration areas would be provided to remove sediment, trash and debris. The project has been designed to include multiple drainage management areas. Best management practices (BMPs) are proposed at strategic locations within the various landscape areas in order to achieve the LID performance criteria for infiltration for each drainage management area. Due to limited available area, and consideration to structural elements of the project, multiple BMP strategies are proposed. The LID infiltration BMPs proposed for the project include corrugated metal pipe (CMP) infiltration chambers, Dry Well systems, and Bioretention/Bioinfiltration Basins. The Preliminary WQMP illustrated on Exhibit 3.9‐1. Implementation of these BMPs will ensure that the project would meet current regulatory requirements to reduce water quality impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐36 As described above, the proposed project has been designed not only to replicate the existing drainage conditions but also to accommodate the on‐site storm runoff generated by the development as proposed. This conclusion is consistent with the findings and conclusions presented in FSEIR No. 339. Implementation of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project would be subject to the mitigation measures prescribed in that document. No significant drainage impacts will occur as a result of future development within Sub‐Area of the Platinum Triangle. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Pursuant to the City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 09, Section 030.010, the project is subject to the requirements of New Development and Significant Redevelopment projects to control urban runoff, in accordance with County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). As indicated above (refer to Table 3.9‐2), project implementation will result in a decrease in the amount of impervious surface on the site. Furthermore, LID infiltration BMPs are proposed that will infiltrate the full DCV for the site and an on‐site, underground detention basis is also proposed to reduce peak flows to existing conditions. The proposed project has been designed to maximize drainage existing patterns to provide opportunities to convey stormwater to areas that will maximize the effectiveness of the low impact development (LID) BMPs prescribed in the WQMP. Specifically, the LID BMPs that will be incorporated into the project design are intended to retain, onsite, infiltrate, harvest and use, or evapo‐transpire) stormwater runoff as feasible up to the Design Capture Volume established for the project. Based on the nominal post‐development volume of stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project, the existing and proposed drainage systems would be adequate to accommodate the post‐development runoff volumes. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Although conversion of the property as proposed would not result in any unique or unusual water quality impacts, site preparation, grading and construction could result in some erosion potential and the potential for a discharge of silt and other pollutants associated with the proposed development into the surface waters. However, as indicated above, it would be necessary to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as prescribed in MM 3‐2 in FSEIR No. 339. As indicated in that mitigation measure, the applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board As part of the NOI, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. A Water Quality Management Plan and related Best Management Practices has been prepared as required by MM 3‐2, to ensure that water quality impacts that may occur during grading and construction are minimized. Implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the would avoid potentially significant water quality impacts during the construction phase of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project. As a result, project‐related construction impacts to water quality would be less than significant. In addition, non‐structural and structural BMPs included in the WQMP and reflected in Table 3.9‐3 and Table 3.9‐4, respectively, will ensure that potential long‐term, post‐development water quality impacts are also avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Non‐Structural BMPs As indicated in Table 3.9‐3, BMP Nos. N6, N7, N8, N13 and N16 are not included with the non‐structural category because the proposed project does not include the facilities referenced in those BMPs. Each of the categories of the non‐structural BMPs that are applicable to the proposed project and that will be implemented are described in greater detail in the Conceptual WQMP, which is available for review at the City of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐37 Table 3.9‐3 Routine Non‐Structural BMPs Platinum Vista Apartments Project BMP No. Name Incl. N/A N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants X N2 Activity Restrictions X N3 Common Area Landscape Management X N4 BMP Maintenance X N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (how development will comply) X N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance X N7 Spill Contingency X M8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance X N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance X N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation X N11 Common Area Litter Control X N12 Employee Training X N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks X N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection X N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots X N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets X SOURCE: Hall & Foreman. (September 2012) Structural BMPs In addition to the non‐structural BMPs identified above, the applicant would also be required to install structural BMPs through the construction and development phases of the project. The routine structural BMPs, which are included in the Preliminary WQMP and identified in Table 3.9‐4, include a variety of mandated elements, including trash and waste storage, efficient irrigation systems and landscaping, and slope protection. As previously indicated, the nature and extent of each of the BMPs included in the proposed project are thoroughly described in the Draft WQMP, which is available for review at the City of Anaheim. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐38 Table 3.9‐4 Routine Structural BMPs Platinum Vista Apartments Project BMP No. Name Incl. N/A S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage X S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction X S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction X S4 Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control X S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation X Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from NPDES Permit) X S6 Dock areas X S7 Maintenance bays X S8 Vehicle wash areas X S9 Outdoor processing areas X S10 Equipment wash areas X S11 Fueling areas X S12 Hillside landscaping X S13 Wash water and control for food preparation X S14 Community car was racks X SOURCE: Hall & Foreman (September 2012) Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The project site is located within a 100‐Year to 500‐Year Flood Zone as identified in the City's Safety Element of the General Plan (Figure S‐6). However, in the event that a flood should occur, it is expected to be less than one foot deep. Also, the site is located outside of flood hazard and floodway areas as defined on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (FIRM Map for Orange County and Incorporated Areas, Community Panel 060213, and Panel Map No. 06059C0142J, 2009). Nonetheless, as prescribed in MM 3‐1 in FSEIR No. 339, with the exception of parking structures, all structures must be designed to be at least three feet higher that the 100‐year flood zone, where applicable, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer. All structures below this level must be flood‐proofed to prevent damage to property or harm to people. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation; no additional mitigation measures are required. Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? As indicated above, the project site could be subject to potential inundation and/or flooding because a portion of the site is located within the 100‐year flood zone, as designated by FEMA. Therefore, as prescribed in FSEIR No. 339, all habitable structures would be designed to be at least three feet higher than the 100‐foot ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐39 flood zone, and facilities are or would be constructed to eliminate such potential flooding. Compliance with MM 3‐1 as indicated above will ensure that potentially flooding impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, no significant increases in impervious surfaces or structures that could potentially impede or redirect flood flows will occur in a FEMA‐designated 100‐year flood zone as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Project implementation would not expose either people or structures to flood hazards as a result of the failure of a dam or levee. The site is not subject to inundation as a result of the failure of a dam or levee because no such structure is located near the subject property that would adversely affect the site in the event of a failure. Therefore, no flooding or inundation impacts would result from implementation of the project. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. According to the City’s General Plan, no enclosed bodies of water are located in the immediate vicinity of the site; therefore, no impacts from seiches are anticipated as a result of project implementation. A tsunami, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. The City of Anaheim is located well inland, away from the Orange County coastline. Due to the elevation and the distance from the coastline, tsunami hazards do not exist for the project site and vicinity. Similarly, the two sites are essentially flat and devoid of steep slopes (either natural or manmade) that could be undermined by seismic activity or other instability to cause mudflows. Implementation of the proposed residential project will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Cumulative Impacts With the implementation of the BMPs and features proposed in the project, storm runoff would not exceed volumes prescribed for site development. In addition, surface water would be treated to ensure that pollutant loads are minimized and meet discharge requirements. Therefore, project implementation would not significantly contribute to the cumulative degradation of either storm runoff or water quality. Project‐ related impacts are less than significant. Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a new significant impact or an impact that would be more severe than previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. The analysis included in FSEIR No. 339 adequately analyzed the potential impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project. No significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐40 3.10 Land Use and Planning 3.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The FSEIR concluded that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Plan was consistent with all of the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan, despite the need for the requisite amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay District. Despite the amendments required for that project, the City determined that implementation of the revised PTMLUP achieves the goals and objectives articulated in the local and regional plans because the land uses would: • Balance and integrate uses • Stimulate market‐driven development • Create a unique, integrated, walkable urban environment • Reinforce transit‐oriented development opportunities. • Maintain and enhance connectivity • Create great neighborhoods The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project provides additional housing, commercial, and office opportunities in a unique, mixed‐use urban environment, all of which address the relevant goals and objectives articulated in the City’s Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Design Elements as well as related regional plans addressing transportation/mobility. Because the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion builds upon the planning principles of the Platinum Triangle MLUP, the relevant goals policies and objectives would continue to be achieved. Furthermore, creation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) District would reinforce transit‐oriented development opportunities desired in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan, and adjustment of mixed‐use boundaries would enhance connectivity and create dynamic neighborhoods. As a result, the FSEIR determined that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion was consistent with the long‐range plans adopted by the City. However, one inconsistency with Goal 8.1 of the City’s Public Services and Facilities Element would occur. FSEIR No. 339 revealed that A‐Town Metro includes high‐rise residential towers located north of the existing Southern California Gas (SCG) microwave tower that could potentially conflict with the tower’s operation. The Development Agreement for A‐Town Metro allows high‐rise residential towers up to a maximum of 400 feet within designated development areas project site), including some in the line‐of‐sight from the SCG microwave tower located south of the plan area. Because A‐Town Metro was an approved project with a signed and recorded Development Agreement, which was approved on October 25, 2005, it was not a part of the prior project actions associated with the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project. As a result, the analysis presented in FSEIR No. 339 concluded that, provided that development within A‐Town Metro occurs as currently approved residential towers up to 400 feet high), relocation of the microwave tower may be necessary to prevent service disturbances. In the event that the property containing the microwave tower is redeveloped with future mixed uses, the tower could be relocated. However, because the City of Anaheim could not require any actions on A‐Town Metro to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the potential interference/inconsistency with the General Plan Goal 8.1 would be a significant unavoidable impact. (Although the proposed project site is located within the Katella District of the Platinum Triangle, it is not located within the A‐Town Master Plan area and does not, therefore, affect the operational capabilities of the SCG microwave facilities.) ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐41 3.10.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Physically divide an established community? The property that is the subject of the proposed development project encompasses approximately 4.13 acres within Sub‐Area A in the Katella District of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan area. The site is generally bound by Katella Avenue on the south, multiple‐family residential and commercial development is located to the east and industrial development is located north of the subject property. The approved Platinum Gateway multiple‐family residential development site abuts the Platinum Vista Apartments project site on the west. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with a variety of land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and sports venue development (east of State College Boulevard). The applicant is proposing to increase the density of the approved multiple‐ family residential project previously approved, resulting in an increase in the number of dwelling units to 389, or 39 more units than approved for the site. Although the use of the subject property would change from its present undeveloped condition, project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change an established community because the development located adjacent to the site is comprised of a variety of land uses, including residential existing to the east and residential approved to the west. The proposed project does not contain any features or elements roadways, channels, incompatible development, etc.) that would physically divide the existing residential neighborhoods in the project vicinity. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Implementation of the proposed project would require amendments to the approved plans affecting the Platinum Vista property. Specifically, the amendments include: ▪ General Plan Amendment To amend Table LU‐5: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City to increase the number of residential dwelling units and decrease the commercial area allocated within the mixed use designation of the Platinum Triangle as reflected below: - Addition of 39 dwelling units - Elimination of 60,000 square feet allocated for commercial area ▪ Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amendment To amend the allocated number of residential dwelling units and eliminate 60,000 square feet of commercial area allocated to the property. ▪ Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone Amendment To amend the allocated number of residential dwelling units and eliminate 60,000 square feet of commercial area allocated to the property. Although the proposed project requires the approval of the amendments cited above, future development proposed within Katella District of the Platinum Triangle area would be consistent with all of the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Design Elements as ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐42 reflected in Table 5.4‐1 in FSEIR No. 339. The increase of 39 residential dwelling units and elimination of 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area from the approved land use allocations for Sub‐Area A and the Katella District would not significantly change the land use allocations in a manner that would render the project inconsistent with the applicable policies. The proposed project would continue to be compatible with surrounding land uses and would comply with applicable design guidelines. Furthermore, any potential impacts would be avoided or lessened through the implementation of the mitigation measures applicable to the project prescribed in FSEIR No. 339. Finally, development of the Platinum Vista Apartments project would provide housing opportunities, which are consistent with the long‐range goals and objectives of the Anaheim General Plan and related long‐range plans and programs adopted by the City. As a result, the proposed project would continue to achieve, albeit to a quantitatively lesser degree, the goals, objectives, and policies of the relevant adopted plans and programs. In addition to the consistency determinations related to the Anaheim General Plan, the proposed project would also be consistent with other applicable regional plans and programs, including Compass/Growth visioning principles identified in SCAG’s Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy, and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan. As indicated above, the proposed revisions to the land use plan for the Platinum Vista plan property would not significantly affect achieving the goals as previously analyzed for the Revised Platinum Triangle Plan Expansion as articulated in Table 5.4‐4 and Table 5.4‐5 of FSEIR No. 339. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The Anaheim General Plan identifies the City’s open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses approximately 41 acres that are currently undeveloped; however, the Platinum Vista Apartments project site previously supported commercial and industrial development that has since been demolished or is pending demolition. The project site has been entirely altered in order to accommodate the prior land uses. As a result, no natural features and/or habitat that would support sensitive species exist on the site. In particular, neither the site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation would not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Cumulative Impacts As indicated above, although the project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment and related amendments to adopted long‐range plans, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant land use policies adopted for development as articulated in the City’s General Plan and applicable regional plans with the exception of the potential interference with the existing SCG microwave tower south of the subject property. Although project implementation would result in an increase in residential dwelling units and elimination of 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area currently allocated for Sub‐Area A within the Katella District, the proposed project would not exceed the maximum intensity of development currently approved in the Katella District. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses in the project environs. Thus, no significant cumulative land use impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Conclusion Because the proposed project will allow for the development of 39 more dwelling units (11.1 percent) than allocated to the project site less commercial floor area, all of the associated land use impacts were previously ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐43 evaluated in FSEIR No. 339. As indicated in that FEIR and confirmed in the preceding analysis, no significant impacts will occur. 3.11 Mineral Resources 3.11.1 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. 3.11.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The Platinum Vista Apartments project site is located within an area of the City of Anaheim that has been extensively developed and urbanized. The site, which was previously developed, is currently vacant and designated for mixed uses residential and commercial) on the PTMLUP. Neither the Anaheim General Plan nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist either on the site or in the project environs. Therefore, as indicated in the initial study prepared for FSEIR No. 339, project implementation would not result in any impacts to mineral resources and no mitigation measures are required. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? As indicated above, the Anaheim General Plan does not identify either the project site or environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. No mineral resources are known to exist on the site, which has been significantly altered as a result of past development. Project implementation as proposed multiple‐family residential development) would not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts As identified above, the subject property is not designated for mineral resources either by the State of California or County of Orange and is not known to contain such resources. As a result, no mineral resources would be lost with site development and, therefore, project implementation would result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis presented above, there is no evidence that the proposed project would result in a new significant impact to mineral resources. Furthermore, there is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to FSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐44 3.12 Noise 3.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Short‐Term (Construction) Noise Impacts Short‐term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, grading, and building construction of the proposed land uses. Construction of individual land uses under the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project would occur over a period of approximately 20 years in the 820‐acre area. Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of short‐ term noise impact is related to noise generated at the job site during demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. However, despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Noise levels generated by construction equipment would range between approximately 70 dB to over 100 dB at 50 feet from the source, depending on the specific piece of equipment utilized in the construction activity. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that although the City of Anaheim restricts the hours of construction activities to the least noise‐sensitive portions of the day (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, excluding federal holidays), construction activities would occur over an extended period of time (approximately 20 years) and would result in temporary exceedances of 65 dBA up to 446 feet from the construction site, which is a significant impact. FSEIR No. 339 also identified potential vibration impacts associated with new construction within the Platinum Triangle Master Plan area and the potential effect on nearby sensitive receptors. Specifically, the analysis indicated that potential vibration impacts resulting from the use of impact equipment pile drivers) during the construction of buildings taller than 12 stories. would be significant. Although a mitigation measure was prescribed, the analysis concluded that such potential impacts would remain significant, even with mitigation. Long‐Term Noise Impacts Based on the criteria used in the 2005 SEIR to determine level of significance a 5 dBA increase in an ambient noise environment of less than 65 dBA CNEL or a 3 dBA noise increase in an ambient noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or more), the proposed Project would result in new significant noise increases along multiple roadway segments in Anaheim and Orange, including roadway segments of Anaheim Way, Cerritos Avenue, Collins Avenue, Disney Way, Douglass Street, Eckhoff Street, Gene Autry Way, Haster Street, Howell Avenue,. Katella Avenue, Lewis Street, Main Street, Manchester Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Phoenix Club Drive, Rampart Street, State College Boulevard, Struck Avenue, and Sunkist Street. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that potentially significant noise impacts for noise‐sensitive uses placed in proximity to freeways and major arterials could also occur if the sensitive uses fall within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. However, because not all noise‐sensitive areas constructed under individual development proposals under the Platinum Triangle may meet the City’s noise compatibility standards and impacts would need to be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. Nonetheless, any siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of major arterials and freeways represents a potentially significant impact and would require a separate noise study through the development review process to determine the level of impact and required mitigation. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐45 Placement of noise‐sensitive land uses within the vicinity of Angel Stadium of Anaheim would also expose residents to temporary increases in ambient noise environment during a stadium event. During a game day, cheering, PA systems, and fireworks (when the Angels have a home run) would be audible at residential areas surrounding the stadium. These events typically occur in the evening hours and could last past 10:00 PM, which is considered the noise‐sensitive portion of the night. Temporary increases in the ambient noise environment during the baseball season, which lasts from April until October, in the event the Angels play post‐season games, which could result in nighttime awakenings for future residents. Typical noise levels within the stadium during a sporting event range from 94 dBA to 114 dBA for spectators within the stadium, while fireworks shows are 150 dBA as measured at a distance of 10 feet. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that any siting of sensitive land uses within the vicinity of the stadium that would be exposed to interior noise levels of 81 dBA SEL due to the stadium would result in a potentially significant noise impact. 3.12.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The project site and vicinity are located within an urban area that is developed with a variety of land uses, including single‐ and multiple‐family residential, commercial, institutional, sports, transportation, and other land uses. Ambient noise levels on the subject property and in the project environs are the result of vehicular traffic utilizing the surrounding roadways, including Katella Avenue and Lewis Avenue. Project implementation would convert the existing vacant property to a high density, multiple‐family residential land use. Although project implementation would result in a reduction in project‐related traffic when compared to the trip generation associated with the existing mixed use designation that would accommodate residential and commercial development, both on a daily and peak hour basis, it is anticipated that potential noise impacts would be similar, albeit reduced, as the noise level projections along the roadway segments identified previously. Because residential development is proposed along the Katella Avenue corridor, these sensitive land uses would be subject to virtually the same noise level exposure as identified and described in FSEIR No. 339. Furthermore, other sensitive land uses along those same roadway segments would also be adversely affected by the high roadway noise levels. Because the traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in an increase in noise levels but rather contribute to a small potential decrease in noise mobile‐source noise levels anticipated identified in the FSEIR, the project as currently proposed would not result in any significant impacts. As concluded in FSEIR No. 339, potential noise impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 would not exceed the City’s significance criteria a 5 dBA increase in an ambient noise environment of less than 65 dBA CNEL or a 3 dBA noise increase in an ambient noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or more). As prescribed in MM 5‐2, the proposed residential development will comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations).The potential impacts identified and described in FSEIR would not change significantly and the potential mobile‐source noise impacts identified in FSEIR No. 339 is adequate to address the proposed amendment to the Platinum Vista Apartments project. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Although grading and construction of the site would employ heavy equipment, significant groundborne vibration impacts are not anticipated because pile driving and/or similar activities that typically generate vibration impacts would not be utilized in the construction of the proposed project. Typical background vibration levels in residential areas are usually 50 VdB or lower, below the threshold of human perception. Perceptible vibration levels inside residences are typically attributed to the operation of heating and air ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐46 conditioning systems, door slams or street traffic. Construction activities and street traffic are some of the most common external sources of vibration that can be perceptible inside residences. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause structural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the Federal Transportation Agency (FTA) standards as reflected in Table 5.5‐6 in FSEIR No. 339, which range from 90 VdB (vibration level) in buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage to 102 VdB for building constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster). Construction activities generate ground‐borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground‐borne vibration include discernible movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, construction activities can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedures and equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings near the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibration from construction activities rarely reaches levels that can damage structures, but it can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. Groundborne vibration would be generated by construction equipment during construction activities for the proposed project, primarily during the demolition, grading, and foundation phases of the proposed structures. Unless there are extremely large generators of vibration, such as pile drivers, or receptors in close proximity to construction equipment, vibration is generally only perceptible at structures when vibration rattles windows, picture frames, and other objects. The maximum levels of vibration that would be experienced at vibration‐ sensitive structures located 25 feet from the construction equipment would vary from about 60 dBV to over 110 dBV. Typically, only construction equipment generating extremely high levels of vibration, such as pile drivers, has the potential for vibration‐induced structural damage. Construction of buildings taller than 12 stories, which generates substantial levels of vibration that can be perceived at even farther distances and could result in structural damage. Construction activities related to future development within the Platinum Triangle could result in vibration levels exceeding the FTA’s criteria for vibration‐induced structural damage within the Platinum Triangle, and would be considered significant. Such impacts were identified and described in FSEIR No. 339 and a mitigation measure was prescribed to reduce such potential vibration impacts to a less than significant level. However, even with mitigation as prescribed in FSEIR No. 339, vibration impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Because the proposed project is less than 12 stories in height and would not require the use of impact equipment such as pile drivers in the construction of the proposed residential buildings and parking structure, potentially significant vibration impacts are not anticipated. Therefore, MM 5‐5 prescribed in FSEIR No. 339 (use of auger cast piles for a pile‐supported transfer slab foundation system to reduce the duration necessary for the use of impact pile drivers) would not be required. Both stationary and mobile sources were determined in FSEIR No. 332, the precursor to FSEIR No. 339, to result in potentially significant impacts to noise‐sensitive residential units proposed within the Platinum Triangle. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan indicates that noise thresholds are to be attained in habitable exterior areas and need not encompass the entirety of a property, and that special consideration should be given in the case of infill residential development along the City’s arterial corridors or railroad lines ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐47 in order to achieve an appropriate balance between providing a quality living environment and attractive project design. Residential, office, institutional, and commercial land uses should be considered in light of achieving this type of balance. It should be noted that the City of Anaheim does not regulate noise levels for balconies less than six feet in depth. However, ground‐floor patios at future residences facing major arterials and within the vicinity of rail lines would be exposed to high noise levels that exceed the City’s normally acceptable compatibility criterion. Numerous major arterials, highways, railroads, and other noise‐generating land uses are located within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle and could affect future noise‐sensitive land uses. The primary sources of noise within the Platinum Triangle are traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the project and locations near at‐ grade rail crossings where railroad traffic (and train horns) generates substantial noise. Major transportation sources within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle include I‐5, SR‐57, Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, Orangewood Boulevard, State College Boulevard, and the Orange County Line. In addition to transportation noise sources, existing industrial and entertainment land uses can generate high levels of stationary‐source noise that can affect proposed land uses if new noise‐sensitive residential developments were within close proximity. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Table 5.5‐9 in FSEIR No. 339 illustrates that that noise from roadways within the Platinum Triangle would exceed 65 dBA CNEL along several roadway segments as a result of vehicular traffic generated by the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project, resulting in noise levels that exceed the City’s conditionally acceptable noise compatibility criterion for noise‐sensitive residential uses. Noise from SR‐57, I‐5, and the Orange County Line also contributes to the exterior noise environment. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that potential mobile‐source noise impacts under the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion plan would be similar to those identified in FSEIR No. 332. Because the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments Project would result in a reduction in the overall intensity of use within Sub‐Area A and, thus a reduction in project‐related traffic, it would be anticipated that some noise levels projected within the project area, including Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, State College Boulevard, and Lewis Street would be reduced to some degree based on the reduction in traffic. However, the noise levels throughout the project area would not be significantly reduced and the potentially significant adverse noise impacts would remain despite the reduction in traffic associated with the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments Project. Therefore, where applicable, the proposed project would be subject to the same mitigation measures identified in FSEIR No. 339. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As described for Impact 5.5‐7 in FSEIR No. 339, Short‐term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, grading, and building construction of the proposed land uses. Construction of individual land uses under the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately 20 years in the 820‐acre area. Temporary construction noise impacts will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short‐term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition activities, then foundation work, followed by construction and paving activities. Demolition or construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used which changes during the course of the project. Construction noise tends to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition and/or earth‐moving sources and later for finish construction. The earth‐moving sources are seen to be the noisiest, with ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐48 equipment noise ranging up to about 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance, or about 20 dB in 500 feet of propagation. The loudest earth‐moving noise sources may therefore sometimes be detectable above the local background beyond 1,000 feet from the construction area. An impact radius of 1,000 feet or more pre‐supposes a clear line‐of‐sight and no other machinery or equipment noise that would mask project construction noise. With buildings and other barriers to interrupt line‐of‐sight conditions, the potential “noise envelope” around individual construction sites is reduced. Construction noise impacts are, therefore, somewhat less than that predicted under idealized input conditions. Construction noise exposure can be further worsened when several pieces of equipment operate in close proximity. Because of the logarithmic nature of decibel addition, two equally loud pieces of equipment will be +3 dB louder than either one individually. Three simultaneous sources are +5 dB louder than any single source. Thus, while average operational equipment noise levels are perhaps 5 dB less than at peak power, simultaneous equipment operation can still yield an apparent noise strength equal to any individual source at peak noise output. Whereas the average heavy equipment reference noise level is 85 dB(A), short‐term levels from either peak power or from several pieces operating in close proximity can be as high as 90 dB(A). During most intensive heavy equipment operations, the peak hourly average noise level from several pieces of equipment in simultaneous hourly operation is 85 dB Leq at 50 feet from the activity. Even with closed windows at an adjacent residence, such levels could interfere with quiet interior residential activity. There are existing residences east of the project site that could experience a temporary construction noise nuisance. In order to reduce short‐term construction‐related noise impacts, several mitigation measures were prescribed in FSEIR No. 339, including MM 5‐7 through MM 5‐10. MM 5‐7 requires that the developer ensure that noise levels at the property boundary not exceed 60 dBA between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., limit the hours of use of equipment that generates excessive noise levels to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., and properly maintain and employ muffler systems on all construction equipment. The other measures include proper maintenance and tuning of all construction equipment (MM 5‐8), location of all stationary noise sources generators, compressors, etc.) away from noise‐sensitive receptors (MM 5‐9), and restricting material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing to the hours set forth in Section 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (MM 5‐10). Implementation of these measures will result in the reduction of construction noise levels and such impacts are less than significant. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? As previously discussed, the nearest public airport to the project site and environs is Fullerton Municipal Airport (FMA), which is located approximately seven miles north of the project site. John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 8.25 miles to the south. Aviation operations at these facilities would neither be affected by nor would affect development of the project site as proposed as concluded in FSEIUR No. 339. . For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No private airstrips are located within the project environs. Future development as proposed on the project site would not be subject to any excessive levels associated with operations at a private airstrip. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. In addition to the two public airports, there are three heliports in the project area, including the North Net Fire Training Center (2400 East Orangethorpe Avenue), UCI Medical Center Heliport (Chapman Avenue/The City Drive intersection), and Anaheim Stadium, which is used by the Anaheim Police Department for training. Although the proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐49 project includes sensitive receptors residential), FSEIR No. 339 concluded that while noise‐sensitive uses could be potentially placed in proximity to heliports and areas of helicopter activity, use of these heliports and the occurrence of helicopter activity would be infrequent. As a result, noise impacts from heliport use and helicopter activity under the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Because the proposed project only includes the reduction of density, potential impacts would remain less than significant and no mitigation measures are required Cumulative Impacts Although project implementation includes a reduction in the density/intensity of development within Sub‐ Area A in the Platinum Triangle and potentially a reduction of project‐related noise, short‐ and long‐term impacts associated with the project would contribute to the potentially significant construction‐related noise impacts and long‐term, mobile‐source noise impacts caused by the generation of additional trips (albeit reduced). Neither the increase in the number of dwelling units nor the decrease in retail/commercial development, which results in a net reduction in vehicle trips, would substantially reduce noise levels projected for the project area and cumulative construction and long‐term noise impacts would remain significant an unavoidable. Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would neither create a new significant noise impact nor cause an impact to be more severe. The analysis presented in FSEIR No. 339 adequately evaluated the potential noise impacts of the proposed project, which must comply with all applicable mitigation measures to ensure that potential noise impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. FSEIR No. 339 Relevant Mitigation Measures MM 5‐1 Prior to approval of street improvement plans for any project‐related roadway widening, the City shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to design project acoustical features that will limit traffic noise at noise sensitive uses to levels that are below the City’s noise ordinance. These treatments shall be noted on the street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and may include, but are not limited to, the replacement of windows and doors at existing residences with acoustically rated windows and doors. MM 5‐2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound‐attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary sources industrial, commercial, stadium, etc.), and railroad, to meet City interior noise standards as follows: a) The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential design will result in compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations). b) The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential design shall minimize nighttime awakening from stadium event noise and train horns such that interior single‐event noise levels are below 81 dBA Lmax. The property owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐50 MM 5‐4 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during sounding of train horns will be provided to all future tenants facing an at‐grade crossing of the Orange County Line MM 5‐7 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction‐ related noise: a) Noise generated by construction, shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries, before 7:00 AM and after 7:00 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, 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. MM 5‐8 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. MM 5‐9 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to locate all stationary noise sources generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from occupied noise‐sensitive receptors as is feasible. M 5‐10 Ongoing during construction activities, material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall also be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 6.70. 3.13 Population and Housing 3.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Revised Platinum Triangle Maser Plan would directly induce population growth through allowing additional residential development and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional non‐ residential development in the Platinum Triangle. As shown in Table 5.6‐6 of FSEIR No. 339, build‐out of the Revised Platinum Triangle Master Plan is anticipated to add 12,965 residents and 26,860 employees in the project area, increasing the total Platinum Triangle population to 28,364 and employees to 41,500. The jobs/housing balance is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. Jobs/housing goals and ratios are advisory only and no ideal jobs/housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies. As shown in Table 5.6‐6, build‐out of the Adopted MLUP would create 1.43 jobs per one housing unit produced, compared to 2.19 jobs created for one housing unit with the Proposed Project. However, this is a significant improvement over the existing jobs/housing ratio within the Platinum Triangle, which was 13.47 at the time the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project was approved. Jobs and housing estimates for the City of Anaheim are forecast to becoming increasingly balanced with time from 2.02 jobs/housing ratio (estimated ) to 1.77 by 2035. Unlike the City, the County is anticipated to become more jobs‐rich as a whole, changing from 1.57 jobs/housing ratio (2003) to 1.72 by 2035. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that buildout of the Platinum Triangle would result in a jobs/housing ratio that remains significantly more ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐51 balanced compared to the existing conditions in the area. Providing a more balanced, mixed‐use community within the Platinum Triangle would promote alternative transportation choices and is anticipated to reduce per capita vehicle miles travelled. The Proposed Project would result in direct and indirect growth in the area and, at build‐out, contribute towards a higher jobs/housing ratio for the City. Although a balanced jobs/housing growth is encouraged, SCAG also encourages job growth to be concentrated near transit services and transit nodes, and near existing freeways to facilitate existing and new residents’ use of transit to get to their places of employment. The Platinum Triangle, due to its unique location with two freeways and ARTIC in close proximity, lends itself as an ideal candidate for a high employment center. Build‐out of the Proposed Project would increase the projected jobs/housing ratio in the City from 1.77 to 1.85. However, the Proposed Project would be consistent with regional growth management policies that facilitate future job growth at strategic points along the commuter rail, transit systems, and freeway corridors. Although build‐out of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project would increase the jobs/housing ratio numerically, it would be consistent with many of SCAG’s growth management policies intended to better coordinate infrastructure development with projected population, housing, and employment growth. 3.13.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in the total number of dwelling units within Sub‐Area A of the Katella District. The proposed project would allow for an increase of 39 multiple‐family residential dwelling units and the elimination of 60,000 square feet of commercial development, resulting in a total of 1,102 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of commercial floor area for Sub‐Area A, compared to 1,063 residential dwelling units and 105,000 square feet of commercial floor area currently approved for Sub‐Area A. The amount of office floor area (1,005,760 square feet) approved for Sub‐Area A of the Katella District would remain unchanged. The addition of 39 dwelling units would increase the total number of dwelling units permitted in the Platinum Triangle to 19,027 dwelling units. As a result, the total population estimated for the Platinum Triangle would be increase to 28,731 residents, compared to 28,672 estimated for the 18,988 approved dwelling units. In addition, the potential employment generated within the Platinum Triangle would also be reduced based on the reduction of 60,000 square feet of commercial development, resulting in a maximum of 45,000 square feet for Sub‐Area A. The total number of jobs estimated for the Platinum Triangle would also be reduced from 300 to 180 as a result of the reduction in the commercial floor area currently approved for the same area. Table 3.13‐1 reflects the changes in housing, population and employment associated with the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐52 Table 3.13‐1 Estimated Population, Housing, and Employment Generation – Platinum Triangle Platinum Vista Apartments Project Land Use Approved Platinum Triangle MLUP Proposed Project Change Platinum Triangle MLUP w/Proposed Project Housing 18,988 DUs 28,672 Population +39 DUs +59 Population 19,027 DUs 28,731 Population Office 14,131,103 sf 41,500 Employees ‐120 Employees 14,131,103 sf 41,380 Employees Commercial 4,795,111 sf ‐60,000 sf 4,735,111 sf Institutional 1,500,000 1,500,000 sf Jobs/Housing Ratio 2.19 2.17 SOURCE: FSEIR No. 339 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project site does not support housing at the present time. Project implementation includes the conversion of an existing undeveloped property to a high residential apartments) development. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the elimination of any existing residential dwelling units and would not require the provision of any replacement housing. Therefore, no significant impacts to the City’s existing housing inventory would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? As indicated above, project implementation would not result in the elimination of any existing residential dwelling units, and, therefore, would not displace any residents in the City of Anaheim. Although the proposed project would result in a small increase in the number of dwelling units previously approved by the City for the subject property, the project does include the development of 389 apartments, or 39 more than allocated for Sub‐Area A within the Katella District that would be added to the City’s inventory of housing, which would not only increase the City’s housing stock, but also provide housing intended to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts FSEIR No. 339 concluded that potential cumulative impacts of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project would be less than significant. The analysis presented in the FSEIR estimated that the City’s jobs/housing ratio would be 1.77 without the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project and 1.85 with build‐out of that project as approved. With or without the expansion, the City of Anaheim is anticipated to have higher jobs/housing ratio compared to the County as a whole and the southern California area. Implementation of the Vista Platinum Apartments Project as proposed would result in minor changes to both population and employment. Similar to the larger Platinum Triangle, the projected jobs/housing ratio for the City with the Proposed Project is an improvement from the 2.02 ratio in 2003. As a result, cumulative population and housing impacts are not considered significant, consistent with the prior determination included in FSEIR No. 339. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐53 Conclusion Although the proposed project would not significantly alter the forecasts for either population and housing or jobs. When compared to the approved PTMLUP land use plan, the relatively small reductions in both housing (five percent) and commercial development (two percent), would not result in any significant impacts either to housing or employment. The proposed Platinum Vista Apartments Project would continue to be consistent with the relevant long ‐range plans for housing and land use and, furthermore, would not significant alter the jobs/housing balance forecast for the City. FSEIR adequately evaluated the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. No new or more severe impacts to population and housing would occur as a result of the proposed project. 3.14 Public Services 3.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Fire Protection Services As discussed in FSEIR No. 339, the City of Anaheim Fire Department (AFD) provides fire protection, emergency rescue and medical services to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area. There are 11 fire stations located throughout the City plus one station in the Disneyland Resort. No fire stations currently exist within the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area; however, the two nearest fire stations are located approximately one‐half mile from the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area. Stadium Station #7 is located at 2222 East Ball Road, and Resort Station #3 is located at 1717 South Clementine. AFD has a plan to construct three new fire stations to serve the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area. The first station, the Battalion Headquarters Station, will be located along Santa Cruz Street north of Orangewood Avenue, the second station will be located in the north central area of the Platinum Triangle, and the third station will be located at an undetermined location. FSEIR No. 339 indicated that due to the additional population, density, and usage generated by the 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 sprinklers in all buildings and payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee), no significant and unavoidable impacts to fire protection services would occur. Police Protection Services Law enforcement and crime prevention services are provided by the Anaheim Police Department (APD). The City of Anaheim is divided into four districts and one police heliport. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion 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 South Harbor Boulevard and South Station, located 3.6 miles west of the Platinum Triangle at 1520 Disneyland Drive. At the time FSEIR No. 339 was prepared, the APD was authorized for 370 sworn officers. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the development of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project 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, with implementation of mitigation measures prescribed in FSEIR No. 339, no significant unavoidable impacts on police protection were anticipated to occur. Mitigation measures include ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐54 the incorporation of crime prevention measures, review and approval of site plans by the APD, and payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee). School Services The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area is located within the boundaries of the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) and the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) and within the attendance boundaries of Paul Revere Elementary School, South Junior High School, and Katella High School. A demographic consultant for the ACSD conducted a survey of current student generation rates for residential projects in Southern California that are similar to the type of residential development that would occur in the Platinum Triangle, and found the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would generate fewer students than the number of students expected to be generated from the traditional housing type. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion 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 Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion 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 and working with the respective school districts to identify opportunities for future school sites, would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Library Services As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, the Anaheim Public Library system consists of a central library, five branch libraries, and two bookmobiles. The nearest library facility to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area is the Sunkist Branch Library located at 901 South Sunkist Avenue. A joint use library facility with the Anaheim City School District located at 2135 South Mountain View Avenue was under construction at the time of EIR preparation. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area is also served by virtual Anaheim Library services through the network at the Central Library located at 500 West Broadway. According to FSEIR No. 339, implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion 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 the implementation of mitigation measures update to the library facilities fee program). Day Care Services Privately owned and operated day care and child care centers are located throughout the City of Anaheim. Three day care centers are located within or in close proximity to the Platinum Triangle including Tara Hill Montessori School located at 2130 West Crescent Avenue, Childtime Learning Center located at 1000 South State College Boulevard, and Kinder Care Learning Center located at 2515 East Street. It was determined that development of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would increase the demand for day care centers and child care facilities in the project area. However, permitting the uses in the PTMU Overlay Zone as primary and accessory uses would allow development of day care centers where necessary to serve the Platinum Triangle residents. Therefore, development of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would not result in any adverse impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐55 3.14.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Fire Protection Services Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase of 39 additional apartments and a reduction of 60,000 square feet of retail commercial floor area on the project site and within Sub‐Area A in the Katella District of the Platinum Triangle. As described in FSEIR No. 339, the increase in the intensity of development within the Platinum Triangle would result in a significant impact on fire protection services in the City, necessitating potential increases in manpower and equipment resources in order to maintain an adequate level of fire protection service. With the increase of 39 apartment units proposed by the applicant for the project site, there would be a small, incremental increase in the number of calls for emergency services provided by the Anaheim Fire Department related to residential development; however, the elimination of the commercial land use allocated to the site will also potentially affect fire protection services by reducing potential emergency responses compared to the analysis included in FSEIR No. 339. As such, a “worst case” analysis was included in FSEIR that evaluated a greater degree of potential adverse effects overall for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion. Thus, project implementation will not result in a new, significant impact or worsen an impact previously identified in FSEIR No. 339. Nonetheless, as analyzed in that document, the development of the project as proposed would create a demand for fire protection services and contribute to the overall impacts on the AFD. As prescribed in FSEIR No. 339, all of the buildings have fire sprinklers (MM 7‐1) and that the applicant pay the Public Safety Impact Fee in effect at the time building permits are issued (MM 7‐2). With the implementation of these mitigation measures, project‐related impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and no additional mitigation would be required. Police Protection Services Similar to fire protection services, the project would also result in an incremental increase in the number of emergency calls for police and law enforcement services associated with the development of 39 additional residential dwelling units and a decrease in commercial‐related calls resulting from the elimination of 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area from the project site and within Sub‐Area A of the Katella District. The proposed land use changes proposed for the subject property will have the effect of having a small, incremental increase the number of emergency response calls for residential development within the project area. As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, development of the project area would increase the demand for police protection/law enforcement services; however, the implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level as indicated in FSEIR No. 339. Specifically, the project applicant would be required to submit plans to the APD for review and approval to ensure that: crime prevention features are incorporated in the development (MM 7‐1); closed circuit monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures may be incorporated (MM 7‐4); project; and evaluate controlled access to parking lots and parking structures in order to determine the need for limit ingress/egress (MM 7‐5). In addition the applicant would also be required to reimburse the City, on a fair share basis, if Anaheim Traffic Management Center personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services during construction (MM 7‐6) and to pay the Public Safety Impact Fee in effect at the time building permits are issued for the project (MM 7‐7). Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that the project‐related impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. School Services Project implementation would result in an increase of 39 multiple‐family residential dwelling units when compared to the previously approved Platinum Vista Apartments project, which allowed for the development of 350 apartments on the 4.13‐acre site. Based on the student generation rates utilized to determine the number of school‐age children generated for Sub‐Area A of the Katella District, the proposed project would ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐56 result in the generation of 25 additional school‐age students K‐12) in that sub‐area,. A comparison of the proposed project and approved residential development within Sub‐Area A is presented in Table 3.14‐1. Table 3.14‐1 Potential Student Generation Platinum Vista Apartments No. of DUs Student Generation Rates No. of Students Sub‐Area A Project‐Related Students Approved Sub‐Area A – Katella District1 1,063 Elem: 0.3609/DU 384 126 Jr. High: 0.1040/DU 111 36 High: 0.1790/DU 190 63 Total 685 225 Proposed Sub‐Area A – Katella District 1,102 Elem: 0.3609/DU 398 140 Jr. High: 0.1040/DU 115 40 High: 0.1790/DU 197 70 Total 710 250 Difference +25 +25 1Approved Sub‐Area A totals reflect 350 multiple‐family residential dwelling units for the Platinum Vista site. 2Proposed Sub‐Area A totals reflect 389 multiple‐family residential dwelling units as proposed by the applicant for the Platinum Vista site. SOURCE: FSEIR No. 339 As indicated in Table 3.14‐1, implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of 250 school‐age children, compared to 225 for the approved 350‐unit project. As a result, a total of 710 K‐12 students compared to 685 students based on the approved land use plan for Sub‐Area A as previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Of those totals, 225 students were estimated for the approved 350‐unit Platinum Vista project compared to 250 for the 389‐unit proposed project.. As reflected in the table, the proposed project would result in an increase of 25 K‐12 students when compared to the approved project. Nonetheless, the proposed project would be subject to the same mitigation measures, including MM 7‐8 ( working with the affected school districts to identify opportunities for locating new school within the Platinum Triangle) and MM 7‐9, which requires payment of the mandatory developer fees subject to SB 50. Although the potential impact would be less than previously analyzed, the effect on the affected school districts would remain significant; however, project implementation would not result in a new or more severe significant impact to school facilities and would not, therefore, necessitate additional analysis beyond that already undertaken and presented in FSEIR No. 339. Library Services FSEIR No.. 339 concluded that implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would require building of physical space for library services as a result of the increase in population associated with the residential development components. The analysis determined that in order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing agreements, additional physical and virtual resources need to be added to the ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐57 Anaheim library system. Therefore, additional funds to support increased demand for library services are required to maintain the current level of community support. Because the Platinum Vista project would result in an increase in the number of dwelling units (39 more dwelling units), the proposed project would contribute to the deficiency in library facilities anticipated from the buildout of the Platinum Triangle as approved. As indicated in the FSEIR, as the population intensifies and usage expands from the increase in population associated with the Platinum Triangle, space in the immediate area will be identified for focused service to the future residents. In considering the proposed project, which proposed fewer residential dwelling units than previously analyzed by the City for the Platinum Triangle, FSEIR No. 339 adequately evaluated the potential impacts to library facilities associated with buildout of the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project that includes an increase of 39 apartment units and the elimination of 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area would not result in a new significant impact or a more severe impact than analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. Nonetheless, the applicant would be required to comply with MM 7‐10 in FSEIR No. 339, which would require payment of the library system fee to offset the potential incremental impacts of development. It is anticipated that the library system fee will be updated and added to the Standardized Development Agreement. This fee is anticipated to be reviewed annually and adjustments will be made based upon the inflation/deflation costs for library construction, land, library materials, and computers. Payment of the current library fee, which would be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, will be stipulated in the approved development agreement approved for the project. Payment of the library impact fee assessed to the project would reduce potential project‐related impacts to a less than significant level. Day Care Services As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, the increase in population due to the buildout of the Platinum Triangle, including the proposed project, will increase demand for day care centers and child care facilities in the project area. Day care and child care facilities are privately owned and operated in the City of Anaheim. Provision of day care facilities is not required by the PTMLUP and no such requirements or standards exist in the City, including the Platinum Triangle. However, as with the rest of the City, permitting the uses in the PTMU Overlay Zone as primary and accessory uses would allow development of day care centers where necessary to serve the Platinum Triangle residents. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the Platinum Triangle land uses would not result in any adverse impact to local day care facilities and there are no long lasting adverse physical impacts associated with providing adequate day care services to the project area. Although the proposed project includes 39 additional residential dwelling units more than the approved project, the potential demand for day care to serve the residential development would not be significantly affected. Thus, the proposed project would not result either in a new significant impact or a more severe impact than previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. No changes and/or additional analysis of day care facilities is required. Cumulative Impacts Consistent with the conclusion presented in FSEIR No. 339, implementation of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project as proposed would not contribute to any potentially significant cumulative impact with the implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in that document. All of the public services and related facilities would continue to provide an adequate level of service on a project‐ and cumulative‐wide basis. Conclusion As indicated in Chapter 2.0 of this Addendum to FSEIR No. 339, project implementation would result in a small increase in residential dwelling units and a decrease in commercial floor area within Sub‐Area A of the ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐58 Katella District. The potential significant adverse impacts associated with project implementation have been adequately analyzed in FSEIR No. 339 and appropriate mitigation measures were prescribed to ensure that potential impacts of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project on public services are reduced to a less than significant level. As a result, the proposed land use changes to the subject property, which is located within Sub‐Area A in the Katella District within the Platinum Triangle, would result in a small incremental increase in the project’s residential demand for public services and a reduction in the demand for the same services associated with the reduction in commercial floor area. Therefore, the project would not result in any new or more severe impacts to public services. FSEIR Relevant Mitigation Measures MM 7‐1 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, plans shall indicate that all buildings shall have fire sprinklers in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed by the property owner/developer prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection. MM 7‐2 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for fire facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36. MM 7‐3 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including implementation of Ordinance 6016 and the concept of crime prevention through environmental design building design, circulation, site planning and lighting of parking structure and parking areas). Rooftop addresses shall be provided for all parking structures (for the police helicopter). Minimum size for numbers shall be four feet in height and two feet in width. The lines for the numbers shall be six inches thick and spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. All numbers shall have a contrasting color to the parking structure and shall face the street to which the structure is addressed. MM 7‐4 Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Anaheim Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final Building and Zoning inspections. MM 7‐5 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall submit design plans that shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Anaheim Police Department. MM 7‐6 Ongoing during project operation, if the Anaheim Police Department of Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fair share basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services. MM 7‐9 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the school impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Anaheim Union High School District and Anaheim City School District in compliance with Senate Bill 50 (Government Code [GC] Section 65995 as amended). ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐59 3.15 Recreation 3.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would generate additional residents (approximately 15,399 residents based upon 1.5 persons per dwelling unit) in the City of Anaheim. Based on the City’s goal of providing 2 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, development of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would require approximately 31 acres of parkland. According to FSEIR No. 339, the 0.77‐acre Magnolia Park located north of Katella Avenue at Auburn Way and Wright Circle is the only existing park facility within the Platinum Triangle area. FSEIR No. 339 also classified large Park Deficiency Areas within the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area. Therefore, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that development of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would increase the demands on existing parks and recreational facilities that are already subject to overuse, resulting in a significant impact on recreation. To serve the demand for parks within the Platinum Triangle, developers of residential units in this area are required to pay higher park‐in‐lieu fees than residential development in other areas of the City in order to provide the funding necessary for the development of future parks as residential uses are introduced into this area. Development on parcels eight acres or larger with over 325 residential units are required to provide and construct an on‐site privately maintained public park, ensuring that small parks are distributed throughout the residentially developed portions of the Platinum Triangle. These mini‐parks must be at a minimum size of 44 square feet per each dwelling unit within the proposed development. This park requirement is in addition to the payment of park‐in‐lieu fees; however, the value of the parkland dedication is credited against the overall park‐in‐lieu fees paid for the project. This credit is given for parkland dedication only and does not include improvements to the park. In addition, every development is required to provide 200 square feet of recreational‐leisure area for each dwelling unit within private and/or common areas. MM 8‐1 through MM 8‐3 prescribed in FSEIR No. 339 required the City to continue to seek property acquisition opportunities for parkland in and adjacent to the project area (MM 8‐1); continue to work with developers to seek alternative means of providing recreational amenities (MM 8‐2); and continue fostering partnerships with other public entities and private organizations to seek alternative means of providing various types of recreational opportunities (MM 8‐3). FSEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation, including 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 the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.20.110. 3.15.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposed project would allow for the development of 389 multiple‐family residential dwelling units, which would generate approximately 584 residents and create an increase in demand for recreational facilities. Based on the parkland, mini‐park, and recreational‐leisure requirements for projects located in the Platinum Triangle, the proposed project would require approximately 1.16 acres of parkland, a 16,116 square foot (0.37 acre) mini‐park, and 77,800 square feet of recreational‐leisure areas. These requirements would be met through the design of several recreational amenities and leisure areas throughout the project area, including a public park located within the Platinum Gateway project, and 78,232 square feet of recreation‐ ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐60 leisure areas comprising a landscaped courtyard and entry as well as additional landscaped areas along project perimeter and private spaces as illustrated on Exhibit 3.15‐1. As identified in FSEIR No. 339, the Platinum Vista Project would be required to pay Platinum Triangle park in‐ lieu fees per the City’s parkland requirement. Collectively, these recreational amenities and park in‐lieu fees meet the park dedication requirement and conditions, including PTMU Overlay Zone standards with respect to amount of private recreational space per unit. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. The proposed project would not have any increased impact on the demand for recreational services and park space above that identified in the FSEIR N. 339, because the project includes on‐site recreation and facilities, and the project applicant is required to pay community park fees. The proposed project includes a number of recreational amenities to accommodate recreation demand on site. Therefore, the proposed project would not require any changes to FSEIR No. 339 related to recreation. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project would result in the development of 389 multiple‐family residential dwelling units, which is 39 more units than now approved for the 4.13‐acre Platinum Vista site. With the allocation of the open space dedications as proposed and payment of the park in‐lieu fees, the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts to recreational facilities/amenities in the City of Anaheim. Cumulative Impacts Although the proposed project includes residential development that would create a demand for recreational amenities in the City resulting from the increase in population, the project includes open space features that meet the dedication requirements and, furthermore, would be subject to park dedication fees to address the incremental demand for recreational facilities and service. Therefore, with the payment of the park fees and consistent with the conclusion in FSEIR No. 339, project implementation would not result in any additional significant cumulative impacts to existing or future recreational facilities within the City. Conclusion As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion previously approved by the City of Anaheim adequately evaluated project‐related impacts to parks and recreational facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new potentially significant impacts nor create a more severe impact than previously analyzed in FSEIR No. 339. No significant impacts would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐62 3.16 Traffic/Transportation 3.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to FSEIR No. 339, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would significantly impact levels of service (LOS) for the roadway system due to the increased number of trips generated by the project. However, with implementation of planned roadway improvements by responsible agencies such as Caltrans and the City of Orange, all arterial roadways and intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS or no worse than under “No Project” conditions. As indicated in Table 5.9‐17, FSEIR No. 339 determined that 31 intersections in the Platinum Triangle area (including five intersections in the City of Orange and one shared intersection in Anaheim and Orange) would operate at an LOS E or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak hour, necessitating the need for mitigation. These intersections are identified below. 1) Euclid Street at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 2) Ninth Street at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) 3) Disneyland Drive at Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) 4) Disneyland Drive/West Street at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) 5) Harbor Boulevard at Ball Road (AM and PM Peak Hour) 6) Harbor Boulevard at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) 7) Anaheim Boulevard at Vermont Avenue (AM Peak Hour) 8) Anaheim Boulevard at Ball Road (PM Peak Hour) 9) Anaheim Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 10) Anaheim Boulevard at I‐5 NB Ramps (PM Peak Hour) 11) Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 12) Haster Street at Gene Autry Way (AM and PM Peak Hour) 13) Anaheim Way (I‐5 Northbound Ramps) at Katella Avenue (AM Peak Hour) 14) Lewis Street at Cerritos Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 15) Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 16) Lewis Street at Anaheim Connector (future) (PM Peak Hour) 17) State College Boulevard at Cerritos Avenue (AM Peak Hour) 18) State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) 19) State College Boulevard at Gateway Center Drive (AM and PM Peak Hour) 20) State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way (AM Peak Hour) 21) State College Boulevard at Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim/Orange) (AM and PM Peak Hour) 22) State College Boulevard/The City Drive at Chapman Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour) 23) Sunkist Street at Howell Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 24) Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 25) Sportstown at Katella Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 26) Rampart Street at Orangewood Avenue (PM Peak Hour) 27) Orangewood Avenue at SR‐57 Southbound Ramps (Orange) (PM Peak Hour) 28) Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) 29) Main Street at Collins Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour) 30) Glassell Street at Katella Avenue (Orange) (PM Peak Hour) 31) The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard (Orange) (AM and PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐63 In addition to the intersections identified above, several arterial segments were forecast to operate at an unacceptable deficient) LOS with implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (based on daily traffic volumes). As shown in Table 5.9‐20 of the FSEIR, the traffic analysis found that there are 42 arterial segments with significant impacts with implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including six segments in the City of Orange. These deficient roadway segments requiring mitigation include: 1 Anaheim Boulevard from I‐5 to Cerritos Avenue 2 Anaheim Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to Ball Road 3 Anaheim Way from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 4 Ball Road from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard 5 Ball Road from Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard 6 Ball Road from Anaheim Boulevard to East Street 7 Ball Road from East Street to State College Boulevard 8 Ball Road from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 9 Ball Road from Sunkist Street to SR‐57 10 Ball Road from SR‐57 to Main Street (City of Orange segment) 11 Cerritos Avenue from Sunkist Street to Douglass Road 12 Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment) 13 Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street (City of Orange segment) 14 Douglass Road from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 15 Eckhoff Street from Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue (City of Orange segment) 16 Gene Autry Way from I‐5 to State College Boulevard 17 Harbor Boulevard from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 18 Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood Avenue to Convention Way 19 Harbor Boulevard from Convention Way to Katella Avenue 20 Harbor Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Disney Way 21 Harbor Boulevard from Disney Way to Manchester Avenue 22 Harbor Boulevard from Manchester Avenue to I‐5 23 Howell Avenue from State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street 24 Katella Avenue from Euclid Street to Ninth Street 25 Katella Avenue from Ninth Street to Walnut Street 26 Katella Avenue from Walnut Street to Disneyland Drive 27 Katella Avenue from Disneyland Drive to Harbor Boulevard 28 Katella Avenue from Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way/ 29 Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Street 30 Katella Avenue from Sportstown to Howell Avenue 31 Katella Avenue from Howell Avenue to SR‐57 32 Katella Avenue from SR‐57 to Main Street 33 Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment) 34 Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 35 Manchester Avenue from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 36 Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street 37 Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Rampart Street 38 Orangewood Avenue from Rampart Street to SR‐57 Freeway 39 Phoenix Club Drive from Honda Center to Ball Road 40 Rampart Street from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 41 State College Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Howell Avenue 42 Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment) ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐64 With proposed improvements, including roadway widening, restriping, facility upgrades, etc., all of the intersections forecast to operate at unacceptable levels of service LOS E or LOS F) in the Platinum Triangle area would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours based on peak hour volumes. FSEIR No. 339 also identified six roadway segments in the City of Orange and four arterial roadway segments in the City of Anaheim that would be significantly impacted as a result of traffic generated by development permitted by the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. Mitigation measures were identified for these deficient arterial roadway segments to ensure that they operate at an acceptable level of service. Implementation of the recommended improvements was 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. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact. 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. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact. 3.16.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed project to identify the potential traffic impacts resulting from the development of the revised Platinum Vista project. The conclusions and recommendations presented in the TIA, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) are summarized in the analysis that follows. The TIA prepared by LSA has been included as Appendix A. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐65 Existing Traffic Conditions Existing Intersection Levels of Service Table 3.16‐1 summarizes the existing operational characteristics of the eight key study intersections in the project environs. As reflected in the table, all of the intersections are currently operating at LOS A and LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours. Existing traffic at the key study intersections are illustrated on Exhibit 3.16‐1. Table 3.16‐1 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary Platinum Vista Apartments Intersection Existing AM Peak Hour Existing PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 0.525 A 0.558 A Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 0.425 A 0.547 A Lewis Street/Katella Avenue 0.524 A 0.661 B State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue 0.566 A 0.614 B Sportstown/Katella Avenue 0.347 A 0.438 A SR‐57 SB Ramps/Katella Avenue 0.338 A 0.392 A SR‐57 NB Ramps/Katella Avenue 0.362 A 0.392 A Howell Street/Katella Avenue 0.432 A 0.564 A SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (June 2014) Project Trip Generation and Distribution The project trip generation summary is presented in Table 3.16‐2. As indicated in the table, the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project is estimated to generate 2,587 average daily trips (ADT), including 199 AM peak hour trips (40 inbound and 159 outbound) and 241 PM peak hour trips (157 inbound and 84 outbound). The distribution of the AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed project is illustrated on Exhibit 3.16‐2. The number of trips generated by the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project is approximately 11 percent higher than the trips generated by the Approved Platinum Vista Apartments project, which generated a total of 2,327 ADT. However, with the elimination of the 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area, which would be expected to generate approximately 2,560 daily vehicular trips, the proposed project would generate fewer trips than the approved land uses for the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐66 Table 3.16‐2 Trip Generation Summary Platinum Vista Apartments Land Use No. of DUs\ Floor Area ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates1 Apartment DU 6.65 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 Project Trip Generation Apartment 389 2,587 40 159 199 157 84 241 1Trip rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (June 2014) As illustrated in Exhibit 3.16‐2, approximately 15 percent of the trips are destined north via I‐5; 5 percent north via State College Boulevard; 15 percent north via SR‐57; 10 percent south via I‐5; 20 percent south via State College Boulevard; 10 percent south via SR‐57; 10 percent west via Katella Avenue; 10 percent west via Gene Autry Way; and 5 percent east via Katella Avenue. Figure 8 shows the regional trip distribution and assignment for the proposed project. A full‐access driveway (Connector Road) at Lewis Street is located north‐west of the Platinum Vista Apartments development, and a right‐in/right‐out access driveway (Connector Road) at Katella Avenue is located west of the project site. The north and west Connector Roads will not only provide access and circulation to the project site, but to the adjacent properties to the north and west as well. The connector roads (both at Lewis Street and Katella Avenue) will be constructed as part of this project. The project would have access via both connector roads in Existing plus Project and Future plus Project conditions. The Future (2015) plus Project assumes the Platinum Gateway project and the Lennar A‐Town Phase 1 apartments as a committed/approved projects. The project trips are assigned to both the connector roads in the Future (2015) plus Project conditions. All turn movements can be accommodated along the connector road to Lewis Street/Katella Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐68 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions The existing plus project‐related traffic intersection conditions are summarized in Table 3.16‐3. As reflected in the table, all of the key study intersections are forecast to operate at the same service levels under the existing conditions LOS A and LOS B during the AM and PM peak hour) with the implementation of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project. The project will not result in a significant impacts at any of the study area intersections in the Existing Plus Project scenario. The existing plus project traffic volumes at the key study intersections are shown in Exhibit 3.16‐3. Table 3.16‐3 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary Platinum Vista Apartments Intersection Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Difference AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU ICU Manchester Ave/Katella Ave 0.525 A 0.558 A 0.532 A 0.567 A 0.007 0.009 Anaheim Way/Katella Ave 0.425 A 0.547 A 0.430 A 0.550 A 0.005 0.003 Lewis Street/Katella Ave 0.524 A 0.661 B 0.592 A 0.699 B 0.068 0.038 State College Blvd/Katella Ave 0.566 A 0.614 B 0.579 A 0.624 B 0.013 0.010 Sportstown/Katella Ave 0.347 A 0.438 A 0.356 A 0.447 A 0.009 0.009 SR‐57 SB Ramps/Katella Ave 0.338 A 0.392 A 0.363 A 0.396 A 0.008 0.008 SR‐57 NB Ramps/Katella Ave 0.362 A 0.392 A 0.363 A 0.396 A 0.001 0.004 Howell Street/Katella Ave 0.432 A 0.564 A 0.434 A 0.573 A 0.002 0.009 SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (June 2014) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐71 Future Baseline Conditions Cumulative Projects It is anticipated that the proposed project could be completed in 2015. Therefore, traffic volumes obtained from the City were escalated by 1 percent per year to determine existing traffic volume, future year baseline traffic volumes were escalated 1 percent from existing 2014 to future 2015 to account for the growth of regional traffic. In addition to regional traffic growth, the following approved or pending projects are anticipated to increase traffic at study area intersections (refer to Appendix A for specific project parameters). 1. Platinum Gateway (905 East Katella Avenue): 399 dwelling units 2. Lennar A‐Town Phase I Apartments: 400 dwelling units: 400 dwelling units 3. Vivere Phase 2 (1331 East Katella Avenue): 244 dwelling units 4. Park Viridian Phase 2 and 3 (1415 East Katella Avenue): 771 dwelling units 5. LNR Platinum Stadium (2025 East Orangewood Avenue): 525 dwelling units 6. Gateway Apartments Phase 2 (2100 East Orangewood Avenue): 341 dwelling units 7. Orangewood Apartments (2111 East Orangewood Avenue): 365 dwelling units 8. Springhill Suites (1160 West Ball Road): 120 rooms 9. Hyatt House (1800 South Harbor Boulevard): 252 rooms 10. Ramada Maingate (1650 South Harbor Boulevard): 13 rooms 11. Springhill Suites (1801 South Harbor Boulevard): 172 rooms 12. Residence Inn (640 West Katella Avenue): 274 rooms 13. Hyatt Place (2035 South Harbor Boulevard): 178 rooms 14. Courtyard by Marriott (1400 South Harbor Boulevard): 221 rooms 15. Holiday Inn Express (1411 South Manchester): 96 rooms 16. Hilton Homewood Suites (2010 South Harbor Boulevard): 215 rooms 17. Staybridge Suites (1050 West Ball Road): 124 rooms 18. Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles (2110 South Harbor Boulevard): 8,000 sf In addition to these development projects, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) is scheduled to open before 2015. However, to present a conservative analysis, the TIA did not assume an increased transit mode share for the approved/pending projects. The project trip generation for the approved/ pending projects was calculated using trip rates documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 9th Edition (2012) and is presented in Table B. Based on the trip generation rates for the various uses, the cumulative projects are expected to generate a total of 31,467 daily trips, including 2,419 during the AM peak hour and 2,785 during the PM peak hour. The cumulative projects’ traffic was assigned to the local street based on logical travel corridors and minimal time paths. Tab le 3.16‐4 summarizes the future baseline with cumulative project traffic ICU and LOS for each of the key study intersections. As indicated in the table, all of the intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels LOS C or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. Future (2015) traffic volumes are illustrated on Exhibit 3.16‐4. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐72 Table 3.16‐4 Future Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary Platinum Vista Apartments Intersection Existing AM Peak Hour Existing PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue 0.594 A 0.647 B Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue 0.462 A 0.585 A Lewis Street/Katella Avenue 0.599 A 0.709 C State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue 0.652 B 0.686 B Sportstown/Katella Avenue 0.410 A 0.502 A SR‐57 SB Ramps/Katella Avenue 0.385 A 0.463 A SR‐57 NB Ramps/Katella Avenue 0.386 A 0.434 A Howell Street/Katella Avenue 0.463 A 0.630 B SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (June 2014) 2015 Plus Project Traffic Conditions The future (2015) AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions forecast for the key study intersections are summarized in Table 3.16‐5. As reflected in the table, all of the area intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service LOS D or better) in 2015 with cumulative projects’ traffic and growth, and the additional traffic generated by the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project. Project implementation would not result in any significant traffic impacts. The 2015 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the key study intersection, including project‐generated traffic are shown on Exhibit 3.16‐5. Table 3.16‐5 Future (2015) Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary Platinum Vista Apartments Intersection 2015 w/out Project Traffic 2015 Plus Project Traffic Difference AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU ICU Manchester Ave/Katella Ave 0.594 A 0.647 B 0.600 B 0.657 B 0.006 0.010 Anaheim Way/Katella Ave 0.462 A 0.585 A 0.466 A 0.588 A 0.004 0.003 Lewis Street/Katella Ave 0.599 A 0.709 C 0.666 B 0.747 C 0.067 0.038 State College Blvd/Katella Ave 0.652 B 0.686 B 0.665 B 0.701 C 0.013 0.015 Sportstown/Katella Ave 0.410 A 0.502 A 0.419 A 0.512 A 0.009 0.010 SR‐57 SB Ramps/Katella Ave 0.385 A 0.463 A 0.403 A 0.475 A 0.018 0.012 SR‐57 NB Ramps/Katella Ave 0.386 A 0.434 A 0.387 A 0.439 A 0.001 0.005 Howell Street/Katella Ave 0.463 A 0.630 B 0.465 A 0.640 B 0.002 0.010 SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (June 2014) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐75 Caltrans Intersection Analysis Consistent with Caltrans methodology, intersection LOS at four State facilities were analyzed using the HCM 2000 methodology for the Existing and Future (2015) (with and without project) conditions. The following study area intersections were included in this analysis: ▪ I‐5 Southbound Ramps: Manchester Avenue/Katella Avenue ▪ I‐5 Northbound Ramps: Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue ▪ SR‐57 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue ▪ SR‐57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue Table 3.16‐6 summarizes the results of the Existing and Future (2015) (with and without project) AM and PM peak‐hour LOS analysis for the signalized intersections identified above utilizing the HCM methodology. Based on the Caltrans methodology, all State facilities are forecast to operate at LOS D or better in the Existing and Future (2015) (with and without project) conditions. As a result, no significant project‐related traffic impacts would occur. Table 3.16‐6 Caltrans Methodology Level of Service Summary Platinum Vista Apartments Intersection Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 Manchester Ave/Katella Ave A 15.3 B 15.8 B 15.7 B 16.3 Anaheim Way/Katella Ave B 16.2 B 18.2 B 16.2 B 18.2 SR‐57 SB Ramps/Katella Ave B 14.0 B 16.2 B 13.9 B 16.4 SR‐57 NB Ramps/Katella Ave B 19.6 B 12.9 B 19.6 B 13.0 Intersection Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 Manchester Ave/Katella Ave B 16.0 B 17.5 B 16.3 B 18.0 Anaheim Way/Katella Ave B 16.2 B 18.6 B 16.2 B 18.6 SR‐57 SB Ramps/Katella Ave B 13.4 B 17.0 B 13.3 B 17.2 SR‐57 NB Ramps/Katella Ave B 19.5 B 13.3 B 19.5 B 13.5 1Delay measured in seconds. SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. (June 2014) Although the project would not result in any impacts greater than those previously identified and evaluated in FSEIR No. 339, it would be subject to several mitigation measures prescribed in the traffic analysis and EIR prepared for the expansion of the Platinum Triangle, including: payment of applicable traffic impact and assessment fees (MM 9‐4); dedicate rights‐of‐way as applicable to the project (MM 9‐5), prepare traffic improvement phasing analyses as required (MM determine when intersection improvements applicable to the project must be constructed (MM 9‐7); identify fair share responsibility for mitigating project‐related impacts and the fair share to the City (MM 9‐8); identify the project’s proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations and its fair share responsibility (MM 9‐9); ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐76 pay the fair share identified in MM9‐9 (MM 9‐10); and offer for dedication the ultimate arterial highway right(s)‐of‐way adjacent to the property (MM 9‐11). Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? As concluded in the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed project, none of the key study intersections would be adversely affected by the proposed project even with the increase in the number of dwelling units proposed by the applicant. However, FSEIR No. 339 concluded that several intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at unacceptable levels of service and will require mitigation in the form of roadway and intersection improvements in order to function at adequate levels of service. Although the Platinum Vista project includes 39 more dwelling units than the approved plan for the project site, the proposed project would contribute fewer trips on a daily and peak hour basis than previously identified and analyzed as a result of the elimination of 50,000 square feet of retail/commercial development. Although the proposed project must comply with the applicable mitigation measures and payment of fair‐share fees intended to pay for improvements mitigation) as prescribed in FSEIR No. 339. However, several intersections are forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service either because the mitigation measures are infeasible or the affected intersection and/or roadway segment are located outside the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. As a result, even though implementation of the proposed would result in fewer daily and peak hour trips, traffic impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, as concluded in FSEIR No. 339. Recommended improvements on the following City of Anaheim intersections are not feasible and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. ▪ Euclid Street/Katella Avenue ▪ Disneyland Drive/Ball Road ▪ Disneyland Drive/West Street/Katella Avenue ▪ Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road ▪ Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street/Katella Avenue ▪ State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue ▪ State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue Recommended improvements on the following City of Orange intersections are not feasible because the City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction over the implementation of these improvements; and, therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. ▪ State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue (shared intersection between Anaheim and Orange) ▪ State College Boulevard/The City Drive/Chapman Avenue ▪ Orangewood Avenue/SR‐57 Southbound Ramps ▪ Main Street/Collins Avenue ▪ Glassell Street/Katella Avenue ▪ The City Drive/Garden Grove Boulevard ▪ SR‐22 Westbound Ramps at Metropolitan Drive The following six arterial segments within the City of Orange are identified as deficient and would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service in the future due to right‐of‐way constraints and the City of Orange has no plans for improvements along the roadways. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐77 ▪ Ball Road from SR‐57 Freeway to Main Street ▪ Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street ▪ Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street ▪ Eckhoff Street to Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue ▪ Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street ▪ Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? There are two heliports in the project vicinity: the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center. The Anaheim Police Department also uses the parking lot at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. There are no private airstrips within the City. Heliport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft from structures located within navigable airspace and crash hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. The primary risks associated with heliports are take‐offs and landings. The City typically seeks to minimize public exposure to heliport‐related risks primarily through minimizing the siting of incompatible land uses surrounding the City’s existing heliports. As discussed in previously, the project site is not located within two miles of any public airport or other aviation facility. As such, the proposed structures do not pose a hazard to navigation. Therefore, project implementation will not result in a change to air traffic patterns at either John Wayne Airport or Fullerton Municipal Airport. Furthermore, traffic associated with the proposed residential development was thoroughly evaluated in FSEIR No. 339 and in the supplemental traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project. Based on that analysis, project implementation would not result in any substantial safety risks or hazards to aviation activities occurring in the vicinity of either aviation facility in the County. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate design features or incompatible uses because it has been evaluated to determine the appropriate land use permit for authorizing its use and the conditions for their establishment and operation. At a minimum, compliance with relevant Municipal Code standards would be required. Furthermore, the TIA prepared for the project evaluated project access to determine adequacy. As illustrated in the site plan, access to the project site would be provided via a right‐ in/right‐out connector road along Katella Avenue and a full access connector road along Lewis Street. The connector road along Katella Avenue is located along the westerly boundary of the project site. The connector roads are approximately 26 feet wide. Access to the parking garage is provided on to the westerly connector road via two driveways. These full accesses are also 26 feet wide. Traffic generated by the proposed project and the adjacent property (Platinum Gateway Development) was distributed along the connector roads (refer to Exhibit 3.16‐6). An all‐way stop‐control warrants analysis conducted for the three access locations along the easterly connector road for both the proposed project (Platinum Vista, one access) and the adjacent property (Platinum Gateway, two accesses) for the Future (2015) with Project conditions.6 6 Criteria from Section 2B.07 ‐ Multiway Stop Applications from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were used to determine whether an all‐way stop was warranted at the three locations. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐78 Based on the peak‐hour volume (less than 150), the three intersections do not satisfy the peak‐hour traffic signal warrant. Therefore, the intersections do not satisfy Signal Warrant Criterion A. Since all these intersections will be built in the future, currently there is no accident data available. Hence, Criterion B is not applicable. Based on the projected peak‐hour volumes along the easterly connector and at the three intersections (less than 150), the minimum volume (Criterion C) is not satisfied. Since Criterion B is not applicable, Criterion D (which is based on Criterion B) is also not applicable. Therefore, based on the all‐way stop‐control warrant analysis conducted for the project, all‐way stop‐control is not recommended at the three intersections along the easterly connector. The intersections should be controlled by stop sign at the project accesses, with uncontrolled traffic operation along the easterly connector. Additionally, traffic signal warrants analysis was conducted at the location where the connector roads intersect Lewis Street and Katella Avenue for the Future (2015) with Project conditions. The peak hour volume at the connector intersections is low (refer to Figures 12 and 13 in Appendix A) and they do not satisfy the peak‐hour signal warrant (Warrant Hence, a signal is not recommended in the Future (2015) conditions. The project would also be evaluated by the City of Anaheim to ensure that adequate access and circulation to and within the development would be provided, as discussed in Section 3.16(e). Access to the site must comply with all City design standards and would be reviewed by the City and the Anaheim Fire Department to ensure that inadequate design features or incompatible uses do not occur. The City and the Anaheim Fire Department would LAO review the proposed development plans for the site in order to ensure that they are designed to meet adopted standards and provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts involving inadequate design features or incompatible uses. Result in inadequate emergency access? As indicated in FSEIR No. 339 prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Master Plan Expansion, proposed development projects would be required to comply with the City’s development review process, including review for compliance with the City’s Zoning Code. As previously indicated, access is provided via a right‐ in/right‐out connector road along Katella Avenue and a full access connector road along Lewis Street. The proposed development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction and access to the site. Individual projects would be reviewed by the Anaheim Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to the specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. This would ensure that new developments would provide adequate emergency access to and from the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐80 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The Anaheim train station is located near the project site, but outside of a comfortable 0.25 mile walking distance. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner and the Metrolink Orange Line use the Anaheim train station. Metrolink currently offers 15 northbound and 14 southbound trains to the Anaheim train station daily. The project area is widely served by public transit provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority. Two Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes operate near the project site. Route 50 operates east‐ west along Katella Avenue. Its hours are 4:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., with buses every 25 minutes during peak commute periods, every 45 minutes outside of peak commute periods, and every hour late at night. Route 50 has a stop near the Anaheim train station. Route 57 operates north. Project implementation would not, therefore, adversely affect either public transit or other forms of alternative transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. No significant impacts to alternative transportation would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts As indicated in the preceding analysis, project implementation would result in an increase in traffic generated by the proposed residential development; however, the project would result in a decrease in the overall daily traffic generated on the site when compared to that generated by the development permitted by the approved land uses that include both residential and commercial development. Project‐related traffic would continue to contribute to the impacts at key study intersections, including those where mitigation measures are infeasible and/or where the City of Anaheim does not have jurisdiction City of Orange and Caltrans facilities). Potential impacts at those intersections would remain significant and unavoidable. Conclusion Based on the ICU analysis conducted at the eight intersections, the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project will not create any significant CEQA‐related traffic impacts at the key study intersections. Furthermore, because the proposed projects includes the elimination of 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area and the resulting traffic, project‐related traffic would result in less traffic filtering to other intersections in the project area. As a result, potential project‐related traffic impacts as the key study intersections within the project area would not result in a new significant impact or create a more severe impact than previously analyzed for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion project. No additional intersection improvements are required as a result of the Platinum Vista Apartments project. Nonetheless, impacts to several intersections, including in those in Anaheim and Orange as well as Caltrans facilities identified in FSEIR No. 339 and in the preceding analysis would remain significant and unavoidable. FSEIR No. 339 Relevant Mitigation Measures MM 9‐4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees, and Platinum Triangle Impact Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City‐authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐81 MM 9‐5 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)‐of‐way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. MM 9‐6 Prior to approval of a Development Agreement for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, property owner/developers shall prepare traffic improvement phasing analyses to identify when the improvements identified in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report, Parson Brinckerhoff, August 2010 (Appendix F of this SEIR) shall be designed and constructed. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to implement traffic improvements as identified in the project traffic study to maintain satisfactory levels of service as defined by the City’s General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339, Orange County Congestion Management Program and established in City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. MM 9‐7 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9‐6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9‐6. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair‐share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. At minimum, fair‐share calculations shall include intersection improvements, rights‐of‐way, and construction costs, unless alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. MM 9‐8 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9‐6, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange: a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within the City of Orange. The fair‐share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts shall be calculated in this analysis. b) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair‐share responsibility in cooperation with the City of Orange. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐82 c) The Proposed Project shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair‐share cost prior to issuance of a building permit. The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall allocate the fair‐share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities. MM 9‐9 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9‐6, and assuming that a regional transportation agency has not already programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations, property owners/developers and the City will take the following actions in cooperation with Caltrans: a) The traffic study will identify the Project’s proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations and its fair share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339 and established in the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. b) The City shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair‐share responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans. MM 9‐10 Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair‐share responsibility as determined by the City as set forth in Mitigation Measure 9‐9. The City shall allocate the property owners/developers fair‐share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City. MM 9‐11 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)‐of‐way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, regardless of the level of impacts generated by the project. MM 9‐14 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9‐6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements identified under Impact 5.9‐4 shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9‐6. MM 9‐15 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐83 3.17 Utilities 3.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis FSEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts to utilities and service systems including wastewater treatment, water supply, storm drainage, solid waste, electricity, natural gas, and communications. FSEIR No. 339 concluded that the potential impacts to public utilities and services could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Wastewater Treatment and Collection According to FSEIR No. 339, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion 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), District 2. Wastewater from the City sewer system is conveyed to OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion 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. It was determined in FSEIR No. 339 that the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would require sewer improvements to accommodate project buildout. With implementation of these improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment, was anticipated to accommodate development within the 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. Water Supply and Distribution Systems The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Division provides water service to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area. As of 2007–2008, the City received approximately 79 percent of its water supply from its groundwater wells and 21 percent 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. A comparison of projected demand and supply concluded that there are adequate water supplies to meet the water demand created by the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. According to the Water Supply Assessment (WSA), 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. Ultimately, changes in land use projections and addition of water facilities will require updating Rule 15‐D; however, under existing Rule 15‐D, the projected demands for new office, commercial, and industrial land uses have already been accounted for in determining water facility improvements. The only significant changes, in terms of projected demand quantity for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, were the demands resulting from new residential dwelling units. Once the City approves the necessary improvements, Rule 15‐D and associated rates and figures will be revised. According to FSEIR No. 339, compliance with Rule 15‐D would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan would not adversely impact the water delivery system. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐84 Storm Drain According to FSEIR No. 339, the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove‐Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area (prepared in January 2006) identified that the existing storm drainage system was deficient under the existing condition in the Platinum Triangle at the time FSEIR No. 339 was prepared. 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. Solid Waste According to FSEIR No. 339, the Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area and would be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project site. Development of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would increase the service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions and would provide more solid waste to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Development of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would generate a total of 372,457 pounds (168 tons) of solid waste per day. However, the Orange County Landfill System has adequate capacity and regularly imports solid waste from Los Angeles County. He analysis presented in FSEIR No. 339 concluded that there would be available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfill system to accommodate the anticipated solid waste stream generated by implementation of the PTMLUP, including both project‐related solid waste generation and cumulative development solid waste. Additionally, because implementation of the PTMLUP would generate increased construction and operational solid waste in the area, it was further 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. Compliance of future development projects within the Revised Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan with the City’s existing recycling and diversion programs would reduce the potential project‐related solid waste impacts generated by the additional development density. As a result, potential impacts were determined to be less than significant. Electricity According to FSEIR No. 339, the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD), Electrical Division provides electricity to Anaheim’s citizens and businesses. Implementation of the PTMLUP 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 at the time FSEIR No. 339 was prepared. Those improvements were 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 determined, assuming all identified improvements are implemented, ,that project‐related impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, 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 less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐85 Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service in the City of Anaheim and has facilities throughout the City, including the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area. FSEIR No. 339 states that implementation of the PTMLUP would increase the natural gas demand in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area and would require an additional 1.5 miles of gas 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. With necessary system upgrades and facility improvements, SCG would be able to service the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area with natural gas, which would be provided in accordance with SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with the Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. Although the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project 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 implementation of the PTMLUP would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts to natural gas service or resources. Communications AT&T and Time‐Warner provide telephone and cable television service to the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area, respectively. 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. 3.17.2 Analysis of Proposed Amended Project Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has two operating facilities (Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2) that treat wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources in central and northwest Orange County. The City of Anaheim (along with the cities of La Habra, Fullerton, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, Stanton, Los Alamitos, Westminster, and Fountain Valley) is located within OCSD Revenue Area 3. All sewage flow from Revenue Area 3 is collected and treated at Treatment Plant No. 2, which is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 are constructed to together treat 372 mgd of primary treated wastewater and 332 mgd of secondary treated wastewater. Fiscal Year 2011‐2012 average daily ocean discharge under dry weather conditions was 207 mgd without (and 152 mgd with) reclamation.7 A sewer system study was prepared for the proposed Platinum Gateway project, which also addressed sewage generation and facilities of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project. The study, dated November 1, 2012, was prepared by Hall & Foreman (November 1, 2012). The study shows that the Platinum Gateway project would generate a substantially reduced volume of sewer flows than the previously approved project would have. The study also shows that the increase in flow from the additional area, including the Platinum Vista property, is more than offset by reduction in flow from completed and approved projects Therefore, flows from the entire Platinum Gateway project as well as the Platinum Vista Apartments project can be accommodated in the Katella system. Table 3.17‐1 provides a summary of the sewer generation within the sewer shed 7California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region; Order No. R8‐2012‐0035, NPDES No. CA0110604; Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Orange County Sanitation District; Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 (June 18, 2012). ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐86 Table 3.17‐1 Planning Areas Contributing to Platinum Gateway and Platinum Vista Platinum Vista Apartments Project Project Name Original Design (gpd) Actual Design (gpd) Change (gpd) Percent Reduction Actual Design (cfs) Platinum Gateway (Within 28B) 219,565 85,398 ‐134,168 ‐61.11 0.13 Platinum Vista (Within 28B) 374,418 206,593 ‐167,825 ‐44.82 0.32 Subtotal 593,983 291,991 ‐301,993 ‐50.84 0.45 Platinum Gateway (Within 28A) 439,131 170,796 ‐268,335 ‐61.11 0.26 Total 1,033,114 462,786 ‐570,328 0.72 gpd – gallons per day cfs – cubic feet per second SOURCE: Hall & Foreman (November 1, 2012) There are three existing sewer mains within the surrounding streets. Lewis Street has an existing 8‐inch sewer main flowing southerly to Katella Avenue where it confluences with an 18‐inch sewer main that flows westerly along Katella Ave. and continues westerly towards Harbor Boulevard in a 21‐inch sewer main. Two 18‐inch sewer mains exist in Katella Avenue, including one that flows east and one that flows west. The existing 18‐inch sewer main on the northerly side of Katella Avenue flows westerly and connects to the aforementioned Lewis Street sewer at the intersection of the two streets. This other sewer flows easterly within the southerly side of Katella Avenue towards State College Boulevard. The City of Anaheim has recommended that the Platinum Vista Apartments Project should be connected to the 18‐inch easterly flowing sewer main in Katella Avenue, along with the Platinum Gateway project adjacent to the site.8 The eastern‐flowing sewer was designed to accept flows from Platinum Triangle projects within a sewer model area identified as 28B, which is located immediately adjacent to Katella Avenue on both the northerly and southerly sides between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard. The eastern half of the Platinum Gateway site is within sewer model area 28B. The westerly parcel of the Platinum Gateway project is within model area 28A, which is tabled to sewer to the impacted westerly sewer shed. Table 3.17‐2 provides a summary of the various projects tributary to easterly Katella system (28B) and their original sewer flow design versus the actual design of those projects. 8Preliminary On‐Site Sewer System Study – Platinum Gateway; Hall & Foreman; November 1, 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐87 Table 3.17‐2 Planning Areas Contributing to Model Area 28B Only Platinum Vista Apartments Project Project Name Original Design (gpd) Actual Design (gpd) Change (gpd) Percent Reduction Platinum Gateway + 219,565 85,398 ‐134,168 61.11 Stadium Lofts 441,970 230‐641 ‐211,319 47.81 Stadium Park Apartments/Condominiums1 868,242 173,355 ‐186966 52.89 Platinum Triangle Condominiums2 378,704 75,446 ‐28,230 27.06 Platinum Vista3 374,418 206,593 ‐167,825 44.82 A‐Town Metro 3,079,113 Wright Circle 67,568 Total 4,182,634 ‐728,508 gpd – gallons per day 1Only 41.5% constructed as of November 1, 2012. 2Only 27.4% of the residential have been constructed and no commercial had been Constructed as of November 1, 2012. 3Based on 350 multiple‐family residential dwelling units, including 30 studios, 143 1‐bedroom units, 159 2‐bedroom units, and 8 3‐bedroom units. SOURCE: Hall & Foreman (November 1, 2012) As indicated in Table 3.17‐2, the actual project design for the existing and proposed development within Model Area 28B have resulted in a reduction of over 725,000 gpd from the original design of the same projects. Further reductions would also be expected if the proposed Amended A‐Town Metro Master Plan, which would result in a reduction of 935 dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of commercial floor area, is approved. As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project would result in an increase of 39 multiple‐family dwelling units and the elimination of the commercial development allocated to the subject property. Based on the results of the Platinum Gateway Sewer System Study and reflected in Table 3.17‐2, the addition of 39 units proposed to be added to the Platinum Vista Apartments project could be accommodated as a result of the prior reductions in density/development intensity have already occurred. The sewer system study prepared for the Platinum Gateway project located adjacent to the Platinum Vista project in Sub‐Area A of the Platinum Triangle concluded the following: ▪ The proposed Platinum Gateway project would generate significantly less flow to the sewer system than would have been produced by the previously approved version of the project. ▪ The Platinum Gateway, Platinum Vista, and three recently completed projects along Katella Avenue generate sewers flows below sewer generation amounts allocated by the Master Plan of Sewer Study. Accordingly, the proposed Platinum Gateway development will not ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐88 adversely impact pipe capacity as the easterly flowing sewer in Katella Avenue will have the capacity to accept the sewer flows from the entire Platinum Gateway project, including the portion of the site within Area 28A. ▪ The on‐site development flowing to the upstream 18‐inch sewer main connection in the easterly flowing Katella line flows at 33.5% pipe capacity, which well within the 0.75% d/D guideline. ▪ The combined sewer flows for the entire sewer shed within Model Area 28B and the proposed development demonstrates the existing 21" sewer main flowing easterly in Katella Avenue to State College Blvd. flows at 85.3% pipe capacity. This is above the 0.75% d/D guideline, but demonstrates the pipe is not flowing full and has capacity to carry the developed sewer flows. The values provided are based on peak sewer flows. An alternative flow rate calculation based on average dry weather flow and peak dry weather flow or a peaking factor of 2.5 can produce a lower sewer flow rate, which would be appropriate for a trunk main pipe sizing evaluation, which would provide additional pipe capacity within the 21" sewer pipe main. An applied peaking factor of 2.5 would equate to 3.56 cfs or 67.3%, which satisfies the pipe carrying capacity. As a result, the estimated decrease in raw sewage generated by the proposed use would neither exceed the treatment plant’s capacity to accommodate the project nor exceed the existing treatment requirements imposed on the OCSD by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The raw sewage generated by the proposed project would be entirely residential in nature and would not contain constituents that would affect the waste discharge requirements imposed on the treatment plant. The project‐related raw sewage would be treated in accordance with the current treatment requirements. Due to the anticipated reduction in the amount of raw sewage generated by the proposed project, no new significant or more severe impacts to sewage treatment than previously analyzed and evaluated in FSEIR No. 339 would occur. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As indicated above, there is excess primary treatment capacity at Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. The OCSD has indicated that no deficiencies exist within their facilities serving the City of Anaheim and anticipates that available capacity would be available to serve buildout of the City based on the prior analysis presented in FSEIR No. 339. Although the proposed project represents a departure from the adopted land use plan for Sub‐Area A, the reduction in the intensity of use proposed by the applicant would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities not previously identified and evaluated in FSEIR No. 339. The small, incremental decrease in raw sewage generated by the project can be accommodated without the construction of a new treatment facility or expansion of an existing facility. Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to applicable mitigation measures prescribed in FSEIR No. 339, including construction of all requisite sanitary sewers, conducting additional sewer studies as each development is proposed to ensure that the facilities are adequate to accommodate the raw sewage generated, and contacting OCSD to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available. Based on such compliance with the City’s requirements for the provision of sewer facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, the total buildout of the Platinum Triangle would result in a total demand of 5,249 acre feet per year (afy); however, the additional water demand for the was estimated to be 1,804 afy after subtracting the existing water use by the existing uses and other existing demands for water in the ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐89 Platinum Triangle. Table 3.17‐3 summarizes the reduction in the demand for domestic water that would occur as a result of the proposed project. As reflected in that table, the proposed project would have a demand for 40,845 gallons per day (gpd) or 45.5 afy, compared to the approved land use plan which would have a demand for 48,450 gpd (54.4 afy), resulting in a decrease of approximately 16 percent. Table 3.17‐3 Domestic Water Demand Platinum Vista Apartments Land Use Units Demand Factor Total Domestic Water Demand Approved Platinum Vista Development Residential 350 DUs 105 gpd/DU 36,750 gpd Commercial 60,000 sq. ft. 195 gpd/Ksf 11,700 gpd Total – Approved Platinum Vista Development 48,450 gpd Proposed Platinum Vista Development Residential 389 DUs 105 gpd/DU 40,845 gpd Total – Proposed Platinum Vista Development 40,845 gpd DU – dwelling units Ksf – thousand square feet gpd – gallons per day sq. ft. – square feet SOURCE: FSEIR No. 339 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase surface runoff generated by future development because it is anticipated that the amount of impervious area would similar to the coverage of the development now proposed for subject property. Nonetheless, as indicated in Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), project implementation will require the construction of in‐tract drainage improvements, including BMPs, to accommodate post‐development runoff generated by development proposed for the Platinum Vista Apartments project. FSEIR No. 339 required that future projects within the Platinum Triangle would be required to mitigate any potential drainage impact to adequately serve the area. Such projects would be required to install the drainage facilities based upon the Development Mitigation within Benefit Zones of the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove‐Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area. Additionally, the property owner/developer would also be required to participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. Compliance with these requirements would mitigate potentially significant impacts to storm drain facilities. No additional mitigation measures are required. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐90 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? As indicated in FSEIR No. 339, the City’s water supply projection assumed up to 67 percent groundwater and 33 percent imported, was confirmed by MWD. In 2013‐14, the City received approximately 80 percent of its water supply from its groundwater wells and 20 percent from the MWD, reflecting a one percent increase in groundwater and a one percent decrease in water from the MWD when compared to 2007‐08 as reflected in the FSEIR. Additionally, analyses of normal, single‐dry, and multiple dry year scenarios demonstrate the City’s ability to meet demand during the 20‐year analysis period. Finally, an analysis was conducted utilizing assumed temporary shortages in MWD’s water supply, which demonstrated the City’s ability to meet demand under reasonably foreseeable temporary allocations to deal with cutbacks in SWP deliveries due to Delta smelt and other environmental issues discussed in the prior environmental analysis. FSEIR No. 339 also identified a number of water supply challenges for MWD and its service area, such as critical dry conditions and protective measures for the delta smelt in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta which resulted in uncertainty about future pumping operations from the SWP due to ruling in the federal courts in August 2007. However, the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Platinum Triangle included, as a worse‐case scenario, an analysis under the assumption that state Water Project (SWP) deliveries will be reduced by both 35 and 40 percent, which went beyond the scope and requirements of SB 610. In the event that the SWP water supply is temporarily reduced by 40 percent, the project’s water demand would be met by implementing water conservation in the range of 0.3 to 3 percent, as shown in Table 5.10‐11 of FSEIR No. 339. Should extraordinary circumstances require it, the City can meet its water demand by increasing production of groundwater beyond the basin production percentage up to the basin safe yield, increasing imported water purchases from available storage programs, and/or decreasing demand through water conservation measures. Moreover, under temporary MWD allocation shortages, the City would trigger its Conservation Ordinance and call for at least a 10 percent reduction in usage by all customer classes with rate penalties if users exceed 90 percent of their previous year’s water use. With planned water supplies and facilities, the WSA prepared for the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan concluded that there is adequate water to serve the Proposed Project. The water supply would be provided by the City of Anaheim through an existing 16‐inch waterline within Katella Avenue and an existing 12‐inch water line within Gene Autry Way. The proposed on‐site water system consists of 12‐inch diameter water mains and includes five connections to the City’[s water mains surrounding the project area. The proposed water system provides pressures greater than 45 pounds per square inch (psi) for all nodes within the system. In addition, the project’s water system has been designed to meet the fire flow requirements based on the City of Anaheim Design Guidelines, which require a fire flow demand of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for commercial development and the residential development currently proposed. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? As indicated above, although the proposed project would result in an increase in the number of residential dwelling units on the site and, therefore, an increase in sewage generation, the proposed amendment would also eliminate 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area and, thus, the resulting raw sewage that would be generated by that land use. Furthermore, as reflected in Table 3.17‐2, development that has occurred within the sewer Model Area 3B is generating over 725,000 gpd less raw sewage as a result of the reductions in development density/intensity compared to the original design. In addition, a further reduction in the total generation of raw sewage would also occur in the event the proposed Amendment to the A‐Town Metro ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐91 Master Plan, which proposes a reduction in both dwelling units and commercial floor area, is approved by the City. Therefore, even with the approximately 10 percent increase in the number of dwelling units and resulting increase in the generation of raw sewage, implementation of the proposed project would be expected to adversely affect the existing treatment capacity at the OCSD treatment plant. As a result, potential impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Future development associated with buildout of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project and associated cumulative projects within the local area would not significantly impact solid waste collection and disposal services provided by OC Waste & Recycling. The City of Anaheim is situated within a region that is extensively urbanized and built‐out. Anaheim, along with cities in the surrounding area, would continue to use common landfill resources, thereby reducing the capacity of local landfills. The project would be served by the Olinda Alpha Landfill, located at 1942 N. Valencia Avenue, Brea 92823. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is owned by the County of Orange and operated by the OC Waste & Recycling department. The landfill is permitted to accept up to 8,000 tons per day (tpd) of solid waste and currently accepts a daily average of approximately 6,500 tpd. The landfill has an estimated remaining airspace capacity of 43.92 million cubic yards as of June 30, 2013 with a projected closure date in December 2021. If the Olinda Alpha Landfill closes in December 2021, the project would be served by the Frank R. Bowerman (FRB) Landfill located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road, Irvine, 92602. The FRB Landfill is permitted to accept up to 11,500 tpd and currently accepts an average of approximately 6,000 tpd. The landfill has an estimated remaining airspace capacity of 192.3 million cubic yards with a projected closure date in 2053. The total capacity of the County’s landfill system is approximately 363.5 million cubic yards in three landfills (including Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. Although the proposed project would necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment, the potential generation of solid waste generated by the proposed project is less than the volume estimated to be generated by the approved PTMLUP for the project site with the elimination of the 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area. Table 3.17‐4 provides a comparison of the approved and proposed Platinum Vista Apartments development project and the difference in the generation of solid waste that would have resulted from the approved development scenario 350 apartments and 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐92 Table 3‐17‐4 Solid Waste Generation Platinum Vista Apartments Land Use No. of DUs/ Floor Area (sq. ft.) Solid Waste Generation Rate Total Solid Waste Generation Approved Platinum Vista Development Residential 350 DUs 12.23 lbs/DU 4,280 lbs/day Commercial 60,000 sq. ft. 3.12 lbs/100 sq. ft. 1,872 lbs/day Total – Approved Platinum Vista Development 6,152 lbs/day Proposed Platinum Vista Development Residential 389 DUs 12.23 lbs/DU 4,757 lbs/day Difference ‐1,395 lbs/day DUs – dwelling units lbs/day – pounds per day sq. ft. – square feet SOURCE: OC Waste & Recycling Based on the solid waste generation rate of 12.23 pounds per day per household dwelling unit) and 3.12 pounds/100 square feet for commercial development, respectively, the land uses allocated for the Platinum Vista property would generate approximately 6,152 pounds per day (approximately 3.1 tons/day) of municipal solid waste compared to the 4,757 pounds per day (2.4 tons/day) estimated for the 389‐unit apartment project currently proposed by the applicant. Therefore, project implementation will result in a nearly 23 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste generated by development proposed for the Platinum Vista Apartments compared to the approved land uses. The Orange County solid waste landfill system has sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the project, both on a project‐ specific and cumulative basis. The County maintains 15‐years of Countywide solid waste disposal capacity, in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 AB 939). In addition, pursuant to AB 939, every city and county in the State is required to divert 50 percent of solid waste generated in its jurisdiction away from landfills. Implementation of source reduction measures, such as recycling and converting waste to energy, that would be implemented on a project‐by‐project basis, including the proposed project, would serve to divert solid waste away from landfills. The contribution solid waste generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. Furthermore, with the reduction of solid waste associated with the proposed project, when compared to the approved land uses, the reduction of refuse generation would also not contribute to a potential cumulative impact. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? As indicated above, the City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent. Site development will be subject to the requirements established in the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction would occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the project site but also throughout the City of Anaheim. It is possible that some of the demolition debris existing streets that ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐93 would be demolished) resulting from the implementation of the proposed project could be recycled, which would result in a reduction in the amount of construction debris that would be landfilled. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Cumulative Impacts Project implementation would create a demand for domestic water and would generate both raw sewage and refuse as well as natural gas and electricity; however, the demand or generation would be less than that estimated for the residential and commercial land uses allocated for the Platinum Vista property. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the long‐range plans and policies adopted for the subject site and would not create demands for water or generate sewage and/or refuse that exceed what is anticipated as a result of development that is consistent with those plans. Therefore, because demand and generation rates associated with the proposed project can be accommodated by the existing infrastructure, their potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion In each case for the project’s demand on utilities, including sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and landfill capacity, project implementation would result in a nearly 23 percent reduction in the demands for the respective utility based on the reduction in density/intensity of development currently proposed compared to the residential and commercial land uses allocated to the 4.13‐acre site. These reductions in the demand and/or generation of utility resources serving the City of Anaheim would not result in any new, significant impacts not previously identified or more severe impacts. As a result, FSEIR No. 339 adequately evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed project; no changes to FSEIR No. 339 are required. FSEIR No. 339 Relevant Mitigation Measures MM 10‐1 The City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the project area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. MM 10‐2 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner/developer shall coordinate with the OCSD to ensure that all improvements and construction schedules are coordinated. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐94 MM 10‐3 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall contact Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regarding sewer capacity. Additionally, if requested by the OCSD, the property owner/developer shall place up to three flow monitoring devices for up to a month to verify capacity and ensure consistency with the OCSD’s modeling results. MM 10‐4 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to prevent the sewer spill for below‐grade structures of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe and the invert elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when they are above the pipe crown. MM 10‐5 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where OCSD will be upsizing trunk lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner shall coordinate with OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are installed by OCSD at the lateral connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties. MM 10‐6 Prior to final design approval, additional analysis shall be performed and provided for each individual project using flow, wet‐weather data, and other information specific for that project in order to obtain more accurate results of the surcharge levels for final design. MM 10‐7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881). Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following: ▪ Use of water‐conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; ▪ Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas; ▪ Low‐flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; ▪ Use of self‐closing valves for drinking fountains; ▪ Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors; ▪ Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals; ▪ Infrared sensors on drinking fountains; ▪ Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; ▪ Water‐efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances; ▪ Cooling tower recirculating system; ▪ Use of low‐flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; ▪ Use of waterway recirculation systems; ▪ Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and ▪ Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐95 In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. MM 10‐8 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide engineering studies, including network analysis, to size the water mains for ultimate development within the project. This includes detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering reviews and approval in determining project water requirements and appropriate water assessment fees. MM 10‐9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. MM 10‐12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. MM 10‐13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water faucets, and water efficient appliances. MM 10‐14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines and use recycled water when it becomes available. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. MM 10‐17 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities, as identified in the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area. If the project will increase stormwater flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient storm drain system or will create a deficiency in an existing storm drain, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the drainage facilities, as required by the City Engineer to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Development Mitigation within Benefit Zones of the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final Building and Zoning inspection for the building/ structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. MM 10‐18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐96 Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: ▪ Detailing the locations and design of on‐site recycling facilities. ▪ Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. ▪ Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. ▪ Providing trash compactors for non‐recyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection. ▪ Providing on‐site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. ▪ Prohibiting curbside pick‐up. ▪ Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations. MM 10‐19 Ongoing during project operations, the following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: ▪ Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. ▪ Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. ▪ Collection of office paper for recycling. ▪ Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. MM 10‐20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/ Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division and/or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off‐site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on‐site, sale to a broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if all cannot be reused on the project site. MM 10‐22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans energy‐saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 24, which may include the following: ▪ High‐efficiency air‐conditioning with EMS (computer) control. ▪ Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution. ▪ Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle. ▪ Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. ▪ Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. ▪ Specification of premium‐efficiency electric motors compressor motors, air handling units, and fan‐coil units). ▪ Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces. ▪ Use of compact fluorescent lamps. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐97 ▪ Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps. ▪ Use of ® exit lighting or exit signage. ▪ Use of T‐8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified. ▪ Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal‐halide or high pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots. ▪ Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air‐conditioning during summer, day‐peak periods. ▪ Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as: o New construction design review, in which the City cost‐shares engineering for up to $15,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. o New Construction – Cash incentives $400 per kW or $0.15 per kWh saved for each measure and up to $200,000 per facility for efficiency that exceed Title 24 requirements.. o Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. ▪ Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush [gpf] or less). ▪ Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). ▪ Use of weather‐based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. ▪ Use of draught‐tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping. MM 10‐25 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall install their portion of the underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications of Underground Systems. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City. MM 10‐26 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, the property owner/developer shall provide an electrical load analysis to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD). The analysis shall include a load schedule and maximum electrical coincident demand. Should the property owner/developer’s load analysis result in a contributed load forecasted to exceed 20 MVA above the existing 40 MVA capacity of the electrical system currently serving the Platinum Triangle area, the APUD will initiate construction of a new electrical substation within the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project area. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees for the electrical substation will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City. 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Implementation of the proposed Platinum Vista Apartments project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, or utilities and service systems. No significant geologic constraints were identified, although the site would be subject to seismic ground‐shaking typical of all areas of Southern California. Short‐term noise and air quality impacts would be ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 3‐98 associated with grading and construction activities. However, these significant impacts were considered in FSEIR No. 339, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for unmitigated environmental effects, including these air quality impacts. For all other environmental impacts analyzed, feasible mitigation measures included in FSEIR No. 339 have been incorporated into the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level as analyzed in this Initial Study/Addendum. Based on the information and environmental analysis of potential environmental impacts contained in this Initial Study/Addendum, it has been determined that none of the conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR and described in Chapter 1.0 of this Addendum have been met. Therefore, the City of Anaheim cannot require a subsequent EIR. As described in detail in Section 3.1 through Section 3.17, there are no new significant impacts resulting from the proposed modification nor is there any substantial increase in the intensity of any previously identified environmental impacts. The impacts previously identified for the Revised Platinum Vista Expansion project are not significantly increased due to implementation of the project from anticipated levels documented in the certified Final Subsequent EIR No. 339 for the Platinum Triangle. 3.19 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were addressed in FSEIR No. 339. As described in the preceding analysis, the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts which were not previously addressed in the certified Final Subsequent EIR No. 339 for the Platinum Triangle. As a result, no new potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur with the implementation of the proposed project beyond those previously identified in the certified Final Subsequent EIR No. 339 for the Platinum Triangle. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4.0 – ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Addendum No. 3 to Final SEIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 4‐1 4.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 4.1 City of Anaheim Planning Department Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Public Works Department David Kennedy, P.E., Transportation Planner Keith Linker, Principal Civil Engineer Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer 4.2 Project Applicant The Wolff Company Mark Kaminski, Project Manager The PRS Group Phillip R. Schwartze, Consultant 4.3 Applicant’s Consultants EEI Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions William R. Morrison, Senior Geotechnical Engineer Jeffrey P. Blake, Senior Engineering Geologist Polly Ivers, Staff Scientist Bernard Sentianin, Principal Geologist Hall & Foreman, Inc. Gavin Powell, P.E., LEED AP Edward T. Oune, P.E., Q.S.D. LSA Associates, Inc. Arthur Black ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4.0 – ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Addendum No. 3 to Final SEIR No. 339 – SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Platinum Vista Apartments Project – City of Anaheim, CA August 2014 4‐2 4.4 Environmental Consultant Keeton Kreitzer Consulting Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal