Document Anaheim_doc_a4800b9578

Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for: Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center State Clearinghouse [PHONE REDACTED] Final September 2010 Draft July 19, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ARTIC FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Anaheim, California Prepared for: City of Anaheim Public Works City Hall 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by: Kleinfelder 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92618 September 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FEIR i of xiv September 16, 2010 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY I-1
II.
CORRECTIONS AND II-1
III.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS III-1
Agency Comments III-3
Interested Party Comments III-67
Late Comments III-177
IV.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN IV-1
Statutory Requirements IV-1
Methodology IV-2
Changes to Mitigation Measures IV-2
TABLES Table II-1
Corrections and Additions II-1
Table III-1
Comment Letters - ARTIC III-1
Table III-2
Trip Rate Comparison III-22
Table III-3
Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Existing Traffic Conditions III-52
Table III-4
Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2013 Without Project Traffic III-53
Table III-5
Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2013 With Project Traffic III-54
Table III-6
Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2030 Without Project Traffic III-55
Table III-7
Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2030 With Project Traffic III-56
Table III-8
Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Existing Traffic Conditions III-57
Table III-9
Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2013 Without Project Traffic III-58
Table III-10
Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2013 With Project Traffic III-59
Table III-11
Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2030 Without Project Traffic III-60
Table III-12
Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2030 With Project Traffic III-61
---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FEIR ii of xiv September 16, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-3 1.2 CEQA EIR PROCESS 1-5 1.3 DRAFT EIR REVIEW PROCESS 1-7 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR 1-9 1.5 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS 2-3 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-7 2.2.1 Existing Station Information 2-7 2.2.2 Existing Transportation Providers 2-15 2.2.3 Existing 2-16 2.2.4 Existing Pedestrian Access 2-16 2.2.5 OCTA-Owned Parcel 2-16 2.2.6 City-Owned Parcel 2-16 2.2.7 OCTA Railroad Right-of-Way 2-17 2.2.8 SR-57 Right of Way 2-17 2.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 2-19 2.3.1 Vision Statement 2-19 2.3.2 Project Need 2-19 2.3.3 Project Objectives 2-20 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT 2-23 2.4.1 Intermodal Terminal 2-23 2.4.2 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area 2-31 2.4.3 Stadium Pavilion 2-31 2.4.4 Tracks/Platforms 2-31 2.4.5 Douglass Road Improvements 2-35 2.4.6 Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge 2-39 2.4.7 ARTIC Pedestrian Trail 2-39 2.4.8 Surface Parking/Access 2-39 2.4.9 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities 2-40 2.5 CONSTRUCTION 2-43 2.6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 2-45 2.6.1 Operations and Maintenance - Construction 2-45 2.6.2 Operations and Maintenance – Opening Year 2013 2-45 2.7 PERMITS AND PLAN REVIEW 2-47 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 3-1 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.1-1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting 3.1-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR iii of xiv September 16, 2010 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting 3.1-7 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.1-23 3.1.4 Project Impacts 3.1-24 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.1-25 3.1.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.1-25 3.1.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.1-26 3.1.8 Mitigation Measures 3.1-26 3.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.1-26 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting 3.2-1 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting 3.2-28 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.2-29 3.2.4 Project Impacts 3.2-30 3.2.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Impact Analysis 3.2-37 3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 3.2-76 3.2.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.2-77 3.2.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.2-78 3.2.9 Mitigation Measures 3.2-84 3.2.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.2-86 3.3 AIR QUALITY 3.3-1 3.3.1 Environmental Setting 3.3-1 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting 3.3-2 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.3-6 3.3.4 Project Impacts 3.3-8 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.3-16 3.3.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.3-16 3.3.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.3-17 3.3.8 Mitigation Measures 3.3-17 3.3.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.3-18 3.4 NOISE 3.4-1 3.4.1 Environmental Setting 3.4-3 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting 3.4-18 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.4-20 3.4.4 Project Impacts 3.4-21 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.4-24 3.4.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.4-27 3.4.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.4-27 3.4.8 Mitigation Measures 3.4-27 3.4.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.4-28 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.5-1 3.5.1 Environmental Setting 3.5-1 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting 3.5-14 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.5-16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR iv of xiv September 16, 2010 3.5.4 Project Impacts 3.5-17 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.5-19 3.5.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.5-19 3.5.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.5-19 3.5.8 Mitigation Measures 3.5-19 3.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.5-20 3.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.6-1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting 3.6-1 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting 3.6-4 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.6-7 3.6.4 Project Impacts 3.6-8 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.6-12 3.6.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.6-12 3.6.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.6-12 3.6.8 Mitigation Measures 3.6-12 3.6.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.6-12 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.7-1 3.7.1 Environmental Setting 3.7-1 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting 3.7-5 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.7-9 3.7.4 Project Impacts 3.7-9 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.7-11 3.7.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.7-12 3.7.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.7-12 3.7.8 Mitigation Measures 3.7-12 3.7.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.7-12 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.8-1 3.8.1 Environmental Setting 3.8-1 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting 3.8-2 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.8-7 3.8.4 Project Impacts 3.8-8 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.8-12 3.8.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.8-12 3.8.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.8-12 3.8.8 Mitigation Measures 3.8-12 3.8.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.8-12 3.9 AESTHETICS 3.9-1 3.9.1 Environmental Setting 3.9-1 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting 3.9-5 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.9-6 3.9.4 Project Impacts 3.9-6 3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.9-9 3.9.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.9-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR v of xiv September 16, 2010 3.9.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.9-9 3.9.8 Mitigation Measures 3.9-10 3.9.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.9-10 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.10-1 3.10.1 Environmental Setting 3.10-1 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting 3.10-5 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.10-8 3.10.4 Project Impacts 3.10-9 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.10-12 3.10.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.10-12 3.10.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.10-12 3.10.8 Mitigation Measures 3.10-12 3.10.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.10-14 3.11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.11-1 3.11.1 Environmental Setting 3.11-1 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting 3.11-3 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.11-6 3.11.4 Project Impacts 3.11-7 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.11-9 3.11.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.11-9 3.11.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.11-9 3.11.8 Mitigation Measures 3.11-9 3.11.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.11-10 3.12 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.12-1 3.12.1 Environmental Setting 3.12-1 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting 3.12-7 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.12-15 3.12.4 Project Impacts 3.12-15 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.12-16 3.12.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions 3.12-17 3.12.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation 3.12-17 3.12.8 Mitigation Measures 3.12-17 3.12.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation 3.12-17 4.0 ISSUE AREAS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 4-1 4.1 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 4-1 4.1.1 Cumulative Impacts 4-1 4.2 MINERAL RESOURCES 4-1 4.2.1 Cumulative Impacts 4-2 4.3 RECREATION 4-2 4.3.1 Cumulative Impacts 4-2 4.4 PUBLIC SERVICES 4-2 4.4.1 Cumulative Impacts 4-3 4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR vi of xiv September 16, 2010 4.5.1 Cumulative Impacts 4-4 5.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1 5.2 METHODOLOGY 5-2 5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED 5-2 5.3.1 Alternative Sites 5-2 5.4 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 5-4 Description 5-4 Reduced Building Size Alternative 5-4 No Project Alternative 5-5 Proposed Project 5-6 Evaluation 5-6 Reduced Building Size Alternative 5-6 No Project Alternative 5-9 Proposed Project 5-11 5.5 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY COMPARISON 5-12 5.6 CONCLUSION 5-13 5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 5-13 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT 6-1 7.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED 7-1 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 8-1 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY/LITERATURE CITED 9-1 TABLES Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ES-8 Table 2.2-1 Existing (2009) Anaheim Station Service Levels and Daily Boardings 2-15 Table 2.6-1 Estimated Daily Boardings at ARTIC 2-46 Table 3.2-1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) 3.2-17 Table 3.2-2 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) 3.2-18 Table 3.2-3 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM) 3.2-18 Table 3.2-4 Daily Roadway Segment Capacities 3.2-19 Table 3.2-5 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 3.2-20 Table 3.2-6 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service 3.2-21 Table 3.2-7 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service Criteria (HCM) 3.2-24 Table 3.2-8 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service Criteria (HCM) 3.2-24 Table 3.2-9 Caltrans Existing Intersection Traffic Conditions 3.2-25 Table 3.2-10 Caltrans Existing Merge/Diverge Traffic Conditions 3.2-25 Table 3.2-11 Existing Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-26 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR vii of xiv September 16, 2010 Table 3.2-12 Significant Impact Criteria 3.2-27 Table 3.2-13 ARTIC Traffic Trip Generation Rates and Forecast 3.2-30 Table 3.2-14 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 3.2-38 Table 3.2-15 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 3.2-39 Table 3.2-16 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 3.2-40 Table 3.2-17 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 3.2-43 Table 3.2-18 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary 3.2-44 Table 3.2-19 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-47 Table 3.2-20 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-48 Table 3.2-21 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-49 Table 3.2-22 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-53 Table 3.2-23 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 3.2-56 Table 3.2-24 Year 2030 Traffic Conditions 3.2-57 Table 3.2-25 Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions 3.2-57 Table 3.2-26 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary 3.2-59 Table 3.2-27 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Peak Hour LOS Summary 3.2-60 Table 3.2-28 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-61 Table 3.2-29 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-63 Table 3.2-30 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-65 Table 3.2-31 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) 3.2-68 Table 3.2-32 Existing +ARTIC Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 3.2-70 Table 3.2-33 Existing +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary 3.2-71 Table 3.2-34 Year 2013 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 3.2-72 Table 3.2-35 Year 2013 CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary 3.2-72 Table 3.2-36 Year 2030 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 3.2-73 Table 3.2-37 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary 3.2-74 Table 3.2-38 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary 3.2-75 Table 3.2-39 Year 2013 With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary 3.2-80 Table 3.2-40 Year 2030 + ARTIC Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary 3.2-83 Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.3-4 Table 3.3-2 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 3.3-7 Table 3.3-3 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants 3.3-7 Table 3.3-4 Total ARTIC Construction Emissions from All Stages – Unmitigated 3.3-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR viii of xiv September 16, 2010 Table 3.3-5 Operational Daily Emissions 3.3-10 Table 3.3-6 Maximum CO Impacts from Traffic at the Katella Avenue and Douglass Road Intersection 3.3-15 Table 3.3-7 ARTIC Construction Daily Emissions with NOx Mitigation Measures 3.3-18 Table 3.4-1 Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas 3.4-3 Table 3.4-2 Existing Project Area Cumulative CNEL Values 3.4-11 Table 3.4-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels 3.4-12 Table 3.4-4 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels 3.4-12 Table 3.4-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise 3.4-18 Table 3.4-6 City of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels 3.4-20 Table 3.4-7 2013 Traffic Noise Levels 3.4-21 Table 3.4-8 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for 2013 3.4-22 Table 3.4-9 2013 With Project Noise Levels 3.4-23 Table 3.4-10 2030 Traffic Noise Levels 3.4-25 Table 3.4-11 2030 With Project Noise Levels 3.4-26 Table 3.4-12 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for Cumulative Impacts 3.4-26 Table 3.5-1 Summary of Closest Mapped Faults 3.5-6 Table 3.8-1 Surface Water Beneficial Uses within the Project Area 3.8-4 Table 3.8-2 Groundwater Beneficial Uses within the Project Area 3.8-5 Table 3.12-1 Comparison of Worldwide GHG Emissions 3.12-2 Table 3.12-2 AB 32 Scoping Plan Recommended Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures 3.12-12 Table 3.12-3 ARTIC Project Operational Daily Emissions 3.12-16 Table 5.5-1 Comparison of Alternatives 5-12 FIGURES Figure ES-1 Vicinity Map ES-3 Figure ES-2 Project Limits ES-5 Figure 2.2-1 Architectural Rendering of ARTIC 2-9 Figure 2.2-2 Regional and Vicinity Map 2-11 Figure 2.2-3 Project Limits 2-13 Figure 2.4-1 City of Anaheim and OCTA Jurisdiction 2-25 Figure 2.4-2 ARTIC East and West Elevations 2-27 Figure 2.4-3 ARTIC North and South Elevations 2-29 Figure 2.4-4 Overall Platform 2-33 Figure 2.4-5 ARTIC Site Plan 2-37 Figure 3.1-1 Land Use within the Platinum Triangle 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-2 FIRM Map 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-3 Landscape Concept Plan 3.1-15 Figure 3.1-4 Cross Section of Katella Avenue Landscape Concept Plan 3.1-17 Figure 3.1-5 Cross Section of Douglass Road North of Katella Ave Landscape Concept Plan 3.1-19 Figure 3.1-6 Cross Section of Amtrak/Metrolink Right-of-Way Landscape Concept Plan 3.1-21 Figure 3.2-1 Existing Roadways 3.2-5 Figure 3.2-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3.2-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR ix of xiv September 16, 2010 Figure 3.2-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3.2-11 Figure 3.2-4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 3.2-13 Figure 3.2-5 Existing Trip Distribution 3.2-33 Figure 3.2-6 Proposed ARTIC Trip Distribution 3.2-35 Figure 3.4-1 Sensitive Receivers 3.4-5 Figure 3.4-2 Field Measurement Locations 3.4-7 Figure 3.4-3 Summary of Long Term Monitoring 3.4-9 Figure 3.4-4 Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects 3.4-15 Figure 3.5-1 Geological Soils Map of ARTIC 3.5-3 Figure 3.5-2 Regional Fault Map 3.5-7 Figure 3.5-3 Liquefaction Potential 3.5-11 Figure 3.7-1 Sites of Potential Environmental Concern 3.7-3 Figure 3.9-1 View of ARTIC Facing South 3.9-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR x of xiv September 16, 2010 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans With Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic AG Attorney General AGR Agricultural Supply ALUC Airport Land Use Commission A-PA Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center ATAM Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model AQMP Air Quality Management Plan B.C.E Before Common Era BFE Base Flood Elevations BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association CBC California Building Code CBSC California Building Standards Commission CCAR Cal Climate Action Registry CCR California Code of Regulations CD Compact Disk CDC California Department of Conservation CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG California Department of Fish and Game C.E. Common Era CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Community Facilities District CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGP Construction General Permit CGS California Geologic Survey CH4 Methane CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority City City of Anaheim CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CMP Congestion Management Program ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR xi of xiv September 16, 2010 California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CNRA California Natural Resources Agency California-Nevada Super Speed Train CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent COG Council of Governments CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibel dBA A-weighting Sound Level EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPCRA Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG Greenhouse Gases GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HWCP Hazardous Waste Control Program IBC International Building Code ICBO International Conference of Building Officials ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I-5 Interstate-5 km Kilometer kW Kilowatt LAWA Los Angeles World Airport lb/day Pounds Per Day Leq Equivalent Sound Level Leq Hourly Equivalent Sound Level Ldn Day-Night Sound Level LOS Level of Service LOSSAN Los Angeles to San Diego Passenger Rail Corridor ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR xii of xiv September 16, 2010 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd Million Gallons Per Day MLD Most Likely Descendent MMT Million Metric Tons MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons, Carbon Dioxide Equivalent mph Miles Per Hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSEP Metrolink Service Expansion Program MT/yr Metric Tons Per Year MVA Megavolt Ampere MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NMFS National Marine Fisheries Services NNL National Natural Landmarks NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSPS New Source Performance Standards O3 Ozone OCPW Orange County Department of Public Works OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model OCWD Orange County Water District OPR Office of Planning & Research Pb Lead pc/mi/ln Passenger cars per mile per lane PCBs Byphenyls PM Particulate Matter PPM Parts Per Million PPMV Parts Per Million by Volume PR Public Recreation PRC Public Resources Code PTMU Platinum Triangle Mixed Use ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR xiii of xiv September 16, 2010 PUC Public Utilities Code PUD Public Utilities Department RCEM Road Construction Emissions Model RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROW Right-of-Way RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP Regional Transportation Plan Regional Water Quality Control Board SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCG Southern California Gas Company SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFM California State Fire Marshal SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOx Sulfur Oxides SP Semi-Public SR State Route s/v Seconds per Vehicle (Control Delay) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminant ug/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model US United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDOT United States Department of Transportation USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR xiv of xiv September 16, 2010 V/C Volume to Capacity VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VPD Vehicles per Day VPH Vehicles per Hour WSA Water Supply Assessment WQMP Water Quality Management Plan ∅ Phase ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR I. Introduction and Summary 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR I-1 September 16, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code §15000 et seq.). According to the CEQA Guidelines §15132, the FEIR shall consist of the following: a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR, either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. In accordance with these requirements, the ARTIC FEIR is comprised of the following: • Draft Environmental Impact Report, ARTIC (July, 2010) (SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED]) • This FEIR document, September 2010, that incorporates the information required by §15132. Format of the FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section I. Introduction This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. Section II. Corrections and Additions This section provides a list of those revisions made to the DEIR text and figures as a result of comments received and/or clarifications subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. Section III. Responses to Comment Letters Received on the DEIR This section provides copies of the comment letters received and individual responses to written comments. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21092.5, copies of the written proposed responses to public agencies will be forwarded to the agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR. The responses will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on the DEIRs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR I. Introduction and Summary 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR I-2 September 16, 2010 Section IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan This section includes the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) that identifies the mitigation measures, timing and responsibility for implementation of the measures. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR II. Corrections and Additions 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR II-1 September 16, 2010 II. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS This section of the FEIR contain revisions to information included in the Draft EIR (July 2010) based upon: additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; updated information required due to of the passage of time; and/or typographical errors. Given the minor changes associated with the document, the information added to the EIR does not meet the requirements for recirculation pursuant to §15085.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Table II-1 Corrections and Additions Draft EIR Section Page Number Executive Summary, Table ES-1 ES-15 2.4.5 2-35 3.2-10 3.2-89 3.8.7, 3.8.8, and 3.8.9 3.8-12 5.5, Table 5.5-1 5-12 5.6, 5.7 5-13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR II. Corrections and Additions 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR II-2 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-1 September 20, 2010 III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Section III contains responses to all comment letters received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The comment period opened July 21, 2010 and closed September 3, 2010. A copy of each comment is followed by the response and is provided in the following sections of this chapter. The comment letters are listed in Table III-1. Table III-1 Comment Letters - ARTIC Letter No. Commenter Date Agency Comments: 1. Dave Singleton – Native American Heritage Commission July 23, 2010 2. Al Shami – Department of Toxic Substances Control August 26, 2010 3. Kari A. Rigoni – Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County September 1, 2010 4. Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 5. Glenn Robertson – California Regional Water Quality Control Board September 2, 2010 6. Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 7. Jennifer Bergener – OCTA September 3, 2010 Interested Party Comments: 8. Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 9. Mike Harriel – Southern California Gas Company August 16, 2010 10. Richard Slawson – Jim Adams – Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council August 24, 2010 11. Bill Gunderson – Marriott Anaheim August 24, 2010 12. Kristine E. Thalman – BIA Orange County Chapter August 24, 2010 13. Hilton Anaheim August 24,2010 14. Email from Amy Davis to Susan Kim and Jamie Lai August 25, 2010 15. Fred Calhoun – NAEJA Orange County August 28, 2010 16. Jill Kanzler – S.O.A.R. August 30, 2010 17. Andrea White-Kjoss - Bikestation August 30, 2010 18. Kate Klimow – Orange County Business Council August 31, 2010 19. Lisa M. Kramer – USGBC Orange County August 31, 2010 20. Tim J. Ryan – Honda Center August 31, 2010 21. Orange County Bicycle Coalition September 1, 2010 22. Patrick A. Hennessey – Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP - Anish J. Banker September 2, 2010 23. Ben Seybold – Anaheim Chamber of Commerce September 2, 2010 24. Donna Kelly – Lennar September 3, 2010 25. Kevin Dow – Turner Construction Company September 3, 2010 Late Comments: 26. Bimla G. Rhinehart – California Transportation Department September 13, 2010 27. Edward Royce – House of Representatives September 7, 2010 28. George A. Kalogridis – Disneyland Resort September 10, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-2 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-3 September 16, 2010 Agency Comments Letter 1 Dave Singleton - Native American Heritage Commission July 23, 2010 L1-4 L1-1 L1-2 L1-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-4 September 16, 2010 Letter 1 (cont’d) Dave Singleton - Native American Heritage Commission July 23, 2010 L1-5 L1-6 L1-7 L1-8 L1-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-5 September 16, 2010 Letter 1 (cont’d) Dave Singleton - Native American Heritage Commission July 23, 2010 L1-9 (cont’d) L1-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-6 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-7 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 1 Dave Singleton - Native American Heritage Commission July 23, 2010 L1-1. Thank you for your comments. According to the cultural resources report prepared for the project (Archaeological Resources Survey Report, November 2009), no cultural resources were identified in the APE and no impacts are anticipated as a result of ARTIC. See Section 3.10 in the DEIR for a detailed discussion. L1-2. Comment noted. No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated as a result of ARTIC. Letters were sent on July 15, 2010 to all persons identified on the list of Native American contacts provided in the July 2, 2010 NAHC response to our July 1, 2010 inquiry. All tribes identified on the list (July 23, 2010) received letters as well. No responses from the Native Americans contacted have been received, as of September 1, 2010. L1-3. Based on the fact that no cultural resources were identified in the APE, the majority of the project site was previously a deep gravel pit, and the area is urban and industrialized, the discovery of cultural resources is not anticipated. However, the DEIR includes mitigation measures that require the presence of an archaeological monitor during deep grading construction activities. In the unlikely event of the accidental discovery of human remains during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, §7050.5(b) and of the State Health and Safety Code, and §5097.94(k) and of the PRC shall be strictly followed, including having the NAHC identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). L1-4. A literature search for archaeological and historical resources was conducted on September 16, 2009 at the South Central Coastal Information System (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The results of the records search indicate that two cultural resources have been recorded within a 1-mile radius. One historical resource is located within the project site boundaries but was found ineligible due to a loss of integrity. Based in part on the results of the records search, an archaeological monitor is required during grading construction activities. L1-5. Comment noted. See L1- 2. The project is in compliance with applicable regulations. L1-6. Agreed. The intent of the project is to avoid cultural resources during construction and operations. Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3 in Section 3.10.8 of the DEIR provide provisions for the accidental discovery of cultural resources and any human remains during construction. Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 7050.5(b) and of the State Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94(k) and of the Public Resources Code are cited in Section 3.10.8 of the DEIR. Also see L1-3. L1-7. Comment noted. Per the July 2, 2010 fax from NAHC, the SLF search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within one-half mile of the proposed project APE. Native American cultural resources were identified in close proximity to the APE. Native Americans on the contact list attached to the July 2 and July 23, 2010 faxes were contacted and notified of the opportunity to comment on the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-8 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 1 (cont’d) Dave Singleton - Native American Heritage Commission July 23, 2010 L1-8. Comment noted. See L1-2 and L1-6. L1-9. Comment noted. See L1-6. L1-10. Agreed. The intent of the project is to avoid cultural resources during project planning and implementation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-9 September 16, 2010 Letter 2 Al Shami – Department of Toxic Substances Control August 26, 2010 L2-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-10 September 16, 2010 Letter 2 (cont’d) Al Shami – Department of Toxic Substances Control August 26, 2010 L2-1 (cont’d) ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-11 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 2 Al Shami – Department of Toxic Substances Control August 26, 2010 L2-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-12 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-13 September 16, 2010 Letter 3 Kari A. Rigoni – Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County September 1, 2010 L3-1 L3-2 L3-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-14 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-15 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 3 Kari A. Rigoni – Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County September 1, 2010 L3-1. Thank you for your comments. L3-2. The Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to rise to a maximum of 150 feet above the existing ground level (approximately 324 feet above mean sea level) (page 2-23, Section 2.4.1 Intermodal Terminal) and thus will not impact aviation routes or airspace. L3-3. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-16 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-17 September 16, 2010 Letter 4 Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 L4-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-18 September 16, 2010 Letter 4 (cont’d) Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 L4-1 (cont’d) L4-2 L4-3 L4-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-19 September 16, 2010 Letter 4 (cont’d) Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 L4-5 L4-6 L4-7 L4-8 L4-9 L4-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-20 September 16, 2010 Letter 4 (cont’d) Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 L4-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-21 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 4 Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 L4-1. Thank you for your comments on the project’s DEIR conducted for the City of Anaheim. The City of Orange provided nine comments pertaining to this project. The following are responses to these comments. The first four comments are related to trip generation. The Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix B of the DEIR elaborated in great detail on how the trip generation rates were derived. Before responding to comments 2-5 individually, the text for the trip generation section in the Traffic Impact Analysis is shown below: “The daily trip generation rate for the project was developed based on the estimation of the numbers of originating passengers at ARTIC and the necessary infrastructure required to meet that demand. The needs for ARTIC were first analyzed in the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Transit and Parking Facility Description Report (Carter and Burgess, October 2007). The Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum (Cordoba Corporation, August 2009) updated the analysis with updated information from the various providers of service at ARTIC. Originating passenger information was provided by the various service providers that will utilize ARTIC (Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA, etc). The analysis conducted for these reports considered all originating passengers for each service provider at ARTIC. The mode of access for each originating passenger was then determined from the planned service levels for each provider- some arrive by car (driver or passenger), others transferring from another transit mode, others walking or bicycling to ARTIC. The daily vehicle trips were then compiled by adding the parking vehicles, drop off vehicles, taxis, buses, and shuttles. The number of parking spaces were calculated based on the total number of parking vehicles for each service provider. The daily trip generation rate was then calculated by taking these total vehicle trips and dividing by the number of parking spaces, as calculated in the Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum. Trip Generation for the AM and PM peak hours was derived using the factors provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use codes 090 and 093. The trip rate includes buses, taxis, and shuttles. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project and presents the forecast daily and peak hour Project traffic volumes for a "typical" weekday.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-22 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 4 (cont’d) Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 To briefly summarize, OCTA and Metrolink provided forecasted ridership numbers and the associated daily vehicular demand, including taxis, buses and shuttles. These numbers were consolidated into a single number, and divided into total parking spaces to get the daily trip rate. The calculated daily trip rate, based on forecasted ridership, was compared to ITE trip rates, and the peak hour factors were derived by multiplying the factor between the calculated daily rate and the ITE rate, and applying it to the peak hour ITE rates. L4-2. The existing trips generated from the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink station was acquired through traffic counts collected by City and OCTA transportation planners. The 2.51 daily rate that is comparable to the ITE daily trip rate for Land Use code 093 is purely coincidental, Table 2 below compares the trip rates collected from the actual counts performed at the existing Anaheim Station with the ITE trip rates for Land Use Code 093. Table III-2 Trip Rate Comparison Daily AM PM Anaheim Station 2.51 0.45 0.55 ITE Code 093 2.51 1.07 1.24 Using these rates for 405 parking spaces, the AM and PM peak hour trips would be calculated as 433 and 502 trips respectively. These numbers are significantly higher than the 183 trips and 223 trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively shown in Table 5-1 of the TIA and Table 3.2-13 of the EIR, which were obtained by traffic counts. The City’s transportation planners believe traffic counts are more appropriate as an estimate of likely traffic as compared to the ITE rate. This is particularly the case because ITE Land Use Codes 090 (Park and Ride with Bus Service) and 093 (Light Rail With Parking) were derived from only two traffic studies at two unknown locations in Oregon in the mid 1990’s. Because of the small study sample size, the ITE manual specifically states “[u]sers are cautioned to use data with care because of the small sample size.” The City believes that utilizing actual traffic counts based on an actual analysis of the existing train station in Anaheim is more likely to represent likely traffic at ARTIC than would using studies from unknown locations in Oregon from the mid 1990’s. L4-3. The trip rate of 4.91 trips per parking space was derived from taking the forecasted trip generation provided by OCTA and Metrolink and dividing it by the number of programmed parking spaces. A multiplier was developed comparing the calculated rate of 4.91 trips per parking space compared to the ITE trip rate of 4.50 trips pre parking space for land use code 090. This factor was applied to the peak hour rates ITE trip rates to obtain the calculated peak hour rates. It was felt that these rates were conservative since they are greater than any of the ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-23 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 4 (cont’d) Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 ITE rates for a transit facility set forth in the ITE Manual. That is to say, the traffic analysis contained in the EIR was likely to overstate rather than understate likely traffic impacts from the project. L4-4. As discussed in the last two comments, the trip rates were derived from projected volumes based on counts obtained by OCTA and Metrolink. However, it should be noted that anticipated boardings at ARTIC and vehicle trips are not directly related. As stated earlier, both the ridership projections (boardings and arrivals at the station from Metrolink and buses and taxis) and the daily trip generation were provided by OCTA and Metrolink. Boardings are a measure of how many people board a bus, shuttle, taxi, or train at the station. Many of these boardings are mode-to-mode transfers, such as from train to bus. Many of these boardings are walk trips from surrounding businesses, since most Metrolink riders do not keep cars at their work-end stations. It is also uncommon for bus riders to drive to a bus station to take a bus. Therefore, boardings and trip generation are not the same number. Indeed, this is the entire purpose of an intermodal train station such as ARTIC; providing intermodal transportation options centered on the co-location of synergistic services rail, taxis, bus) adjacent to housing, employment and entertainment options. It should be noted that the traffic analysis and EIR assumes the approval of, and existence of, other projects that are under the regulatory control of the City (e.g. Platinum Triangle) and outside of the control of the City (e.g. High Speed Rail) at the 2030 timeline. The traffic associated with all of these and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects is included in the 2030 time horizon and is thus part of the cumulative impacts analysis. Thus, the cumulative impacts analysis contained within the EIR is highly comprehensive and indeed conservative since many of the projects outside the control of the City may not be constructed by 2030, if at all. L4-5. As discussed in response L4-3, the trip rate of 4.91 trips per parking space was derived from taking the forecasted trip generation provided by OCTA and Metrolink and dividing it by the number of programmed parking spaces. Therefore, the 4.91 trip rate is not considered an “Occupied” trip rate. The 4.91 daily trips per parking space calculation was based on total parking spaces to be provided at ARTIC and based on project ridership forecasts and the corresponding auto trips associated with those transit services. L4-6. At the time of the release of the NOP, the implementation of the additional northbound lane on SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue was slated to be implemented in 2015. So the traffic analysis was based on the information available as public knowledge at the time of the NOP. After the final TIA was completed, OCTA and Caltrans both indicated that the additional lane would be completed mid to late 2013, which would place the completion of the freeway widening to be at the same time as the completion of the proposed project. Since the widening is a fully funded project, it is not a mitigation measure for ARTIC. In any event, because this project is fully funded and in the beginning process of being implemented, it is reasonable to assume the completion of this project at the identified timeline. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-24 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 4 (cont’d) Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 The mitigation measures for impacts to City facilities are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant transportation and traffic impacts to less than significant levels for the reasons set forth in the DEIR. As set forth in the DEIR on pages 3.2-84 through 3.2- 88, with respect to impacts to State facilities (such as those set forth on page 3.2-85), the City has adopted MM’s TT-2 and TT-3. Collectively, these MM’s require the City to work with Caltrans and other adjacent cities to develop a fee program consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and AB 1600 to mitigate cumulative impacts to State facilities. Because cumulative impacts to State Facilities are a product of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the regional vicinity (such as the City of Orange’s General Plan amendment, in addition to Anaheim and other cities’ projects), and because there has not yet been established a comprehensive fee program, the City’s MM’s TT-2 and TT-3 are appropriate mitigation measures that in fact go beyond what any other cities adjacent to State facilities have done in the context of preparing EIR’s for projects located in their own jurisdictions. The City of Anaheim looks forward to working with Caltrans, the City of Orange and other jurisdictions on preparing such a mitigation program. Mitigation measures TT-2 and TT-3 are feasible and represent the best available means by which to accomplish lawful, comprehensive mitigation. Further, as provided in TT-3, the City will be holding in trust the ARTIC project’s pro-rata fair share amount for the improvements to State facilities identified in Table 3.2-40 and will apply this amount to improvement following the adoption of the comprehensive fee program required by TT-2. However, unlike City transportation facilities (over which the City had right of way control), the City does not have control over State facilities. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that MM’s TT-2 and TT-3 represent feasible mitigation, because the City cannot guarantee that such a fee program will be adopted, and (ii) that even if such a fee program was adopted that the improvement is constructed, the City cannot guarantee that impacts to Caltrans facilities would be mitigated to less than significant levels, Thus, the City will be adopting a statement of overriding considerations for the project. The City of Anaheim and Caltrans have been and will continue to work together and we look forward to the participation by other agencies with regulatory approval over projects that contribute traffic to state facilities, such as the City of Orange. L4-7. Red arrows are for trips utilizing the freeways and the blue arrows are trips utilizing the local streets to access the project site. L4-8. Figures revised to identify the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station parking lot. L4-9. See Figure 13-1 in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix B of the DEIR). An exclusive eastbound right-turn lane will be added on Driveway 7. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-25 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 4 (cont’d) Alice Angus – City of Orange September 1, 2010 L4-10. Management of the Santa Ana River Trail is the responsibility of Orange County Public Works and the City of Anaheim does not have the jurisdiction or authority to propose improvements. Bicycle commuters utilizing the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station currently exit the Trail at Katella Avenue, which would remain consistent with ARTIC. Bicycle commuters that currently exit the Trail at Katella Avenue must stop at the intersection of the Trail and the Katella Avenue sidewalk and watch for oncoming cross traffic before they enter the sidewalk or the roadway. Therefore, bicycle commuters will be transitioning to a slower pace, regardless of ARTIC. L4-11. Thank you. You will receive the FEIR and Response to Comments when it is completed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-26 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-27 September 16, 2010 Letter 5 Glenn Robertson – California Regional Water Quality Control Board September 2, 2010 L5-1 L5-2 L5-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-28 September 16, 2010 Letter 5 (cont’d) Glenn Robertson – California Regional Water Quality Control Board September 2, 2010 L5-4 L5-5 L5-6 L5-7 L5-3 (cont’d) ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-29 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 5 Glenn Robertson – California Regional Water Quality Control Board September 2, 2010 L5-1. Please see pages 2-23 through 2-41 of the DEIR for the project description. The Fixed Guideway (Anaheim Rapid Connector) and High Speed Rail (California High Speed Rail) are separate and distinct projects with a separate environmental process. Please see pages 2-3 through 2-5 of the DEIR for the discussion of other relevant projects. L5-2. Comment noted. L5-3. The Draft EIR follows CEQA Guidelines and the DAMP as it relates to environmental review of the project. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required, consistent with Sections 5.1 and 7.6.2 Project Review, Approval and Permitting Process Overview of the DAMP as part of the application for project approval (land use entitlement). The final WQMP will be approved prior to the issuance of grading or building permits pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 10.09.030.010. The preliminary WQMP will continue to be revised as the site plan and the building plans are refined. More specifically, the preliminary WQMP will be include an effective combination of BMPs to address the required degree of pollutant removal. All best management practices will implement the performance standards set out in Section 7.II-3-3.4, of the adopted Model Water Quality Management Plan, including the flow based and volume based design requirements for the treatment control BMPs. Accordingly, even though the specific type, engineering criteria and precise locations of the BMPs has yet to be finalized, the Project will implement measures that ensure compliance with existing law as it relates to water quality protection. Mitigation measures will be added to the FEIR. These are: WQ1 – Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the City will verify that the project WQMP, which meets the requirements of the DAMP, is complete. WQ2. – Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspection, the City will verify that the project BMPs are properly installed as indicated in the WQMP. WQ3 – During operations, the City will inspect the BMPs and verify that the BMPs are properly maintained and functioning as per the WQMP. With the preliminary WQMP and the DEIR text on pages 3.8-7 through 3.8-12 requirements of the DAMP (Exhibit 7.1) are included. As indicated above, the WQMP will be revised through the planning process so water quality will be improved to the “maximum extent practicable.” The FEIR will include three water quality mitigation measures so that implementation of the WQMP and specifically the BMPs will be implemented and tracked. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-30 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 5 (cont’d) Glenn Robertson – California Regional Water Quality Control Board September 2, 2010 L5-4. The existing site is developed and is currently nearly 100% impervious. The proposed project will reduce runoff and improve water quality by increasing pervious surfaces as well as treating and infiltrating the “first flush” of rainfall on the site. The WQMP will address water quality through source control, treatment control and site design BMPs, and will continue to be refined as the project design moves forward. The existing condition of the site is documented in Appendix G and Appendix H with respect to hazardous material. Based on development of the project, this condition will be improved and water quality from the site will be improved. Page 7.1-6 of the DAMP states, “…The permittees may use the CEQA Initial Study Checklist Questions under Hydrology/Water Quality as thresholds of significance.” L5-5. As discussed above the project does not create new sources of contaminated runoff as the site is currently developed and used for vehicle movement and parking. BMPs are defined in the WQMP and are part of the project description. As presented above three water quality mitigation measures will be added to the MMP. L5-6. Comment noted. L5-7. Thank you. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-31 September 16, 2010 Letter 6 Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-32 September 16, 2010 Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-2 L6-6 L6-7 L6-3 L6-5 L6-4 L6-8 L6-9 L6-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-33 September 16, 2010 Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-17 L6-16 L6-20 L6-21 L6-11 L6-15 L6-19 L6-18 L6-12 L6-14 L6-13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-34 September 16, 2010 Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-22 L6-23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-35 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-1. Thank you for your comments on the subject project’s DEIR conducted for the City of Anaheim. The California Department of Transportation provided 22 numbered comments pertaining to this project. The following are responses to these numbered comments and a conclusion comment. The City of Anaheim and Caltrans have committed to work together and with other affected agencies, including adjacent cities, to develop a Transportation Impact Mitigation Agreement pursuant to CEQA requirements, which requires the mitigation to be specific as to time, ownership and control of the mitigation implementation, and monitoring documentation. The City will continue to work with Caltrans and other agencies to reach such an agreement that encompasses all City projects that create impacts to state facilities. L6-2. As stated in the previous comment, as set forth in MM TT-2 and TT-3, the City will work with Caltrans and with other affected agencies, including adjacent cities to develop a Transportation Impact Mitigation Agreement that is acceptable to both agencies and compliant with AB 1600 nexus requirements. To the extent that this project creates a significant cumulative impact to the additional facilities identified by Caltrans, such facilities shall be subject to a fair share contribution covered by the future Transportation Impact Mitigation Agreement. Mitigation measures TT-1, TT-2, and TT-3 demonstrate the City’s full commitment to creating such an inter-jurisdictional fee program for state facilities. It appears that the commentator may have intended that this comment be directed at the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, as the table number and mitigation measure number are not contained within this DEIR, but are contained within the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion EIR. L6-3. Page 3.2-55 of the DEIR lists some of the larger projects included in the cumulative impact analysis, including the California High Speed Rail, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion, the Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and the Anaheim Rapid Connection. The increase in boardings is primarily due to the California High Speed Rail and the Anaheim Rapid Connection, and both projects are undergoing separate environmental analyses. However, as stated earlier, these projects are included in the cumulative analysis. The City’s traffic model includes the assumption that all of these projects will be constructed and in existence at 2030 even though, as identified in the DEIR, many of these projects are highly speculative at this time. Section 2.0 of the DEIR outlines the proposed project, and any impacts created by the proposed project as listed in this section are identified in the DEIR as impacts associated with ARTIC. It appears that Caltrans may have intended that this comment be directed at the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, as that latter project is a comprehensive General Plan update that imposes the same obligation of the City to work with Caltrans and other agencies to enter into an agreement to mitigate impacts to state facilities. The cumulative impact analyses contained in both projects assume build out of all of the cumulative projects listed by the commentator. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-36 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-4. The TIA was scoped consistent with applicable traffic study guidelines. As shown in the traffic impact analysis and Section 3.2 of the DEIR (see page 3.2-16), the increase in traffic on Interstate 5 is negligible. Table 3.2-29 shows that the maximum increase of traffic on Interstate 5 is 21 vehicles per hour, resulting in negligible increases in density. Since the merge/diverge influence areas shows no impact, and since project related traffic disperses the further the distance from a project, there will be no appreciable increase in traffic on Interstate 5. Thus, no further analysis of Interstate 5 is necessary by the project TIA. Again, it appears that the commentator may have intended that this comment be directed at the Platinum Triangle expansion project, as it is apparent that Caltrans is confusing this project for the larger General Plan amendment. L6-5. The methodology used to forecast levels of service for freeway mainline segments is consistent with CEQA guidelines. Maintaining comparable results between baseline and cumulative conditions is an important component of CEQA. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual shall be used to analyze freeway mainline segments. The methodology for analyzing freeways is outlined in Chapter 22 of the HCM, with specific focus on mainline freeway segments in Chapter 23. The methodology outlined in Chapter 23 of the HCM is the only accepted industry standard for the calculation of freeway levels of service while maintaining comparable results between baseline and cumulative conditions. The methodology outlined in the HCM identifies bottlenecks and chokepoints, which are the causes of congestion. For example, one of the best known bottlenecks in the area is the eastbound State Route (SR) 22 freeway interchange with Interstate 5 and SR-57, locally known as the Orange Crush interchange. Correct application of this methodology will identify the existing bottleneck created at the Orange Crush. The regular congestion on the eastbound SR-22 freeway west of this interchange is caused by this bottleneck at the Orange Crush, not because of a capacity deficiency, i.e. not enough lanes on the freeway. The methodology used by this study correctly identifies the Orange Crush as the cause of the congestion, and in fixing the bottleneck would result in significant improvements in traffic flow on the SR-22 freeway. The methodology proposed in this comment would report the areas affected by the congestion caused by the Orange Crush as areas with capacity deficiencies. The proposed methodology would then require any project that creates an impact on eastbound SR-22 to add several lanes to this freeway. Adding lanes to the SR-22 freeway would not resolve the congestion created by the bottleneck at the Orange Crush. Therefore, any project that contributes traffic to SR-22 would be required to mitigate capacity deficiencies that do not exist. Additionally, there is no accepted method to calculate congested speeds in the cumulative scenarios. The City of Anaheim is not required mitigate non-existent capacity deficiencies. The methodology outlined in Chapter 22 in the HCM is ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-37 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 the only accepted standard which uses a comparable baseline and cumulative analysis. It should be noted that according to the TIA, the project will generate no additional trips anywhere on SR-22, and therefore will not contribute to the existing deficiency described above in this paragraph. The commentators request is inconsistent with how TIA’s are produced all over the State in reliance on Caltrans’ own Guidelines. Using some “new” methodology would not only be inconsistent with Caltrans’ own guidelines, but would also disrupt the continuity between identified impacts and mitigation measures. That is to say, using a new methodology that is not consistent with other TIAs created in the region would possibly result in different (and misleading) impacts (and non-impacts). L6-6. The queuing analysis has been provided as requested. The off-ramp queuing is already readily available in the appendices to the traffic study- this information has been compiled into tabular form (Table III-3 through III-7, on Pages III-52 through III-56). The on-ramp analysis has been conducted consistent with Caltrans standards and guidelines (Table III-8 through III-12, on Pages III-57 through III-61). The on and off ramp analysis are presented in two tables following the response to this comment letter. L6-7. The TIA clearly explains how the daily trip generation rates were created. The trip rates are based on sound data points and resources. Section 5.1 of the TIA provides a discussion on the development of the trip generation rates as follows. The following text will be added to the FEIR to further elucidate how trip generation rates were calculated: “The daily trip generation rate for the project was developed based on the estimation of the numbers of originating passengers at ARTIC and the necessary infrastructure required to meet that demand. The needs for ARTIC were first analyzed in the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center Transit and Parking Facility Description Report (Carter and Burgess, October 2007). The Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum (Cordoba Corporation, August 2009) updated the analysis with updated information from the various providers of service at ARTIC. Originating passenger information was provided by the various service providers that will utilize ARTIC (Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA, etc). The analysis conducted for these reports considered all originating passengers for each service provider at ARTIC. The mode of access for each originating passenger was then determined from the planned service levels for each provider- some arrive by car (driver or passenger), others transferring from another transit mode, others walking or bicycling to ARTIC. The daily vehicle trips were then compiled by adding the parking ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-38 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 vehicles, drop off vehicles, taxis, buses, and shuttles. The number of parking spaces were calculated based on the total number of parking vehicles for each service provider. The daily trip generation rate was then calculated by taking these total vehicle trips and dividing by the number of parking spaces, as calculated in the Needs Assessment Update and Validation Technical Memorandum. Trip Generation for the AM and PM peak hours was derived using the factors provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use codes 090 and 093. The trip rate includes buses, taxis, and shuttles. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project and presents the forecast daily and peak hour Project traffic volumes for a "typical" weekday.” To briefly summarize, OCTA and Metrolink provided forecasted ridership numbers and the associated daily vehicular demand, including taxis, buses and shuttles. These numbers were consolidated into a single number, and divided into total parking spaces to get the daily trip rate. The calculated daily trip rate, based on forecasted ridership, was compared to ITE trip rates, and the peak hour factors were derived by multiplying the factor between the calculated daily rate and the ITE rate, and applying it to the peak hour ITE rates. The trip rate of 4.91 trips per parking space was derived from taking the forecasted trip generation provided by OCTA and Metrolink and dividing it by the number of programmed parking spaces. A multiplier was developed comparing the calculated rate of 4.91 trips per parking space compared to the ITE trip rate of 4.50 trips per parking space for land use code 090. This factor was applied to the peak hour ITE trip rates to obtain the calculated peak hour rates. Importantly, it is believed that these rates are conservative since they are greater than any of the ITE rates for a transit facility. In other words, the trip rates used in the ARTIC TIA likely overstate rather than understate project traffic (and, by extension, the EIR likely overstates air, noise, GHG impacts). L6-8. Page 3.2-55 of the DEIR lists some of the projects included in the cumulative impact analysis, including the California High Speed Rail, the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion, the Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and the Anaheim Rapid Connection. The 2030 time horizon set forth in the EIR and the TIA included the assumption that all of these projects will be in existence at the 2030 time horizon. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-39 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-9. Year 2030 is the horizon year for ARTIC consistent with Platinum Triangle and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Further, the City specifically met with representatives of Caltrans on multiple occasions to discuss this TIA and the TIA for the Platinum Triangle and Caltrans specifically approved of the 2030 analytical timeline. Further, 2030 reflects the City’s General Plan buildout, and there would be no difference from an impact and mitigation standpoint between the 2030 and 2035 timelines. L6-10. Obtaining data to measure unconstrained volumes under existing conditions is not possible. Unconstrained volume is the amount of traffic on a road or freeway if there were enough lanes on that street to handle every vehicle on that street so they could travel as fast as practical without any congestion. If there was no congestion on any street, vehicles would typically take the shortest and quickest route to their destinations. In reality, vehicles take arterial streets to avoid the congestion on freeways, and vehicles drive through residential neighborhoods to avoid congestion on arterial streets. It is not possible to collect data for existing conditions to reflect unconstrained volumes on any facility. To measure true unconstrained volumes would also mean that it is possible to collect data that is reflective of human behavior. This is not a realistic approach, as behavior changes over time. In addition, traffic models are required to be validated using existing counts, which means they use constrained volumes. Constrained volumes are realistic and readily measurable. OCTA and SCAG guidelines in regards to traffic models state that existing condition traffic models must be validated using existing counts, and that the existing condition model output must match existing traffic counts to a certain level of accuracy. Therefore, to be consistent with regional guidelines, the City is required to use constrained volumes for existing conditions. L6-11. As discussed in L6-7, the calculated daily trip rate, based on forecasted ridership, was compared to ITE trip rates, and the peak hour factors were derived by multiplying the factor between the calculated daily rate and the ITE rate, and applying it to the peak hour ITE rates. Table 5-1 in the TIA does not discuss directional distribution, but rather the AM and PM peak hour trip rates for inbound and outbound traffic. The inbound and outbound rates are calculated from the directional distribution factors found in ITE land use code 090. L6-12. As Table 5-1 states, these are trip generation rates for inbound and outbound traffic. Please note that the sum of the entry and exit rates adds up to the total AM and PM peak hour trip rates shown in TIA Table 5-1. As stated in the previous comment, the distribution percentages from the ITE Trip Generation manual were applied to the total peak hour rates to get the directional rates. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-40 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 L6-13. This list is not part of any approved STIP, RTIP, RTP, or other identified and approved funding source. The table referenced is not an adopted or approved list of projects, therefore, this statement in the DEIR and TIA is accurate. However, as set forth in Mitigation Measure TT-2 and Mitigation Measure TT-3, the City agrees to include any impacted state facilities into a future agreement with Caltrans and adjacent cities regarding the mitigation of impacts to State facilities through the adoption of a regional fee program. If these facilities are subject to impacts from City impacts, these facilities will be included in such programs. Importantly, this project does not impact SR 22. Again, it is apparent that Caltrans likely intended this comment letter to be directed at the Platinum Triangle update project and not this project. L6-14. The City is committed to working with Caltrans to identify fair share mitigation measures, as identified in the DEIR, Mitigation Measure TT-2. The City is committing to commence this process immediately. The City believes that other adjacent cities will also be necessary participants. L6-15. The specific improvement that is being implied in this comment is the Measure M project to add a northbound lane on SR-57 between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. This is not a mitigation measure, since this project is fully funded and in progress. If ARTIC is completed prior to the completion of the SR-57 widening project, these impacts would remain significant until construction is complete. However, it is reasonable for the DEIR to assume that this improvement will be constructed due to the fact that the project is fully funded and construction planning is underway. L6-16. The City concurs with the comment and will comply with Caltrans encroachment permit requirements. Project generated impacts to water quality are addressed in Section 3.8, Water Quality and Hydrology, of the DEIR. L6-17. Three sites were considered during the initial planning stages but were rejected because they would not meet many of the project objectives and would not avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project (see Page 5-2 through 5-4 in the DEIR). Two final alternatives and the proposed project were evaluated during the initial planning stages based on their ability to satisfy the Statement of Objectives and avoid or reduce effects of the project. Section 5.4 (Page 5-4) specifically describes each alternative and the potential environmental impacts to each issue area as a result. Table 5.5-1 (Page 5-12) is a summary and comparison of the two alternatives and proposed project. L6-18. As Page 5-1 of the DEIR states, “CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would ‘feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives’ (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6).” The alternatives chapter identified a reasonable range of potential alternatives to the Proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-41 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Project and evaluated them, as required by CEQA. Three sites were considered but ultimately not recommended because they would not meet many of the project objectives and would not avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project (see Page 5-2 through 5-4 in the DEIR). Three alternatives were evaluated based on their ability to satisfy the Statement of Objectives and avoid or reduce effects of the project. Section 5.4 specifically describes each alternative and the potential environmental impacts to each issue area as a result. Table 5.5-1 presents a summary and comparison of the three alternatives. As stated on Page 5-13, “The Proposed Project and the Reduced Building Size alternative would have similar operational environmental impacts and no impacts are significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. The Proposed Project and the Reduced Building Size alternative meet all the project objectives. The No Project alternative does not meet the objectives. The No Project alternative has potentially significant air quality, traffic and transportation, and GHG environmental impacts for operations as the demand for parking exceeds the supply.” The City believes that a reasonable range of alternatives was evaluated. In a good faith effort to respond to these comments, however, the following response is included to provide an evaluation of one additional alternative (the “Reduced Site Size Alternative”), and (ii) an expanded analysis of one of the alternative sites that was originally considered, but rejected (the “Irvine Station” alternative site). This expanded analysis helps clarify the Draft EIR’s conclusion that there are no alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the project’s objectives and that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project. None of the prerequisites set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 that would require a recirculation of the Draft EIR due to the inclusion of this new information exist. Rather, this information merely clarifies or amplifies the analysis already set forth regarding alternatives to the proposed project. Reduced Site Size Alternative The Reduced Site Size alternative assumes that an intermodal center would be developed at the Proposed Project site and would provide expanded capacity compared to the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. The Reduced Site Size alternative would: • include a transit center that is identical to the Proposed Project; • have the same amount of parking as the Proposed Project; • include the envisioned pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue and the trail easement adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail; • provide the same intermodal transit services as the Proposed Project ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-42 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 The development of the Reduced Site Size alternative would require a project site that is approximately 16.15 acres, without the 405 parking spaces at existing Anaheim Station (18.71 acres total) (see table below). The reduction of the project site comes from the elimination of the widening of the Douglass Road at the Katella Avenue intersection, which would remain at its current four lane configuration and would not require the General Plan Amendment to change the roadway classification. ARTIC Site Calculations ACRE Parking - North 2.23 Parking - South 1.90 Building 2.85 Internal roads/walkways 3.74 Landscaping 2.56 Douglass Rd. Widening (-3.08) Rail/Platforms 2.87 Existing Stadium Parking Area 2.56 Total Acres 18.71 Evaluation Land Use and Planning This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480), but would still require an amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010- 00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. The development of a transit center meeting the project objectives would require approximately 18.71 acres in order to provide enough room for development the transit center and an adequate parking supply to support the transit services that are planned to be located at ARTIC as identified in the Needs Assessment (Cordoba, 2009) prepared for the Proposed Project. The construction of a parking structure, which was evaluated early in the project planning stage and would reduce the acreage requirement, would be cost prohibitive as well as increase the construction schedule. The Reduced Site Size alternative, in combination with the existing station parking lot, would provide enough room for up to 960 surface parking spaces, which includes the 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Station, approximately 323 parking spaces north of the transit building and 232 parking spaces south of the railroad tracks (Cordoba, 2009). The development of the proposed transit building and ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-43 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 surface parking spaces are located on land owned by the City and OCTA and do not encroach upon private land owners. The only component of the project that requires additional property is the widening of Douglass Road at the Katella Avenue intersection in order to provide improvements that do not result in an unacceptable LOS. Transportation and Traffic The Reduced Site Size alternative would not widen Douglass Road from its current configuration of four lanes to eight lanes. However, the TIA prepared for the Proposed Project determined that the minimum number of lanes needed for the Douglass Road/Katella Avenue intersection at the 2013 opening day condition was six lanes in order to accommodate the re-distribution of traffic from the existing Anaheim Station to proposed ARTIC location (Notably, the ROW required for six lanes would be the same as would be required in the Proposed Project (approximately 20,000 square feet) since constructing six lanes would partially encroach into the retail buildings. A partial encroachment would require the acquisition of that building). Thus, this alternative would result in a significant impact at the PM Peak Hour to the Douglass Road/Katella intersection LOS as shown in Table 1 below. Since this condition is only projected to the 2013 scenario, it would only continue to degrade as cumulative projects begin to contribute to traffic, i.e. Platinum Triangle buildout. Table 1 – Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Traffic Impact Key Intersection Time Period Year 2013 Cumulative Without Project Traffic Conditions (Existing Lanes) With Project Traffic Conditions (Existing Lanes) Significant Impacts With Project Traffic Conditions With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS Douglass Rd at Katella Ave AM 0.449 A 0.509 A 0.060 No 0.467 A PM 0.524 A 0.716 C 0.192 Yes 0.585 A The project would create a significant impact in the PM peak hour without widening Douglass Road. Even though the LOS is acceptable, the decrease in LOS causes a significant impact. Per City standards, in order to mitigate to an acceptable LOS, the intersection must be improved up to the buildout configuration of the General Plan Circulation Element. The current General Plan Circulation element, adopted in 2004, calls for a six lane supplemental ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-44 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 lane cross section on Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue: two lanes southbound, 2 northbound left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane. Based on this requirement, the City would require the widening of Douglass Road as a mitigation measure under this alternative. Air Quality The Reduced Site Size alternative would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality in the form of an increase in traffic delays at the Douglass Road/Katella Avenue intersection. An increase in traffic delays would result in an increase in automotive idling, which would contribute to a CO Hot Spot at the Douglass Road/Katella Avenue intersection. Operations for this alternative would not exceed significance thresholds or result in violations of ambient air quality standards with the use of BMPs. Construction activities for the Reduced Site Size alternative would yield criteria pollutant emissions that would be less than the significance thresholds, with the exception of NOx. NOx would require mitigation measures to reduce it to below the threshold level. Fewer construction related mitigation measures would be required for this alternative because of the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation activities. Noise Operations for this alternative would not significantly impact noise-sensitive receivers. Noise from construction activities could intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise from project construction will be regulated through the Anaheim Municipal Code. Construction activities at night would require mitigation measures. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Geology and Soils The project construction area would remain the same and impacts associated with geology and soils would be equivalent to those identified for the Proposed Project because the area required for the transit center would be the same. This alternative would have equivalent impacts as the Proposed Project and the same existing regulations and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable to this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-45 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would be smaller than the Proposed Project and consumption of utilities would be reduced. This reduction in utilities consumption would be minimal. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not significantly impact utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project because the area required for the transit center would be the same. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hydrology and Water Quality The project area and the amount of impervious surfaces would be comparable to the Proposed Project because the area required for the transit center would be the same. The project area is largely already developed, implementation of this alternative would not result in substantial increases in the amount of impervious surface, and water quality impacts would not increase. Runoff volumes would be generally the same as compared to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Aesthetics The project would remain the same under this alternative as the building design would not change. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources The project construction area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to cultural resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Biological Resources The project construction area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to biological resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-46 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Public Services This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not include a residential component. The demand for public services would be similar to the Proposed Project and as such, would not result in an adverse impact to public services. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not significantly impact GHG and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts from the Reduced Building Size alternative would be comparable or less than the Proposed Project during construction. Agriculture The site is currently fully urbanized and project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Mineral Resources This alternative would not impact mineral resources and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Recreation This alternative would not impact recreation and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Population and Housing This alternative would not impact population and housing as it would not divide an established community or displace any housing. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Conclusion The Reduced Site Size alternative would develop a transit facility identical to the Proposed Project but would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Transportation and Traffic and potentially significant impacts to Air Quality, as noted above, as a result of the decreased project site acreage. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-47 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 The Proposed Project requires approximately 18.71 acres in order to provide enough room for development of the transit center and an adequate parking supply to support the transit services that are planned to be located at ARTIC. The construction of a parking structure, which was evaluated early in the project planning stage and would reduce the acreage requirement, would be cost prohibitive. The proposed site would provide enough room for up to 960 surface parking spaces, which includes the 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Station, approximately 323 parking spaces north of the transit building and 232 parking spaces south of the railroad tracks (Cordoba, 2009). The development of the proposed transit building and surface parking spaces are located on land owned by the City and OCTA and do not encroach upon private land owners. The only component of the project that requires additional property is the widening of Douglass Road at the Katella Avenue intersection in order to provide improvements that do not result in an unacceptable LOS. The acquisition of ROW for widening Douglass Road requires the relocation of one active business and two vacant commercial spaces within the Arena Plaza Commercial Center. The City has entered into a Lost Rent Agreement with the Arena Plaza Commercial Center to ensure the business does not suffer a hardship as a result of the Proposed Project. The Lost Rent Agreement allows the vacant commercial spaces to remain vacant while allowing the Area Plaza Commercial Center to collect rent as if it were occupied. Prior to the commencement of construction, a deal will be required between the City and Arena Plaza Commercial Center for permanent acquisition of the required ROW. Irvine Station The Irvine Station located at 15215 Barranca Parkway encompasses approximately 12 acres and currently offers Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA bus system, taxis, and shuttle services (OCTA, 2009). Land to the north and west of the Irvine Station is developed. Land to the south and southeast is zoned for Transit Oriented Development and is currently vacant (City of Irvine, 2006). Land to the north and west of the Irvine Station is developed. Land to the south and southeast is zoned for Transit Oriented Development and is currently vacant (City of Irvine, 2006). There would be the potential for the station to expand to provide additional parking and/or transit oriented development. Environmental impacts such as traffic, air quality, and noise would be similar to the Proposed Project impacts. Important objectives of the project are to provide improved and safe pedestrian access to two major professional sports facilities (Angels Stadium and the Honda Center) and entertainment centers within the City (Disneyland Resort), and (ii) facilities to meet the anticipated increased rail passenger and intermodal connection demand in the City. Locating the project in Irvine would not meet those important project objectives. Moreover, although the Irvine location would be in proximity to one destination within the region, the Orange County Great Park (OCGP), which will be located at the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-48 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Evaluation Land Use and Planning This alternative would be consistent with the existing land use of the site since it is zoned for Transit Oriented Development. Transportation and Traffic This alternative would require a traffic impact analysis to determine specific intersection and roadway LOS for the access roads to the site. Based on the traffic volumes included in the Proposed Project’s TIA, the project could result in potentially significant impacts to Barranca Parkway, Ada, Alton Parkway, and I-5. It is anticipated that the magnitude of traffic impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project, would require similar mitigation measures, and potentially a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts to Caltrans facilities such as with the Proposed Project. Air Quality Operations for this alternative would not exceed significance thresholds or result in violations of ambient air quality standards with the use of BMPs. Construction activities for this alternative would yield criteria pollutant emissions that would be less than the significance thresholds, with the exception of NOx, NOx would require mitigation measures to reduce it to below the threshold level. Fewer construction related mitigation measures would be required for this alternative because of the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation activities since a majority of the site is already a paved parking lot. Noise Operations for this alternative would not significantly impact noise-sensitive receivers since there are no residences in the immediate vicinity of the site. Noise from construction activities could intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise from project construction would be regulated through the Irvine Municipal Code. Construction activities at night would require mitigation measures. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be needed under this alternative. Operation of the facility would be similar to the existing operations of the Irvine Station. Geology and Soils This alternative would have similar impacts as the Proposed Project and the same existing regulations and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable to this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-49 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project and consumption of utilities would be similar. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not significantly impact utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project because the site is already a developed transit center. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Hydrology and Water Quality The project area and the amount of impervious surfaces would be comparable to the existing condition because the alternative site is primarily developed, Project implementation would not result in substantial increases in the amount of impervious surface, and water quality impacts would not increase. Runoff volumes would be generally the same as compared to the Proposed Project. Aesthetics The area surrounding this alternative location is primarily dominated by commercial development and does not contain any sensitive views to obstruct. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources This alternative site is primarily developed; however, there is a vacant field located adjacent to the east of the surface parking lot that could contain unidentified cultural resources. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Biological Resources This alternative has the potential to result in impacts to biological resources. There is a vegetated drainage facility present along the east edge of the Irvine Station surface parking lot. Depending on how the site were designed, the drainage could be impacted. Impacts to the drainage could result in impacts to migratory birds nesting with the vegetation and would require permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, CA Department of Fish and Game, and ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-50 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Public Services This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project. The demand for public services would be similar to the Proposed Project and as such, would not result in an adverse impact to public services. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not significantly impact GHG as impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts from this alternative would be comparable or to the Proposed Project during construction. Agriculture The site is currently developed but is adjacent to vacant ground. Project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. Mineral Resources This alternative would not impact mineral resources since the project would not involve the extraction of mineral resources. The site is already developed as a transit center Recreation This alternative would not impact recreation since there are no recreational resources on the site. Population and Housing This alternative would not impact population and housing as it would not divide an established community or displace any housing. Conclusion The Irvine Station alternative would result in similar or additional environmental impacts as the Proposed Project, as noted above, but precludes the opportunity for anticipated future transportation services to enter the facility because the CAHSR and projects are not planned to terminate at the Irvine Station. This alternative is located in south Orange County and would not serve as a centralized transit center within close proximity to major tourist destinations and entertainment venues. This alternative was eliminated from further evaluation since it would not achieve the project objectives of providing improved and ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-51 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 safe pedestrian access to two major professional sports facilities (Angels Stadium and the Honda Center) and entertainment centers within the City (Disneyland Resort), and (ii) facilities to meet the anticipated increased rail passenger and intermodal connection demand in the City. L6-19. The City will comply with Caltrans NPDES permit requirements. L6-20. The City concurs with the comment. L6-21. The City concurs with the comment. L6-22. The City concurs with the comment. L6-23. Agreed. The City of Anaheim and OCTA wish to continue to work together as partners to maintain and enhance economic stability within the region. A meeting will be scheduled in the future to discuss fair-share contributions related to the traffic impacts generated by this project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-52 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-3 Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Existing Traffic Conditions Key Off-Ramp Existing Traffic Conditions Storage Provided (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) (feet) (feet) 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,750 71 Yes 60 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 2,900 85 Yes 56 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 700 75 Yes 50 Yes 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,100 274 Yes 372 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Through-Turn 1,100 183 Yes 292 Yes Northbound Through 1,400 183 Yes 292 Yes Northbound Through 1,600 183 Yes 292 Yes Northbound Shared Through/Right-Turn 1,600 183 Yes 292 Yes 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Southbound Left-Turn 700 101 Yes 81 Yes Southbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 700 101 Yes 81 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 800 119 Yes 103 Yes 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 550 89 Yes 136 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 600 89 Yes 136 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 650 100 Yes 106 Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-53 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-4 Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Key Off-Ramp Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Storage Provided (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) (feet) (feet) 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,750 76 Yes 65 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 2,900 103 Yes 100 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 700 90 Yes 89 Yes 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,100 260 Yes 612 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Through-Turn 1,100 218 Yes 443 Yes Northbound Through 1,400 218 Yes 443 Yes Northbound Through 1,600 218 Yes 443 Yes Northbound Shared Through/Right-Turn 1,600 218 Yes 443 Yes 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Southbound Left-Turn 700 117 Yes 206 Yes Southbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 700 117 Yes 206 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 800 158 Yes 373 Yes 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 550 217 Yes 204 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 600 217 Yes 204 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 650 238 Yes 190 Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-54 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-5 Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Key Off-Ramp Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Storage Provided (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) (feet) (feet) 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,750 73 Yes 65 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 2,900 105 Yes 100 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 700 91 Yes 89 Yes 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,100 324 Yes 612 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Through-Turn 1,100 211 Yes 443 Yes Northbound Through 1,400 211 Yes 443 Yes Northbound Through 1,600 211 Yes 443 Yes Northbound Shared Through/Right-Turn 1,600 211 Yes 443 Yes 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Southbound Left-Turn 700 164 Yes 244 Yes Southbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 700 164 Yes 244 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 800 201 Yes 395 Yes 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 550 255 Yes 224 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 600 255 Yes 224 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 650 301 Yes 202 Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-55 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-6 Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Key Off-Ramp Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Storage Provided (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) (feet) (feet) 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,750 196 Yes 293 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 2,900 432 Yes 240 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 700 415 Yes 66 Yes 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,100 567 Yes 971 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Through-Turn 1,100 379 Yes 775 Yes Northbound Through 1,400 379 Yes 775 Yes Northbound Through 1,600 379 Yes 775 Yes Northbound Shared Through/Right-Turn 1,600 379 Yes 775 Yes 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Southbound Left-Turn 700 138 Yes 196 Yes Southbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 700 138 Yes 196 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 800 384 Yes 315 Yes 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 550 248 Yes 237 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 600 248 Yes 237 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 650 298 Yes 271 Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-56 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-7 Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary for Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Key Off-Ramp Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Storage Provided (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) Max. Queue Adequate Storage (Yes / No) (feet) (feet) 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,750 207 Yes 296 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 2,900 465 Yes 237 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 700 448 Yes 66 Yes 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 1,100 567 Yes 971 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Through-Turn 1,100 379 Yes 775 Yes Northbound Through 1,400 379 Yes 775 Yes Northbound Through 1,600 379 Yes 775 Yes Northbound Shared Through/Right-Turn 1,600 379 Yes 775 Yes 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Southbound Left-Turn 700 336 Yes 247 Yes Southbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 700 336 Yes 247 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 800 385 Yes 307 Yes 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue Northbound Left-Turn 550 272 Yes 250 Yes Northbound Shared Left/Right-Turn 600 272 Yes 250 Yes Northbound Right-Turn 650 329 Yes 290 Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-57 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-8 Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Existing Traffic Conditions No. On-Ramp Segment Peak Hour Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Service Rate Intensity Factor Required Reservoir Provided Reservoir No. of Vehicles Length (feet) Length (feet) Adequate Reservoir (Y/N) 1 I-5 Freeway SB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 453 1,800 0.25 1 22 1,600 Y PM 587 1,800 0.33 1 22 1,600 Y 2 I-5 Freeway NB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 35 1,800 0.02 1 22 1,100 Y PM 86 1,800 0.05 1 22 1,100 Y 7 SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 158 900 0.18 1 22 950 Y PM 363 900 0.40 2 44 950 Y SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 235 900 0.26 1 22 800 Y PM 459 900 0.51 2 44 800 Y 8 SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 295 900 0.33 1 22 800 Y PM 453 900 0.50 2 44 800 Y SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 154 900 0.17 1 22 760 Y PM 236 900 0.26 1 22 760 Y Notes: The peak hour traffic volumes are based on the ARTIC Traffic Impact Analysis Report (LLG - July 16, 2010). The peak hour processing rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour is based on two metered lanes at 900 vehicles per hour (meter rate of 4 seconds per vehicle) Intensity Factor = Peak Hour Volumes / Service Rate Reservoir vehicle requirement calculated at the 99% confidence level per the Crommelin Methodology nomograph. Reservoir distance = 22 feet per vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-58 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-9 Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions No. On-Ramp Segment Peak Hour Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Service Rate Intensity Factor Required Reservoir Provided Reservoir No. of Vehicles Length (feet) Length (feet) Adequate Reservoir (Y/N) 1 I-5 Freeway SB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 583 1,800 0.32 1 22 1,600 Y PM 759 1,800 0.42 2 44 1,600 Y 2 I-5 Freeway NB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 67 1,800 0.04 1 22 1,100 Y PM 133 1,800 0.07 1 22 1,100 Y 7 SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 302 900 0.34 1 22 950 Y PM 485 900 0.54 2 44 950 Y SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 240 900 0.27 1 22 800 Y PM 468 900 0.52 2 44 800 Y 8 SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 577 900 0.64 4 88 800 Y PM 702 900 0.78 7 154 800 Y SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 157 900 0.17 1 22 760 Y PM 241 900 0.27 1 22 760 Y Notes: The peak hour traffic volumes are based on the ARTIC Traffic Impact Analysis Report (LLG - July 16, 2010). The peak hour processing rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour is based on two metered lanes at 900 vehicles per hour (meter rate of 4 seconds per vehicle) Intensity Factor = Peak Hour Volumes / Service Rate Reservoir vehicle requirement calculated at the 99% confidence level per the Crommelin Methodology nomograph. Reservoir distance = 22 feet per vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-59 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-10 Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions No. On-Ramp Segment Peak Hour Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Service Rate Intensity Factor Required Reservoir Provided Reservoir No. of Vehicles Length (feet) Length (feet) Adequate Reservoir (Y/N) 1 I-5 Freeway SB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 583 1,800 0.32 2 44 1,600 Y PM 759 1,800 0.42 4 88 1,600 Y 2 I-5 Freeway NB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 71 1,800 0.04 1 22 1,100 Y PM 148 1,800 0.08 1 22 1,100 Y 7 SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 293 900 0.33 1 22 950 Y PM 470 900 0.52 2 44 950 Y SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 271 900 0.30 1 22 800 Y PM 566 900 0.63 4 88 800 Y 8 SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 562 900 0.62 4 88 800 Y PM 679 900 0.75 6 132 800 Y SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 208 900 0.23 1 22 760 Y PM 402 900 0.45 2 44 760 Y Notes: The peak hour traffic volumes are based on the ARTIC Traffic Impact Analysis Report (LLG - July 16, 2010). The peak hour processing rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour is based on two metered lanes at 900 vehicles per hour (meter rate of 4 seconds per vehicle) Intensity Factor = Peak Hour Volumes / Service Rate Reservoir vehicle requirement calculated at the 99% confidence level per the Crommelin Methodology nomograph. Reservoir distance = 22 feet per vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-60 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-11 Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions No. On-Ramp Segment Peak Hour Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Service Rate Intensity Factor Required Reservoir Provided Reservoir No. of Vehicles Length (feet) Length (feet) Adequate Reservoir (Y/N) 1 I-5 Freeway SB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 1,213 1,800 0.67 4 88 1,600 Y PM 1,253 1,800 0.70 4 88 1,600 Y 2 I-5 Freeway NB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 196 1,800 0.11 1 22 1,100 Y PM 465 1,800 0.26 1 22 1,100 Y 7 SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 189 900 0.21 1 22 950 Y PM 524 900 0.58 3 66 950 Y SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 229 900 0.25 1 22 800 Y PM 412 900 0.46 2 44 800 Y 8 SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 415 900 0.46 2 44 800 Y PM 523 900 0.58 3 66 800 Y SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 189 900 0.21 1 22 760 Y PM 359 900 0.40 1 22 760 Y Notes: The peak hour traffic volumes are based on the ARTIC Traffic Impact Analysis Report (LLG - July 16, 2010). The peak hour processing rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour is based on two metered lanes at 900 vehicles per hour (meter rate of 4 seconds per vehicle) Intensity Factor = Peak Hour Volumes / Service Rate Reservoir vehicle requirement calculated at the 99% confidence level per the Crommelin Methodology nomograph. Reservoir distance = 22 feet per vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-61 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 6 (cont’d) Christopher Herre – California Department of Transportation September 3, 2010 Table III-12 Peak Hour On-Ramp Queuing Analysis Summary For Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions No. On-Ramp Segment Peak Hour Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Service Rate Intensity Factor Required Reservoir Provided Reservoir No. of Vehicles Length (feet) Length (feet) Adequate Reservoir (Y/N) 1 I-5 Freeway SB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 1,213 1,800 0.67 4 88 1,600 Y PM 1,253 1,800 0.70 4 88 1,600 Y 2 I-5 Freeway NB On-Ramp From Katella Avenue AM 200 1,800 0.11 1 22 1,100 Y PM 480 1,800 0.27 1 22 1,100 Y 7 SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 180 900 0.20 1 22 950 Y PM 510 900 0.57 3 66 950 Y SR-57 Freeway SB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 260 900 0.29 1 22 800 Y PM 510 900 0.57 3 66 800 Y 8 SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From EB Katella Avenue AM 400 900 0.44 2 44 800 Y PM 500 900 0.56 3 66 800 Y SR-57 Freeway NB On-Ramp From WB Katella Avenue AM 240 900 0.27 1 22 760 Y PM 520 900 0.58 3 66 760 Y Notes: The peak hour traffic volumes are based on the ARTIC Traffic Impact Analysis Report (LLG - July 16, 2010). The peak hour processing rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour is based on two metered lanes at 900 vehicles per hour (meter rate of 4 seconds per vehicle) Intensity Factor = Peak Hour Volumes / Service Rate Reservoir vehicle requirement calculated at the 99% confidence level per the Crommelin Methodology nomograph. Reservoir distance = 22 feet per vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-62 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-63 September 16, 2010 Letter 7 Jennifer Bergener – OCTA September 3, 2010 L7-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-64 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-65 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 7 Jennifer Bergener – OCTA September 3, 2010 L7-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Agency Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-66 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-67 September 16, 2010 Interested Party Comments Letter 8 Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 L8-1 L8-2 L8-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-68 September 16, 2010 Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 L8-4 L8-5 L8-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-69 September 16, 2010 Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire March 5, 2010 L8-8 L8-9 L8-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-70 September 16, 2010 Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire March 5, 2010 L8-9 (cont’d) L8-10 L8-11 L8-12 L8-13 L8-14 L8-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-71 September 16, 2010 Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire March 5, 2010 L8-15 (cont’d) L8-16 L8-17 L8-18 L8-19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-72 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-73 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 8 Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 L8-1. Thank you for your comments. The City has no record of your letter dated March 5, 2010. Your letters dated March 5, 2010 and August 5, 2010 will be included in the FEIR. L8-2. Currently, there are no reports that indicate that the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station impacts the use of the Santa Ana River Trail (SART) or that the bicycle users are under-served. The fact that the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station will be moved 2,000 feet closer to the SART at ARTIC will not create increased demand for bicycle or pedestrian users of the SART. This station relocation will not provide bicycle commuters with more than 5 minutes in commuter travel savings. The commute time via the SART would be approximately the same for ARTIC and the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Thus, City transportation planners do not believe, based on their expertise, that moving the ARTIC approximately 5 minutes closer to the SART will significantly increase bicycle commuter demand at the SART. Bicycle commuters on the SART consist of a diverse group of individuals who are generally employed at employment centers relatively adjacent to the SART (e.g. industrial and office parks in Anaheim off of La Palma; government offices in Santa Ana; industrial and commercial offices in Fountain Valley and Santa Ana). Moving ARTIC closer to the SART by a few minutes will not significantly alter the demand and use patterns of the train station. Currently bicycle commuters have access to the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station from Katella Avenue via Sportstown and Katella Avenue via Douglass Road. In the future, bicycle commuters will have access to ARTIC from Katella Avenue via Sportstown, Katella Avenue via Douglass Road, and Katella Avenue via public sidewalks and walkways within ARTIC. There will be a required dismount policy at ARTIC for pedestrian safety, requiring cyclists to walk their bike from Katella Avenue or Douglass Road. Therefore, no impacts to the SART as a result of ARTIC are anticipated. L8-3. A conservative estimate for the maximum increase in bicycle ridership to be expected in the future is 6% (this is very high, with the average being 0.48% rail commuters using bicycles) (Bikes on Transit, 2010. Bikes on Transit Report; http://www.bikemap.com/bikesontransit/ statistics.php). This study suggests that 6% ride/commute on the train with a bicycle. To increase 6% in addition to the people already using bicycles to catch a train/commute based on the movement of ARTIC is not likely. The demand for parking spaces at ARTIC could be reduced by 40 when taking into account the additional bicycle commuters that are estimated to use ARTIC. Assuming that all bicycle commuters would use SART on the opening day of ARTIC at peak times, the SART/ARTIC interface would need to accommodate 40 bicycle commuters. Assuming a worst-case scenario of all bicycle commuters arriving during one peak hour period, bicycle commuters would have an average of approximately one minute between riders to dismount and walk onto the ARTIC campus using public sidewalks and ARTIC walkways. Nonetheless, if 6% of the total estimated ridership at ARTIC is 40 people, we can assume that 40 additional people will be attempting to access the SART during any given peak commute hour. We can assume that approximately half of the 40 people (20 people) will be accessing the SART and heading towards ARTIC from north, and 20 people from south. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-74 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 It should be noted that for the purpose of this worst-case scenario, we are assuming that all 6% of bicycle users would be accessing ARTIC by using SART, which is also not likely. Based on the City of Anaheim and City of Orange General Plans land use maps and the locations of residential zoning in relation to SART and ARTIC, it is a reality that many bicycle commuters will be accessing ARTIC via surface streets and not by the use of the SART at all. The location of a SART trail head/access point in relation to a residential neighborhood must also be taken into consideration. Generally, a commuter will take the shortest route to their destination. Although according to the DEIR the nearest residence is 0.4 miles away from ARTIC, this in no way implies that there will be convenient trail access in closer proximity than a reasonable surface route. Additionally, based on a study prepared by Mineta Transportation Institute (established by US Congress as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), the average distance people (walkers) are willing to walk to the train station to catch a commuter train is approximately 0.5 mile (How Far, By Which Route, and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Pedestrian Preference, June 2007). Bicycle commuters are willing to commute to a train approximately 2.5 miles. If the SART imposes the 10 mile per hour (mph) speed limit as proposed, we can assume that it will take about 15 minutes for a bicycle commuter to travel 2.5 miles at a speed of 10 mph (Santa Ana River Trial, 2010. http://www.trailsafetypatrol.com/forum.html). However, many people would be accessing the trail from different points in the trail, so distance would decrease, and therefore so would commute time on SART. This, therefore, is a worst-case scenario. If 20 bicycle commuters (from north or south) access the trail in a given peak hour period, one new bicycle commuter accesses the trail approximately every 180 seconds (3 minutes). A 10 mph biking pace, traveling a distance of 2.5 miles, with a new bicycle commuter accessing the trail every 180 seconds, breaks down to a 15 minute commute down/up SART (900 seconds). This divided by one new commuter coming on every 180 seconds, results in a total increase of 5 additional bicycle commuters on SART at one time between 2.5 miles north/south of ARTIC, before a commuter exits SART at ARTIC. That amounts to 10 additional bicycle commuters on the trail at one time during a given one-hour peak period. This is not a significant increase. The same principles apply to walkers. A walker will walk about 0.5 mile to access a train. At an average pace of 3 mph (average pace of an adult), it will take a person 10 minutes to walk about .5 mile. 10 minutes (600 seconds) divided by the 180 seconds (3 minutes) that a new person would come onto the trail, considering the same conservative 6% increase in walkers, comes to approximately 4 people walking north/south towards ARTIC, for a total increase of 8 people in a one-mile stretch on SART during a one hour peak period. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-75 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 L8-4. Expertise is noted but the potential impact on the SART as a result of ARTIC would be an addition of 40 bicycle commuters, if all projected riders use the SART. As discussed in L8-3, the estimated 40 bicycle and pedestrian commuters using the SART within a one-hour peak period would be the worst-case scenario. Assuming that all users arrive at ARTIC within a one hour peak period, bicycle and pedestrian commuters would have on average approximately one minute between riders to dismount and enter ARTIC. The relocation of the transit facilities from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 2,000 feet east to ARTIC is not anticipated to affect the types of users on the SART since ARTIC would accommodate existing and potential future transit services. L8-5. Your attached letter will be addressed separately and other comments by agencies will be addressed separately. The Draft EIR clearly states that ARTIC will not have a direct physical impact on SART during construction and will not have operational impacts on SART (see L8-4). Therefore, since no impacts are anticipated, recommendations will not need to be implemented. With respect to the analysis, ARTIC is a walk on and walk off facility with indirect access to SART. The current access to transit and intermodal operations by bicycle/pedestrian users of SART at either the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station or ARTIC does not change by moving 2,000 feet closer to SART. L8-6. As explained in L8-2 and L8-4, ARTIC will not impact bicycle commuters using the SART. ARTIC is a pedestrian orientated facility. Bicycle commuters will be invited to dismount at Katella Avenue near SART to enter ARTIC. Bicycle commuters have the option to enter ARTIC via Katella/Douglass or Sportstown and dismount at the nearest walkway. L8-7. Comment noted. L8-8. ARTIC is anticipated to contain space for an independent business to serve the bicycle commuters, as well as bicycle storage lockers. L8-9. The ARTIC project team is comprised of an interdisciplinary team. L8-10. See response to L8-3. L8-11. While models and/or actual numbers on bicycle ridership around Intermodal Centers and their relationship to bike paths/trails seems to be limited, several studies do in fact exist regarding safety and an increase in ridership. Several studies around the country have been prepared to determine if an increase in bike paths, bike lanes, etc., equates to an increase in bicycle related accidents. The results of these studies reveal what researchers referred to as the “safety in numbers effect”. In other words, more cyclists result in fewer accidents. Common events are safe, and rare events are dangerous. Making cycling safer, one report concluded, requires that it become more popular (New York Times, 2009). ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-76 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 Although many of the reports were centered around vehicle interaction with bicyclists, the same principle of the “safety in numbers effect” holds true for pedestrian and bicycle interactions. Making cycling and/or walking safer on paths and trails shared by the two requires that people be aware and follow the established rules. Additionally, although no numbers on ridership on the Santa Ana River Trail website were provided, many public comments were posted regarding the potential for imposing a speed limit along the trail. All posted comments were opposed to this limit, all stating that an increased awareness was key to preventing accidents, not limiting the amount of riding or speed of riding (SART, 2010). An increase in accessibility to bike paths, trails, or lanes is also not proven to be directly related to an increase in ridership. Some cities that have worked to improve bike lanes, paths, and trails have not noticed an increase in ridership. A study in China found, that although China was once considered the “kingdom of bicycles”, bicycle ridership has dropped (despite a bicycle-friendly road system) over 20 times since 1978 and is expected to decline another five times still by 2020. This is in part due to growth in the economy and therefore increased automobile usage (Grist, 2010). See L8-3 for a detailed discussion. ARTIC and the City of Anaheim cannot control users of the SART and potential conflicts that result from use of the trail. However, based on the above research, use of the trail system adjacent to ARTIC by bicycle commuters should not negatively affect trail safety, or transit safety, or accessibility to walkers and other pedestrians. L8-12. Widening and management of the SART is the responsibility of Orange County Public Works. The City of Anaheim does not have the jurisdiction or authority to propose improvements to the SART. As discussed in L8-11, there will not be an impact to the SART. Access from the SART to ARTIC will be via Katella Avenue or Douglass Road; there are no direct connections proposed to the SART. Additionally, construction activities for ARTIC will remain within the boundaries of the study area. SART is outside of the study area. L8-13. Access to ARTIC will be via the sidewalk along Katella Avenue, which is currently a transition area by necessity. The bike path portion within the SART splits from the pedestrian/equestrian portion and continues under the bridge at Katella Avenue. Bicycle commuters that currently exit the SART at Katella Avenue must stop at the intersection of the SART and the Katella Avenue sidewalk and watch for oncoming cross traffic before they enter the sidewalk or the roadway. Therefore, bicycle commuters will be transitioning to a slower pace, regardless of ARTIC. ARTIC is anticipated to include storage lockers for bicycle commuters and will contain space for an independent business to provide additional services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-77 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 L8-14. Bicycle commuters will not be required to enter or exit the roadway from between parked cars or dismount in lanes of traffic in order to enter ARTIC (See L8-13). L8-15. ARTIC is anticipated to have stairways similar to other transit centers along the Metrolink system. ARTIC is also anticipated to have oversized elevators to accommodate luggage and bicycles. L8-16. ARTIC is anticipated to include storage lockers for daily use. L8-17. ARTIC is anticipated to contain space for an independent business to serve the bicycle commuters. L8-18. A very clear and transparent structure would pose a problem during the hot summer conditions in Anaheim and lead to overheating or excessive energy consumption for cooling. The project is addressing this issue by considering solar control strategies, low energy mechanical systems and consideration of design criteria (and desired comfort levels) and nature of use of the space. In addition it should be noted that the building must comply with the California Title 24 Energy Code. The main shell, which experiences the majority of the direct solar gain, proposes to use Ethylene-TetraFluoroEthylene (ETFE) as the cladding medium. The proposed material properties can be tuned to provide a varying degree of protection from the sun through the use of white ETFE or printed coatings to reflect heat. Studies have shown that a solar heat gain coefficient of between 0.125 to 0.35, reflecting between 65% to 88% of solar heat gain, should be sufficient to reduce heat gain to acceptable levels. Studies have also shown that this can perform equally as well as a ‘prescriptive’ building with 40% glazing and 5% skylights. Roof overhangs on the North and the South (subject to further optimization) will also provide shade to possible clearer elements. For areas of exposed glass (i.e. the bottom 20ft) it is recommended to use insulated glass to achieve a solar heat gain coefficient, with a recommended range of 0.18 to 0.25. In addition to optimizing the building envelope, the high volume of the terminal building significantly benefits the environmental control strategy due to the natural buoyancy of hot air which will rise out of the lower zone that will be occupied by transit patrons. Analysis has shown that for the majority of the year when external temperatures are below approximately 70°F, the building will be able to naturally exhaust heat at high level with no or limited cooling systems. During hot summer conditions when cooling is required, the proposed mechanical systems only cool the low level occupied zone and not the entire volume, thus saving energy. Heat will still be exhausted at high level assisting the mechanical systems. In addition to an air based cooling system, a radiant floor is proposed that will improve comfort locally to occupants and using less energy than an air based system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-78 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 8 (cont’d) Elaine Bobadilla – Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire August 5, 2010 In addition, the nature of the main hall as a transient space permits the use of a much broader comfort band, rather than strictly controlling air temperature as in office environments. Pre- cooling of the structure at night and allowing the temperature to float up to a maximum of 78 or 80°F will allow mechanical systems to be turned off for large portions of the year which can be maintained with external temperatures of approximately 99°F. The radiant floor will also assist in the perception of comfort through the local radiant effect, thus allowing higher air temperatures to be maintained with limited effect on comfort perception. It has also been recommended by the design team to allow the internal temperature to rise further as the external temperature rises above 100°F, which only occurs for approximately 60 hours in a typical year. The effort to limit solar gain needs to be considered in-parallel with concerns for external glare (among numerous other issues). Some projects using glass or polished metal surfaces can create specular reflections, which create visual interference or ‘glare’. Specular reflections are those similar to a mirror, while non-specular reflections are diffuse, and can be described as light being reflected from a ‘matte’ surface. These types of reflections are scattered, and generally do not produce glare in exterior environments. Specular reflections can be problematic if they reflect into other nearby buildings or directly into the sightline of roadways or users of the SART. But in most cases, specular reflections are problematic when they are associated with concave surfaces, which will focus or concentrate the reflections into a tighter region (thus increasing the glare). In the case of the Disney Concert Hall, one can easily see that the glare issues likely involved the concave surfaces of the building’s facade geometry, together with the shiny polished metal surfaces of the cladding. For the ARTIC Terminal, there is an opposite condition, where the exterior surface of the shell will always be convex, rather than concave. This sort of geometry will scatter the reflections of sunlight in different directions, so that any single viewer would only see the reflection in a single pane of glass (if the project were using glass). But since the project will be using inflated ETFE membranes, we can further note that the raised spherical surfaces of the ETFE pillows will also be convex surfaces, and thus the reflections which will be visible on each pillow will be tiny dots of light, without any capacity to create glare for neighboring buildings or roadways. L8-19. The Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire will be added to the distribution list. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-79 September 16, 2010 Letter 9 Mike Harriel – Southern California Gas Company August 16, 2010 L9-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-80 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-81 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 9 Mike Harriel – Southern California Gas Company August 16, 2010 L9-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-82 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-83 September 16, 2010 Letter 10 Richard Slawson – Jim Adams – Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council August 24, 2010 L10-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-84 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-85 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 10 Richard Slawson – Jim Adams – Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council August 24, 2010 L10-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-86 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-87 September 16, 2010 Letter 11 Bill Gunderson – Marriott Anaheim August 24, 2010 L11-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-88 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-89 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 11 Bill Gunderson – Marriott Anaheim August 24, 2010 L11-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-90 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-91 September 16, 2010 Letter 12 Kristine E. Thalman – BIA Orange County Chapter August 24, 2010 L12-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-92 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-93 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 12 Kristine E. Thalman – BIA Orange County Chapter August 24, 2010 L12-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-94 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-95 September 16, 2010 Letter 13 Hilton Anaheim August 24, 2010 L13-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-96 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-97 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 13 Hilton Anaheim August 24, 2010 L13-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-98 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-99 September 16, 2010 Letter 14 Email from Amy Davis August 25, 2010 L14-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-100 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-101 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 14 Email from Amy Davis August 25, 2010 L14-1. Thank you for your comments. We generally agree with the sentiment expressed in your email, and feel that a fully transparent skin would likely not be feasible in the context of Anaheim. Indeed, our advice regarding the exterior building skin is that the roof enclosure will need to provide some level of solar shading (whether using glass, ETFE, or other materials). A very clear and transparent structure would pose a problem during the hot summer conditions in Anaheim and lead to overheating or excessive energy consumption for cooling. The ARTIC Project is addressing this issue by considering solar control strategies, low energy mechanical systems and consideration of design criteria (and desired comfort levels) and nature of use of the space. In addition it should be noted that the building must comply with the California Title 24 Energy Code. The main shell, which experiences the majority of the direct solar gain, proposes to use Ethylene-TetraFluoroEthylene (ETFE) as the cladding medium. The proposed material properties can be tuned to provide a varying degree of protection from the sun through the use of white ETFE or printed coatings to reflect heat. Studies have shown that a solar heat gain coefficient of between 0.125 to 0.35, reflecting between 65% to 88% of solar heat gain, should be sufficient to reduce heat gain to acceptable levels. Studies have also shown that this can perform equally as well as a ‘prescriptive’ building with 40% glazing and 5% skylights. Roof overhangs on the North and the South (subject to further optimization) will also provide shade to possible clearer elements. For areas of exposed glass (i.e. the bottom 20ft) it is recommended to use insulated glass to achieve a solar heat gain coefficient, with a recommended range of 0.18 to 0.25. In addition to optimizing the building envelope, the high volume of the terminal building significantly benefits the environmental control strategy due to the natural buoyancy of hot air which will rise out of the lower zone that will be occupied by transit patrons. Analysis has shown that for the majority of the year when external temperatures are below approximately 70°F, the building will be able to naturally exhaust heat at high level with no or limited cooling systems. During hot summer conditions when cooling is required, the proposed mechanical systems only cool the low level occupied zone and not the entire volume, thus saving energy. Heat will still be exhausted at high level assisting the mechanical systems. In addition to an air based cooling system, a radiant floor is proposed that will improve comfort locally to occupants and using less energy than an air based system. In addition, the nature of the main hall as a transient space permits the use of a much broader comfort band, rather than strictly controlling air temperature as in office environments. Pre- cooling of the structure at night and allowing the temperature to float up to a maximum of 78 or 80°F will allow mechanical systems to be turned off for large portions of the year which can be maintained with external temperatures of approximately 99°F. The radiant floor will also assist in the perception of comfort through the local radiant effect, thus allowing higher ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-102 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 14 (cont’d) Email from Amy Davis August 25, 2010 air temperatures to be maintained with limited effect on comfort perception. It has also been recommended by the design team to allow the internal temperature to rise further as the external temperature rises above 100°F, which only occurs for approximately 60 hours in a typical year. The effort to limit solar gain needs to be considered in-parallel with concerns for external glare (among numerous other issues). Some projects using glass or polished metal surfaces can create specular reflections, which create visual interference or ‘glare’. Specular reflections are those similar to a mirror, while non-specular reflections are diffuse, and can be described as light being reflected from a ‘matte’ surface. These types of reflections are scattered, and generally do not produce glare in exterior environments. Specular reflections can be problematic if they reflect into other nearby buildings or directly into the sightline of roadways. But in most cases, specular reflections are problematic when they are associated with concave surfaces, which will focus or concentrate the reflections into a tighter region (thus increasing the glare). In the case of the Disney Concert Hall, one can easily see that the glare issues likely involved the concave surfaces of the building’s facade geometry, together with the shiny polished metal surfaces of the cladding. For the ARTIC Terminal, there is an opposite condition, where the exterior surface of the shell will always be convex, rather than concave. This sort of geometry will scatter the reflections of sunlight in different directions, so that any single viewer would only see the reflection in a single pane of glass (if the project were using glass). But since the project will be using inflated ETFE membranes, we can further note that the raised spherical surfaces of the ETFE pillows will also be convex surfaces, and thus the reflections which will be visible on each pillow will be tiny dots of light, without any capacity to create glare for neighboring buildings or roadways. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-103 September 16, 2010 Letter 15 Fred Calhoun – NAEJA Orange County August 28, 2010 L15-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-104 September 16, 2010 Letter 15 (cont’d) Fred Calhoun – NAEJA Orange County August 28, 2010 L15-1 (cont’d) ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-105 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 15 Fred Calhoun – NAEJA Orange County August 28, 2010 L15-1. Thank you for your letter dated August 28, 2010 regarding the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The City of Anaheim appreciates you taking time to submit comments and share information about the purpose of the National Association for Equal Justice in America (NAEJA). The City is certainly aware of the economic hardships facing many residents in Anaheim and the region and is doing its level best to help get our City and region back on firm footing. The City is excited about the prospect of ARTIC and what it will mean for both our City and Orange County. ARTIC will serve as an economic catalyst for the local community stimulating the economy through job creation – both construction and permanent for the region. ARTIC is expected to create approximately 5,000 estimated jobs based upon project costs of $184 million. To this end, the City will continue its practices of implementing the State of California, Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan as it pertains to local agencies (City is a participating agency). The City’s Anticipated Annual DBE Participation Level (AADPL) is 12.51% for the current year 2010- 2011 (through September 30, 2011). I appreciate that NAEJA’s interest is ensuring job creation for African-Americans and would encourage you to advise your membership to visit the www.ARTICinfo.com website (on the main page under “Click Here to Sign Up”) where they can register and be kept of apprised of bidding opportunities on the ARTIC project. Individuals without internet access, may call our project helpline at 1(877) 99-ARTIC [1(877) 992-7842] and leave a message with their contact information and indicate their desire to be added to the project interest list. The City also anticipates hosting an interest conference in 2011 to review contracting opportunities. We will keep you apprised of the timing of this conference. Thank you again for your comments and if you would like to discuss your interests in further detail, please contact Laura Muna-Landa, the ARTIC Public Outreach Manager at 909-627- 2974 to arrange a meeting with the City and project team members. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-106 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-107 September 16, 2010 Letter 16 Jill Kanzler – S.O.A.R. August 30, 2010 L16-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-108 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-109 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 16 Jill Kanzler – S.O.A.R. August 30, 2010 L16-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-110 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-111 September 16, 2010 Letter 17 Andrea White-Kjoss – Bikestation August 30, 2010 L17-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-112 September 16, 2010 Letter 17 (cont’d) Andrea White-Kjoss – Bikestation August 30, 2010 L17-1 (cont’d) ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-113 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 17 Andrea White-Kjoss – Bikestation August 30, 2010 L17-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-114 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-115 September 16, 2010 Letter 18 Kate Klimow – Orange County Business Council August 31, 2010 L18-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-116 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-117 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 18 Kate Klimow – Orange County Business Council August 31, 2010 L18-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-118 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-119 September 16, 2010 Letter 19 Lisa M. Kramer – USGBC Orange County August 31, 2010 L19-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-120 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-121 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 19 Lisa M. Kramer – USGBC Orange County August 31, 2010 L19-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-122 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-123 September 16, 2010 Letter 20 Tim J. Ryan – Honda Center August 31, 2010 L20-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-124 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-125 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 20 Tim J. Ryan – Honda Center August 31, 2010 L20-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-126 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-127 September 16, 2010 Letter 21 Orange County Bicycle Coalition September 1, 2010 L21-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-128 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-129 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 21 Orange County Bicycle Coalition September 1, 2010 L21-1. Thank you for your comments. ARTIC is anticipated to have oversized elevators to accommodate luggage and bicycles. ARTIC is also anticipated to contain space for an independent business to serve the bicycle commuters and to include storage lockers for daily use. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-130 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-131 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-132 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-2 L22-3 L22-4 L22-5 L22-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-133 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-9 L22-8 L22-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-134 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-9 (cont’d) L22-10 L22-11 L22-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-135 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-16 L22-15 L22-13 L22-14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-136 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-17 L22-18 L22-19 L22-20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-137 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-20 (cont’d) ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-138 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-20 (cont’d) L22-21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-139 September 16, 2010 Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-22 L22-21 (cont’d) L22-23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-140 September 16, 2010 Letter 22(cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-141 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-1. Thank you for your comments. Lewis Schmid on behalf of the Schmid Family Trust presented the City of Anaheim with a letter on April 22, 2010 requesting that the City of Anaheim consider purchasing the entire property located adjacent to the project site. The proposed plan if implemented would require only 20,000 square feet of ROW adjacent to Douglass Road near Katella Avenue. Acquisition of additional property, not indicated as required under present project design, could occur if valuation analyses indicate remaining property is an uneconomic remnant, of under voluntary agreement with the owner and the City. The commenter provides no evidence that the loss of 20,000 square feet renders the remaining property uneconomical. The DEIR evaluates the 20,000 square feet because that is what is in the project description and needed to design the project. As a result of the April 22 letter, the City entered into a Lost Rent Agreement with the Lewis R. and Judith E. Schmid Family Trust on April 27, 2010. Beginning May 1, 2010, the City agreed to compensate the Schmid Family Trust in exchange for not renting or leasing the two buildings within the 20,000 square feet ROW that would be acquired as a result of the project. This rental agreement is attached. L22-2. We disagree. The DEIR is more than adequate to serve the requirements of CEQA, in regards to form, process, and content. L22-3. The DEIR fully complies with CEQA. See Section 5.0 (Page 5-1) for a detailed discussion of project alternatives. Note that alternative sites were considered but rejected based primarily on regional planning issues and the Statement of Objectives for the proposed project. Utilizing the entire Arena Plaza Commercial Center was not considered necessary because only a small portion of this site was considered necessary for roadway improvements along Douglass Road. Evaluating the project with and without the whole Center did not make sound engineering or planning sense. The project description, Section 2.0 (beginning on Page 2-1) in the DEIR, clearly defines the project and Section 2.1 states the relationship to future projects: “The Anaheim Rapid Connector, CHST, Desert Express, and the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project are separate and distinct projects, most of which are outside of the control of the City and are at various stages of funding and planning. In addition, each of these projects is undergoing its own separate environmental assessment process pursuant to CEQA. With the exception of the Platinum Triangle, these projects are in various stages of the planning and environmental clearance process; and it is uncertain, at the time of this EIR, when these projects will be fully funded and operational. The EIR nevertheless includes these projects in the cumulative impacts analysis section within each environmental issue area of the EIR. Thus, the localized cumulative impacts of these projects (and others) are included in the cumulative impact analysis contained in this EIR.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-142 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 The claim that this project is piecemealing is unfounded. The DEIR does not defer analysis of potential impacts. The project is a public benefit designed to accommodate mass transit users. Changes to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan are not necessary for this project and are meant to make the roads more pedestrian friendly. The project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Platinum Triangle and City of Anaheim General Plan. L22-4. Comment noted. L22-5. The DEIR follows the good faith public full disclosure and fully complies with the requirements in the CEQA Guidelines. L22-6. See background and history as presented in comment response L22-1. The DEIR discusses acquisition and displacement in Section 2.4.5 (Page 2-35). The improvements shown on this page would require approximately 20,000 square feet of ROW located along the east side of Douglass Road and the south side of Katella Avenue, if this project were implemented. The remainder of the Arena Plaza Commercial Center is considered as outside project limits, as indicated on the graphics. Acquisitions and Displacements are not listed in the Thresholds of Significance per CEQA Guidelines. No acquisition of the remainder of the Arena Plaza Commercial Center appears necessary under present project design, and the commenter offers no evidence that potential acquisition of the area identified in the DEIR is somehow insufficient for the Proposed Project, or that its separation from the larger project would render the an uneconomic remnant. Further, the 20,000 square foot area includes two vacant units that are under the Lost Rent Agreement (L22-1) the City has already entered into with the property owner, minimizing whatever physical and environmental effects may occur in the event of displacement or relocation. As set forth above, the City has already provided the Schmid Family Trust with lost rental payments as evidenced by the attached agreements. L22-7. The 20,000 square feet of ROW as described above is part of the project description (Section 2.4.5, Page 2-35). The DEIR indicates that project implementation may require the relocation of one business and the acquisition of two vacant units, which the City is currently renting. See L22-1. Site location alternatives were adequately discussed in the DEIR and rejected as not feasible. The other alternative locations do not have a sufficient number of acres to meet the Statement of Objectives for ARTIC as discussed in further detail in L22-20.. The Fullerton Transportation Center and Orange Metrolink Station alternatives would also require the displacement of residences. L22-8. Currently there is no data to substantiate the claim that the proposed project will critically damage the Center. See L22-1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-143 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-9. Acquisitions and Displacements are not listed in the Thresholds of Significance per CEQA Guidelines. The project does not anticipate a large number of acquisitions. The displacements are one operating business and two vacant spaces, which is currently the subject of the Lost Rent Agreement (See L22-1). Access will be available to all businesses along Douglass Road during construction and alternative parking will be provided if required. The commenter offers no evidence that the potential relocation of a single business would result in a significant impact. L22-10. The project is a public benefit designed to accommodate mass transit users. Changes to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan are not necessary for this project and are meant to make the roads more pedestrian friendly. The project is consistent with the larger overall policy goals and policies of the Platinum Triangle and City of Anaheim General Plan and is also consistent with the goals of other statewide legislation such as SB 375, which is designed to locate intermodal rail adjacent to housing and employment centers. L22-11. The commentator is wrong. The cumulative analysis does analyze cumulative impacts from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The Traffic Impact Analysis and Air Quality Impact Assessment (Appendices B and C in the DEIR) list cumulatively considerably projects that were analyzed in these and the other sections of the EIR. In addition, the cumulative analysis sections in the DEIR under several issue areas specifically discuss reasonably foreseeable projects. Contrary to the commentators’ assertion, the EIR assumes the approval of, and existence of, other projects that are under the regulatory control of the City (e.g. Platinum Triangle, Anaheim Resort) and (ii) outside of the control of the City (e.g. High Speed Rail) at the 2030 timeline. The traffic associated with all of these and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects is included in the 2030 time horizon and is thus part of the cumulative impacts analysis. These projects are also assumed to exist in the traffic, air, GHG and noise sections of the EIR as well, even though whether these projects are in fact constructed and operational by 2030 is entirely speculative. Thus, the cumulative impacts analysis contained within the EIR is highly comprehensive and indeed conservative since many of the projects outside the control of the City may not be constructed by 2030, if at all. Cumulative impacts are documented in the DEIR. Please refer to Section 3.1-5, 3.2-6, 3.3-5, 3.4-5, 3.5-5, 3.6-5, 3.7-5, 3.8-5, 3.9-5, 3.10-5, 3.11-5, and 3.12-5. L22-12. There is no on-street parking on Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. Most of the project construction will be conducted on the OCTA and City of Anaheim parcels. During the reconstruction of Douglass Road, access will be maintained to local businesses that require entrance from Douglass Road. Construction traffic will be routed to SR-57. There is no evidence of any construction-related traffic impacts and, in any event short term construction delays at a single intersection are not “significant” impacts under City standards and CEQA. Hypothetical short term inconveniences to individuals are not considered environmental ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-144 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 impacts under CEQA. While the commentator has not provided substantial evidence of any significant short term construction impact, the following mitigation measure shall be added to the FEIR as MM TT-1.5. “Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any aspect of the ARTIC project, the City shall prepare a construction transportation management plan (CTMP). The CTMP shall contain the following: a transportation routing plan that demonstrates construction access to and from the site; a provision that that construction traffic access the site at times other than peak hours, and a provision requiring carpooling by construction crews, to the extent feasible. Again, while there is no evidence of construction-caused traffic impacts, we have added this measure to ensure that construction traffic is minimized to the extent possible. L22-13. The lack of parking (or having to search for parking) is not in and of itself an environmental impact and is not in the Thresholds of Significance in the CEQA Guidelines. Nevertheless, the commentator is wrong. The project will increase the amount of public parking (not reduce parking), which will accommodate MSEP projected increase in ridership. The commenter provides no evidence that any substantiated parking issues would arise as a result of the project. L22-14. All construction and operational air quality emissions were evaluated in Section 3.3 of the DEIR and the Air Quality Impact Assessment (Appendix Table 3.3-4 and Table 3.3-5 in the DEIR illustrate that construction and operational air quality impacts will be lower than SCAQMD thresholds, with the exception of NOX emissions during construction. The NOX emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels through sequencing of excavation and grading as per the MMP. The air quality mitigation measures are specific and implementable and will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. L22-15. Please refer to Appendix D and Section 3.4 of the DEIR for detailed analysis of noise impacts. The noise mitigation measures are specific and implementable. As set forth therein, noise impacts from the Project are expected to be less than significant. L22-16. The commentator is wrong. The project is not growth inducing but instead accommodates growth already anticipated in the region and is actually designed to move commuters by mass transit. This project does not include any residential development. Please see the project description, Section 2.4 (Page 2-35). L22-17. On Page 3.9-8, the DEIR analyzes the proposed project with respect to existing visual quality and the character of the surrounding area. As stated in the analysis, ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-145 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 “ARTIC is planned to be consistent with the planned architecture and landscape environment envisioned for the Platinum Triangle (see [Section] 3.1 for additional information). Though ARTIC will change the visual character of the area, it will be a well- landscaped facility that will be an aesthetic improvement from the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.” Light and glare, and shade and shadow impacts are also analyzed on Pages 3.3-8 and 3.3-9 in the DEIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for these issue areas. L22-18. The project will replace the use of the existing services currently being provided at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, as well as the services that are provided at the proposed site. As stated on Page 3.6-12, “The implementation of ARTIC and proposed projects within the Platinum Triangle were analyzed in Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332, which includes an appropriate payment mechanism that is available to fund the necessary utility improvements as planned by each utility service provider. Impacts as a result of Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332 are considered less than significant. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area.” The City of Anaheim is pursuing the use of recycled water to further reduce water use requirements. L22-19. We disagree. The issue areas have been thoroughly adequately addressed: Biological Resources – See Appendix F, Biological Resources Technical Report and Section 3.11 of the DEIR. Please see Figure 2.4-1 that demonstrates that this project is urban in nature and has no native vegetation. The site is basically 100% improved development urban area with remnants of ornamental landscaping. Hazardous Waste/Materials – Hazardous Waste and Materials have been thoroughly discussed in the DEIR and supporting Appendices. See Appendix G and Appendix H, ARTIC Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, as well as Section 3.7 in the DEIR. The comment letter from Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) concurs that this section of the DEIR has been adequately addressed. Safety and Security – The project is being designed in accordance with the appropriate building codes and regulations. Additionally, as stated on Page 4-2 and 4-3 of the DEIR, “Amtrak is policed by Amtrak, Metrolink is policed by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and OCTA is policed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. There are also currently 26 Sheriff’s personnel assigned to Transit Police Services who patrol the various transit centers throughout the county (Orange County Sheriff’s Department, 2010). The Orange ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-146 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 County Sheriff’s Department under contract to OCTA will patrol the trains and ROW at ARTIC. The Anaheim Police Department will be responsible for the ARTIC station and surrounding area, aside from the ROW.” No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Geology and Soils – Geology and soils has been thoroughly discussed in the DEIR and supporting Appendix. See Appendix I, Geotechnical Feasibility Study and Section 3.6 of the DEIR. Public Services – See Pages 4-2 and 4-3 in the DEIR. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Recreation – There are no recreation facilities located within the project study area and operations of the project will not impact recreation facilities. See Page 4-2. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. L22-20. As Page 5-1 of the DEIR states, “CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would ‘feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives’ (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6).” The alternatives chapter identified a reasonable range of potential alternatives to the Proposed Project and evaluated them, as required by CEQA. Three sites were considered but ultimately not recommended because they would not meet many of the project objectives and would not avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project (see Page 5-2 through 5-4 in the DEIR). Two alternatives and the proposed project were evaluated based on their ability to satisfy the Statement of Objectives and avoid or reduce effects of the project. Section 5.4 specifically describes each alternative and the potential environmental impacts to each issue area as a result. Table 5.5-1 presents a summary and comparison of the two alternatives and the proposed project. As stated on Page 5-13, “The Proposed Project and the Reduced Building Size alternative would have similar operational environmental impacts and no impacts are significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. The Proposed Project and the Reduced Building Size alternative meet all the project objectives. The No Project alternative does not meet the objectives. The No Project alternative has potentially significant air quality, traffic and transportation, and GHG environmental impacts for operations as the demand for parking exceeds the supply.” See response L22-6 and L22-7 for a discussion regarding acquisition and displacement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-147 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 In addition, the City provides the following additional response: The Schmid Family Trust submitted vague and general comments on the Draft EIR to the effect that the alternatives analysis of the Draft EIR did not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. No particular alternatives that should have been evaluated in the Draft EIR were cited by the Trust as suitable candidates for review, and staff disagrees with the Trust’s comments, and believes that a reasonable range of alternatives was evaluated. In a good faith effort to respond to these comments, however, the following response is included to provide an evaluation of one additional alternative (the “Reduced Site Size Alternative”), and (ii) an expanded analysis of one of the alternative sites that was originally considered, but rejected (the “Irvine Station” alternative site). This expanded analysis helps clarify the Draft EIR’s conclusion that there are no alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the project’s objectives and that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project. None of the prerequisites set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 that would require a recirculation of the Draft EIR due to the inclusion of this new information exist. Rather, this information merely clarifies or amplifies the analysis already set forth regarding alternatives to the proposed project. Reduced Site Size Alternative The Reduced Site Size alternative assumes that an intermodal center would be developed at the Proposed Project site and would provide expanded capacity compared to the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. The Reduced Site Size alternative would: • include a transit center that is identical to the Proposed Project; • have the same amount of parking as the Proposed Project; • include the envisioned pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue and the trail easement adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail; • provide the same intermodal transit services as the Proposed Project The development of the Reduced Site Size alternative would require a project site that is approximately 16.15 acres, without the 405 parking spaces at existing Anaheim Station (18.71 acres total) (see table below). The reduction of the project site comes from the elimination of the widening of the Douglass Road at the Katella Avenue intersection, which would remain at its current four lane configuration and would not require the General Plan Amendment to change the roadway classification. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-148 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ARTIC Site Calculations ACRE Parking - North 2.23 Parking - South 1.90 Building 2.85 Internal roads/walkways 3.74 Landscaping 2.56 Douglass Rd. Widening (-3.08) Rail/Platforms 2.87 Existing Stadium Parking Area 2.56 Total Acres 18.71 Evaluation Land Use and Planning This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480), but would still require an amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010- 00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. The development of a transit center meeting the project objectives would require approximately 18.71 acres in order to provide enough room for development the transit center and an adequate parking supply to support the transit services that are planned to be located at ARTIC as identified in the Needs Assessment (Cordoba, 2009) prepared for the Proposed Project. The construction of a parking structure, which was evaluated early in the project planning stage and would reduce the acreage requirement, would be cost prohibitive as well as increase the construction schedule. The Reduced Site Size alternative, in combination with the existing station parking lot, would provide enough room for up to 960 surface parking spaces, which includes the 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Station, approximately 323 parking spaces north of the transit building and 232 parking spaces south of the railroad tracks (Cordoba, 2009). The development of the proposed transit building and surface parking spaces are located on land owned by the City and OCTA and do not encroach upon private land owners. The only component of the project that requires additional property is the widening of Douglass Road at the Katella Avenue intersection in order to provide improvements that do not result in an unacceptable LOS. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-149 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Transportation and Traffic The Reduced Site Size alternative would not widen Douglass Road from its current configuration of four lanes to eight lanes. However, the TIA prepared for the Proposed Project determined that the minimum number of lanes needed for the Douglass Road/Katella Avenue intersection at the 2013 opening day condition was six lanes in order to accommodate the re-distribution of traffic from the existing Anaheim Station to proposed ARTIC location (Notably, the ROW required for six lanes would be the same as would be required in the Proposed Project (approximately 20,000 square feet) since constructing six lanes would partially encroach into the retail buildings. A partial encroachment would require the acquisition of that building). Thus, this alternative would result in a significant impact at the PM Peak Hour to the Douglass Road/Katella intersection LOS as shown in Table 1 below. Since this condition is only projected to the 2013 scenario, it would only continue to degrade as cumulative projects begin to contribute to traffic, i.e. Platinum Triangle buildout. Table 1 – Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Traffic Impact Key Intersection Time Period Year 2013 Cumulative Without Project Traffic Conditions (Existing Lanes) With Project Traffic Conditions (Existing Lanes) Significant Impacts With Project Traffic Conditions With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS Douglass Rd at Katella Ave AM 0.449 A 0.509 A 0.060 No 0.467 A PM 0.524 A 0.716 C 0.192 Yes 0.585 A The project would create a significant impact in the PM peak hour without widening Douglass Road. Even though the LOS is acceptable, the decrease in LOS causes a significant impact. Per City standards, in order to mitigate to an acceptable LOS, the intersection must be improved up to the buildout configuration of the General Plan Circulation Element. The current General Plan Circulation element, adopted in 2004, calls for a six lane supplemental lane cross section on Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue: two lanes southbound, 2 northbound left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane. Based on this requirement, the City would require the widening of Douglass Road as a mitigation measure under this alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-150 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Air Quality The Reduced Site Size alternative would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality in the form of an increase in traffic delays at the Douglass Road/Katella Avenue intersection. An increase in traffic delays would result in an increase in automotive idling, which would contribute to a CO Hot Spot at the Douglass Road/Katella Avenue intersection. Operations for this alternative would not exceed significance thresholds or result in violations of ambient air quality standards with the use of BMPs. Construction activities for the Reduced Site Size alternative would yield criteria pollutant emissions that would be less than the significance thresholds, with the exception of NOx. NOx would require mitigation measures to reduce it to below the threshold level. Fewer construction related mitigation measures would be required for this alternative because of the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation activities. Noise Operations for this alternative would not significantly impact noise-sensitive receivers. Noise from construction activities could intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise from project construction will be regulated through the Anaheim Municipal Code. Construction activities at night would require mitigation measures. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Geology and Soils The project construction area would remain the same and impacts associated with geology and soils would be equivalent to those identified for the Proposed Project because the area required for the transit center would be the same. This alternative would have equivalent impacts as the Proposed Project and the same existing regulations and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable to this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would be smaller than the Proposed Project and consumption of utilities would be reduced. This reduction in utilities consumption would be minimal. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not significantly impact utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-151 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project because the area required for the transit center would be the same. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hydrology and Water Quality The project area and the amount of impervious surfaces would be comparable to the Proposed Project because the area required for the transit center would be the same. The project area is largely already developed, implementation of this alternative would not result in substantial increases in the amount of impervious surface, and water quality impacts would not increase. Runoff volumes would be generally the same as compared to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Aesthetics The project would remain the same under this alternative as the building design would not change. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources The project construction area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to cultural resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Biological Resources The project construction area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to biological resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-152 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Public Services This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not include a residential component. The demand for public services would be similar to the Proposed Project and as such, would not result in an adverse impact to public services. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not significantly impact GHG and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts from the Reduced Building Size alternative would be comparable or less than the Proposed Project during construction. Agriculture The site is currently fully urbanized and project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Mineral Resources This alternative would not impact mineral resources and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Recreation This alternative would not impact recreation and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Population and Housing This alternative would not impact population and housing as it would not divide an established community or displace any housing. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Conclusion The Reduced Site Size alternative would develop a transit facility identical to the Proposed Project but would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Transportation and Traffic and potentially significant impacts to Air Quality, as noted above, as a result of the decreased project site acreage. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-153 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 The Proposed Project requires approximately 18.71 acres in order to provide enough room for development of the transit center and an adequate parking supply to support the transit services that are planned to be located at ARTIC. The construction of a parking structure, which was evaluated early in the project planning stage and would reduce the acreage requirement, would be cost prohibitive. The proposed site would provide enough room for up to 960 surface parking spaces, which includes the 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Station, approximately 323 parking spaces north of the transit building and 232 parking spaces south of the railroad tracks (Cordoba, 2009). The development of the proposed transit building and surface parking spaces are located on land owned by the City and OCTA and do not encroach upon private land owners. The only component of the project that requires additional property is the widening of Douglass Road at the Katella Avenue intersection in order to provide improvements that do not result in an unacceptable LOS. The acquisition of ROW for widening Douglass Road requires the relocation of one active business and two vacant commercial spaces within the Arena Plaza Commercial Center. The City has entered into a Lost Rent Agreement with the Arena Plaza Commercial Center to ensure the business does not suffer a hardship as a result of the Proposed Project. The Lost Rent Agreement allows the vacant commercial spaces to remain vacant while allowing the Area Plaza Commercial Center to collect rent as if it were occupied. Prior to the commencement of construction, a deal will be required between the City and Arena Plaza Commercial Center for permanent acquisition of the required ROW. Irvine Station The Irvine Station located at 15215 Barranca Parkway encompasses approximately 12 acres and currently offers Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA bus system, taxis, and shuttle services (OCTA, 2009). Land to the north and west of the Irvine Station is developed. Land to the south and southeast is zoned for Transit Oriented Development and is currently vacant (City of Irvine, 2006). There would be the potential for the station to expand to provide additional parking and/or transit-oriented development. Environmental impacts such as traffic, air quality, and noise would be similar to the Proposed Project impacts. Important objectives of the project are to provide improved and safe pedestrian access to two major professional sports facilities (Angels Stadium and the Honda Center) and entertainment centers (Disneyland Resort) within the City, and (ii) facilities to meet the anticipated increased rail passenger and intermodal connection demand in the City. Locating the project in Irvine would not meet those important project objectives. Moreover, although the Irvine location would be in proximity to one destination within the region, the Orange County Great Park (OCGP), which will be located at the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro base, freeway access and proximity to entertainment destinations would be less convenient than the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-154 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Also, the OCGP is currently planned but development has been suspended, and so its future at this point is unclear. The Irvine Station is approximately 0.5 miles from I-5 and 0.8 miles away from the I-5 and I-405 interchange and the nearest residential areas are 0.6 miles away (City of Irvine, 2006). The Irvine Station is at least ten miles away from many major entertainment destinations. The closest destinations are Wild Rivers Water Park and Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, which are approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest. Evaluation Land Use and Planning This alternative would be consistent with the existing land use of the site since it is zoned for Transit Oriented Development. Transportation and Traffic This alternative would require a traffic impact analysis to determine specific intersection and roadway LOS for the access roads to the site. Based on the traffic volumes included in the Proposed Project’s TIA, the project could result in potentially significant impacts to Barranca Parkway, Ada, Alton Parkway, and I-5. It is anticipated that the magnitude of traffic impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project, would require similar mitigation measures, and potentially a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts to Caltrans facilities such as with the Proposed Project. Air Quality Operations for this alternative would not exceed significance thresholds or result in violations of ambient air quality standards with the use of BMPs. Construction activities for this alternative would yield criteria pollutant emissions that would be less than the significance thresholds, with the exception of NOx. NOx would require mitigation measures to reduce it to below the threshold level. Fewer construction related mitigation measures would be required for this alternative because of the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation activities since a majority of the site is already a paved parking lot. Noise Operations for this alternative would not significantly impact noise-sensitive receivers since there are no residences in the immediate vicinity of the site. Noise from construction activities could intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise from project construction would be regulated through the Irvine Municipal Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-155 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Construction activities at night would require mitigation measures. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be needed under this alternative. Operation of the facility would be similar to the existing operations of the Irvine Station. Geology and Soils This alternative would have similar impacts as the Proposed Project and the same existing regulations and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable to this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project and consumption of utilities would be similar. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not significantly impact utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project because the site is already a developed transit center. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Hydrology and Water Quality The project area and the amount of impervious surfaces would be comparable to the existing condition because the alternative site is primarily developed, Project implementation would not result in substantial increases in the amount of impervious surface, and water quality impacts would not increase. Runoff volumes would be generally the same as compared to the Proposed Project. Aesthetics The area surrounding this alternative location is primarily dominated by commercial development and does not contain any sensitive views to obstruct. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-156 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Cultural Resources This alternative site is primarily developed; however, there is a vacant field located adjacent to the east of the surface parking lot that could contain unidentified cultural resources. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Biological Resources This alternative has the potential to result in impacts to biological resources. There is a vegetated drainage facility present along the east edge of the Irvine Station surface parking lot. Depending on how the site were designed, the drainage could be impacted. Impacts to the drainage could result in impacts to migratory birds nesting with the vegetation and would require permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, CA Department of Fish and Game, and Public Services This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project. The demand for public services would be similar to the Proposed Project and as such, would not result in an adverse impact to public services. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not significantly impact GHG as impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts from this alternative would be comparable or to the Proposed Project during construction. Agriculture The site is currently developed but is adjacent to vacant ground. Project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. Mineral Resources This alternative would not impact mineral resources since the project would not involve the extraction of mineral resources. The site is already developed as a transit center Recreation This alternative would not impact recreation since there are no recreational resources on the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-157 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 Population and Housing This alternative would not impact population and housing as it would not divide an established community or displace any housing. Conclusion The Irvine Station alternative would result in similar or additional environmental impacts as the Proposed Project, as noted above, but precludes the opportunity for anticipated future transportation services to enter the facility because the CAHSR and projects are not planned to terminate at the Irvine Station. This alternative is located in south Orange County and would not serve as a centralized transit center within close proximity to major tourist destinations and entertainment venues. This alternative was eliminated from further evaluation since it would not achieve the project objectives of providing improved and safe pedestrian access to two major professional sports facilities (Angels Stadium and the Honda Center) and entertainment centers within the City (Disneyland Resort), and (ii) facilities to meet the anticipated increased rail passenger and intermodal connection demand in the City. L22-21. The claim that this project is piecemealing is unfounded. The DEIR does not defer analysis of potential impacts. The project is a public benefit designed to accommodate mass transit users and is consistent with the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The project involves only what is described in the DEIR. Amending the General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and obtaining a Conditional Use Permit are included in the project description. See Page 3.1-24 of the DEIR, “ARTIC requires the following discretionary approvals: a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480), an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010-00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). The General Plan Amendment will modify Figure C-1 (Planned Roadway Network) of the General Plan Circulation Element to classify Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue as a Secondary Arterial. This amendment is intended to provide consistency between the street classification and the existing street design. The amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will allow for greater flexibility of the streetscape improvements prescribed by the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to meet the specific design needs of ARTIC including the proposed pedestrian bridge. A CUP is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code for a transit facility to be developed and operated within the PR and SP Zones.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-158 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 L22-22. The DEIR evaluated site alternatives and found that the alternative sites did not meet the Statement of Objectives. These alternatives were discussed and rejected. The project is not piecemealing as discussed in L22-21. A comparison of economic benefit is not in the Thresholds of Significance in the CEQA Guidelines. The project does provide significant public benefit by removing cars from the regional roadway network and accommodating mass transit users. The DEIR is not biased. The DEIR was prepared by an independent consultant with no ties to ARTIC and will be independently reviewed and evaluated by City decision makers. Again, acquisitions and/or displacement of existing buildings are not in the Thresholds of Significance in the CEQA Guidelines, and in any event, the Proposed Project’s minimal commercial displacement compares favorably to more extensive residential and commercial displacement that could be implicated with the alternative sites evaluated. L22-23. We disagree. See previous responses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-159 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 – Lost Rent Agreement Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-160 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 – Lost Rent Agreement (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-161 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 – Lost Rent Agreement (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-162 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 – Lost Rent Agreement (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-163 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 – Lost Rent Agreement (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-164 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 22 – Lost Rent Agreement (cont’d) Patrick A. Hennessey and Anish J. Banker Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP September 2, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-165 September 16, 2010 Letter 23 Ben Seybold – Anaheim Chamber of Commerce September 2, 2010 L23-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-166 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-167 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 23 Ben Seybold – Anaheim Chamber of Commerce September 2, 2010 L23-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-168 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-169 September 16, 2010 Letter 24 Donna Kelly – Lennar September 3, 2010 L24-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-170 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-171 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 24 Donna Kelly - Lennar September 3, 2010 L24-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-172 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-173 September 16, 2010 Letter 25 Kevin Dow – Turner Construction Company September 3, 2010 L25-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-174 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-175 September 16, 2010 Response to Letter 25 Kevin Dow – Turner Construction Company September 3, 2010 L25-1. Your comments are hereby noted and have been determined that they do not request or require any additional analysis or changes to the DEIR. Your comments will be included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Interested Party Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-176 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Late Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-177 September 16, 2010 Late Comments Letter 26 Bimla G. Rhinehart – California Transportation Commission August 30, 2010 – Received September 13, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Late Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-178 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Late Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-179 September 16, 2010 Letter 27 Edward Royce – House of Representatives September 7, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Late Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-180 September 16, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Late Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-181 September 16, 2010 Letter 28 George A. Kalogridis – Disneyland Resort September 10, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR III. Response to Comments Late Comments 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR III-182 September 16, 2010 Letter 28 (cont’d) George A. Kalogridis – Disneyland Resort September 10, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-1 September 16, 2010 IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN CEQA Action: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Project Description: The City of Anaheim (City), in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is located south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The total project site is approximately 19 acres, comprised of 16 acres for the facilities, two acres of OCTA and City roads and ROW, and less than one acre of Caltrans ROW. Approximately 18 of the 19 total acres are owned by OCTA and the City. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not a part of the project construction site as no improvements are anticipated but will continue to be utilized as parking for the project. ARTIC is envisioned to include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. In addition to the surface access points, improvements envisioned for ARTIC include a pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue connecting the project site and the Honda Center, and a trail easement, adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. The ARTIC Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to include space up to 310,000 square feet, Platforms up to 86,000 square feet, and a Stadium Pavilion up to 12,000 square feet. Project Location: The approximate 19-acre ARTIC site is located within an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle, which is located on the southeastern boundary of the City at the confluence of I- 5 and SR-57. Statutory Requirements Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and §15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency that approves or carries out a project, where a CEQA document has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” The City is the lead agency that must adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the ARTIC EIR. The CEQA statutes and Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the relationships between a lead agency and other agencies with respect to implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they undertake any of the actions identified in the EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-2 September 16, 2010 Methodology The City has agreed to implement the mitigation measures listed in this Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) as part of the proposed project. The MMP is contained within the following matrix and consists of the following components: • Timing • Mitigation Measure • Responsible for Monitoring • Completion This MMP shall be maintained in the City’s files for use in implementing mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project. Changes to Mitigation Measures Any substantive change in the MMP shall be reported in writing. Modification to the mitigation measures may be made by the City is subject to one of the following findings, documented by evidence included in the record: • The mitigation measure included in the EIR and the MMP is no longer required because the significant environmental impact identified in the EIR has been found not to exist, or not to occur at a level which makes the impact less than significant as a result of changes in the project, changes in conditions of the environment, or other factors, or • The modified or substitute mitigation provides a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the EIR and the MMP; and • The modified or substitute mitigation measure or measures do not have significant adverse effects on the environment in addition to, or greater than those which were considered by the responsible hearing bodies in their decision on the EIR and proposed; and • The modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and the City, through measures included in the MMP or other City procedures, can ensure implementation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-3 September 16, 2010 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Section 3.1 − LAND USE AND PLANNING No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features or Mitigation Measures identified. The project requires the following discretionary approvals: a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480), an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010-00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). The General Plan Amendment will modify Figure C-1 (Planned Roadway Network) of the General Plan Circulation Element to classify Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue as a Secondary Arterial. This amendment is intended to provide consistency between the street classification and the existing street design. The amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will allow for greater flexibility of the streetscape improvements prescribed by the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to meet the specific design needs of ARTIC including the proposed pedestrian bridge. A CUP is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code for a transit facility to be developed and operated within the PR and SP Zones. Section 3.2 − TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features identified. Mitigation Measures Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever comes first The City shall transmit the project’s applicable traffic impact fee into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and pay for the Project’s fair share of City improvements related to ARTIC. The City shall ensure that such improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at that point in time necessary to avoid identified significant impacts on traffic. • Public Works Traffic and Transportation Division Prior to issuance of the first grading period City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort with Caltrans to develop a study to identify fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public development to supplement other regional and state funding sources necessary to implement feasible traffic improvements to state facilities as identified in the EIR. The study shall include fair share contributions related to private and/or public development based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq.) and 14 CCR section 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize the state wide and regional contributions to impact state facilities that are not attributable to local development such that local private and public development are not paying in excess of such developments’ fair share obligations. The fee study shall be compliant with Government Code section 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law. The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria for the implementation of the recommendations • Public Works Traffic and Transportation Division • Caltrans ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-4 September 16, 2010 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion contained within the study to the extent Caltrans and other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit The EIR concluded that a number of identified state facilities will operate at deficient levels of service with the Project at the 2013 and 2030 timelines. The Project’s contributions to traffic in these facilities will contribute to cumulative congestion on these identified state facilities. Improvements to these facilities would mitigate the Project’s impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit the City shall transfer the agreed to amount into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and hold the amount in trust and apply such amount following the implementation of any traffic fee program. • Public Works Traffic and Transportation Division • Caltrans 3.3 − AIR QUALITY No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features identified. Mitigation Measures Prior to issuance of the first grading permit/During excavation and grading activities The sequencing of grading/excavation activities shall be noted on the grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. Excavation of the soil for the Intermodal Terminal shall precede excavation of Douglass Road under the bridge, and both activities shall occur in sequence. • Public Works Development Services Division Prior to issuance of the first grading permit/During excavation and grading activities An export plan showing quantities and identified haul route shall be shown on grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. Exporting of soil during excavation shall be limited to 25 on-road truck trips per day during excavation and grading. • Public Works Development Services Division Prior to the approval of street improvement plans/Following the completion of excavating Intermodal Terminal and Douglass Road under the bridge Street improvement plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval shall indicate sequencing of the street improvements. Road widening and sidewalk improvement projects shall occur following the completion of the excavating activities. • Public Works Development Services Division Prior to the issuance of each building and grading permit, as applicable/Ongoing during construction A complete list of construction equipment to be used at the project site shall be submitted by the contractor to confirm compliance with USEPA Tier 2 standards. Construction off-road equipment with engines greater than or equal to • Public Works Construction Services and Development Services Divisions ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-5 September 16, 2010 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion 150 brake horsepower shall meet or exceed USEPA Tier 2 engine standards and shall be required to have diesel oxidation installed that meet or exceed 20 percent reduction in NOx. Prior to the issuance of each building and grading permit, as applicable/Ongoing during construction Diesel or gasoline power generators shall be limited to less than two hours of use per day. This restriction shall be clearly noted on the grading/excavation and building plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department and Building Division for review and approval. This information shall also be included in the contractor’s specifications. • Public Works Development Services Division • Planning Department/ Building Division 3.4 − NOISE No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features are identified. Mitigation Measures Ongoing during construction Noise generated by construction shall be limited to 60 dBA along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the tracks before 7 AM and after 7 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If 60 dBA is exceeded during these hours, noise attenuation features (i.e. temporary noise barriers, sound curtains, etc.) shall be installed to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA at the exterior of the affected building. These noise attenuation features may be removed if a qualified noise specialist determines that noise levels are not significantly impacted by nighttime construction. • Planning Department/ Building Division Ongoing during construction When excessive noise during construction is anticipated before 7 AM and after 7 PM the contractor shall request an exception to the requirements of Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The request shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6.70 and shall include a construction schedule and a list of equipment to be used during that time frame. This information shall be provided to the Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official for consideration. • Planning Department/ Building Division • Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official Prior to issuance of each grading permit and building permit/Ongoing during construction Construction equipment and supplies shall be located in staging areas that shall create the greatest distance possible between construction- related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project area. This information shall be specified on all grading, excavation and construction plans. • Planning Department/ Building Division ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-6 September 16, 2010 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion 3.5 − GEOLOGY AND SOILS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. 3.6 − UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. 3.7 − HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features identified. Mitigation Measure Prior to issuance of the first grading permit and ongoing during construction In areas that have been identified as potential soil contaminated, appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at an off-site facility. • Public Works Construction Services and Development Services Divisions 3.8 − HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features identified. Mitigation Measure Prior to issuance of the first grading permit The City will verify that the project WQMP which meets the requirements of the DAMP is complete. • Public Works Development Services Division Prior to final Building and Zoning inspection The City will verify that the project BMPs were installed as indicated in the WQMP. • Public Works Construction Services and Development Services Divisions Ongoing during operations The City will inspect the BMPs and verify that the BMPs properly maintained and functioning as per the WQMP. • Public Works Construction Services and Development Services Divisions 3.9 - AESTHETICS No applicable Standard Condition, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. 3.10 − CULTURAL RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features identified. Mitigation Measures Prior to issuance of the first grading permit A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works Department, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The archaeologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the • Public Works Development Services Division ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-7 September 16, 2010 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the City for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any archaeological work at ARTIC shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the observer can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works Department, identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. • Public Works Development Services Division ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-8 September 16, 2010 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Ongoing during construction In the unlikely event of the accidental discovery of human remains during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, §7050.5(b) and of the State Health and Safety Code, and §5097.94(k) and of the Public Resources Code shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that, upon discovery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner shall be contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. • Public Works Construction Services and Development Services Divisions 3.11 − BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions and Project Design Features are identified. Mitigation Measures Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first/ No more than one week prior to demolition and vegetation clearing A letter shall be submitted to the Public Works Department attesting that no more than one week prior to demolition and vegetation clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct a breeding and nesting bird survey within ARTIC construction footprint and within a 500-foot buffer around the site. The purpose of the survey is to ensure that no active nests are located within or adjacent to the project area. Nesting season for raptors begins February 15 and the traditional breeding season for native and migratory birds begins March 15. If clearing starts after October and before the nesting season, there is no need for nesting bird surveys. If an active nest is detected, a suitable buffer around the nest shall be established dependent on the type of species detected and location of the nest as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the requirements of the CDFG Code. The nest avoidance area shall be flagged and shall be avoided until after the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Documentation showing that this mitigation measure has been completed shall be sent to the City by the • Public Works Development Services Division • Planning Department/ Building Division ---PAGE BREAK--- Final EIR IV. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 109528/SDI10R100/ARTIC FINAL EIR IV-9 September 16, 2010 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion contractor. This documentation shall include a description of the survey results and whether any subsequent actions were required prior to commencement of demolition and vegetation clearing. The CDFG may authorize the relocation of the nest but consultation is required to ensure that no direct or indirect impacts result from this action and compliance with the MBTA and CDFG Codes. 3.12 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. 4.1 − AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. 4.2 − MINERAL RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. 4.3 - -RECREATION No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. 4.5 −POPULATION AND HOUSING No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-1 July 19, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary identifies the type of document, the proposed project including location, the purpose of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and summary of impacts and mitigation for the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Project. The summary of impacts and mitigation is an overview of mitigation proposed for ARTIC and is not the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan. Document Identification This EIR is intended to serve as a public disclosure document which will inform the Lead Agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects anticipated with the adoption and implementation of ARTIC. It depicts the project alternatives (including the No Project Alternative), documents the project’s potential environmental effects pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and proposes mitigation measures, as applicable. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 3 §15000 et seq.). Per Public Resource Code (PRC) §21067 of the CEQA Statute and 14 CCR §15367 and §§15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim (the City) is the “Lead Agency.” The Lead Agency is “the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.” As the Lead Agency, the City has the authority to adopt ARTIC and implement appropriate mitigation measures, as required, to reduce significant impacts. In addition to this EIR, an Environmental Assessment is being prepared for ARTIC as a separate document. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead agency for the Environmental Assessment, prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FTA guidelines. Proposed Project The City, in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim (Figure ES-1 and Figure ES-2). The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The total project site is approximately 19 acres, comprised of 16 acres for the facilities, two acres of OCTA and City roads and ROW, and less than one acre of Caltrans ROW. Approximately 18 of the 19 total acres are owned by OCTA and the City. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not a part of the project construction site as no improvements are anticipated but will continue to be utilized as parking for the project. ARTIC is envisioned to include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. In addition to surface access points, a pedestrian bridge is envisioned to be constructed over Katella Avenue connecting the project site and the Honda Center, and a trail ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-2 July 19, 2010 easement, adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail, is envisioned along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ES-1 109528 7/14/10 JP CC 109528vic.mxd The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. 5 ARTIC ·I}þ 22 ·I}þ 57 ·I}þ 55 ·I}þ 91 Santa Ana Orange Garden Grove Anaheim I 5 Katella Tustin Chapman East Collins Glassell Anaheim Garden Grove Haster Main State College Harbor Orangewood Lewis Sant Walnut N Disneyland West Disney State Hwy 72 Grand Park Bristol Parker Broadway Convention Owens Gene Autry Glassell Taft Orangewood I 5 Lincoln La Veta The City Chapman PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE 0 1 2 0.5 Milesq www.kleinfelder.com DETAIL AREA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC OCEAN ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 0 Z i ‘10 -U--I 0> —I -I - Il ‘IIII 0’ -o o-o CJ)O o —rn-i> o C-rn C)—i_ 0 ci,5 U> Cr 1 rn rm0mz0 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-7 July 19, 2010 Purpose of an Environmental Impact Report The purpose of an EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a project. CEQA states that the purpose of an EIR is to: inform the public and decision makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project; identify methods that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts of a project; and identify alternatives that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts or propose more effective use of the project site. The principal use of this EIR is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of ARTIC. An EIR is an informational document and is not intended to determine the merits or recommend approval or disapproval of a project. Ultimately, the City must weigh the environmental effects of a project among other considerations, including planning, economic, and social concerns. The standards of adequacy of an EIR, defined by §15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient level of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and good faith effort at full disclosure.” This EIR is comprised of 9 chapters and appendices: Chapter 1.0 – Introduction Chapter 2.0 – Project Description Chapter 3.0 – Environmental Analysis Chapter 4.0 – Issue Areas Found Not To Be Significant Chapter 5.0 – Project Alternatives Chapter 6.0 – Growth Inducing Impacts Chapter 7.0 – Organizations and Agencies Consulted Chapter 8.0 – List of Preparers Chapter 9.0 – Bibliography/Literature Cited Appendices Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts, and recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3.0. Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation associated with ARTIC. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-8 July 19, 2010 Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Land Use and Planning Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to land use and planning. No Impact ARTIC will have no impact on land use. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Transportation and Traffic Implementation of the project will create an unacceptable LOS in certain areas, which will be in conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, policies, and a congestion management program. Potentially significant • TT-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall transmit the project’s applicable traffic impact fee into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and pay for the Project’s fair share of City improvements related to ARTIC. City shall ensure that such improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at that point in time necessary to avoid identified significant impacts on traffic. • TT-2: City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort with Caltrans to develop a study to identify fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public development to supplement other regional and state funding sources necessary to implement feasible traffic improvements to State Facilities as identified in this EIR. The study shall include fair share contributions related to private and/or public development based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq.) and 14 CCR. section 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize the state wide and regional contributions to impact State Facilities that are not attributable to local development such that local private and public development are not paying in excess of such Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-9 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation developments’ fair share obligations. The fee study shall be compliant with Government Code section 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law. The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria for the implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to the extent Caltrans and other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program. • TT-3: This EIR has concluded that a number of identified State Facilities will operate at deficient levels of service with the Project at the 2013 and 2030 timelines. The Project’s contributions to traffic in these facilities will contribute to cumulative congestion on these identified State Facilities. Various improvements to these facilities have been identified in Table 3.2-40 above that would mitigate the Project’s impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit the City shall transfer the agreed to amount into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and hold the amount in trust and apply such amount following the implementation of any traffic fee program. • TT-4. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-5. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-10 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015. • TT-6. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-7. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015. • TT-8. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-9. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. • TT-10. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. • TT-11. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six to eight lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. • TT-12. Manchester Avenue/I-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-11 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. • TT-13. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. • TT-14. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-15. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. • TT-16. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. • TT-17. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway Air Quality Implementation of the project will violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Potentially significant • AQ-1: Excavation of the soil for the Intermodal Terminal shall precede excavation of Douglass Road under the bridge, and both activities shall occur in sequence. The sequencing of Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-12 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation grading/excavation activities shall be noted on the grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. • AQ-2: Exporting of soil during the excavation stage of the project shall be limited to 25 on- road truck trips per day during excavation and grading. An export plan showing quantities and identified haul route shall be shown on grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications. • AQ-3: Road widening and sidewalk improvement projects shall occur following the completion of the excavating activities. Street improvement plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval shall indicate sequencing of the street improvements. • AQ-4: Construction off-road equipment with engines greater than or equal to 150 brake horsepower shall meet or exceed USEPA Tier 2 engine standards and shall be required to have diesel oxidation installed that meet or exceed 20 percent reduction in NOx. A complete list of construction equipment to be used at the project site shall be submitted to the contractor to confirm compliance with United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 2 standards. • AQ-5: Diesel or gasoline power generators shall be limited to less than two hours of use per day. This restriction shall be ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-13 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation clearly noted on the grading/excavation and building plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department and Building Division for review and approval. This information shall also be included in the contractor’s specifications. Noise Implementation of the project may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Potentially significant • N-1: Noise generated by construction shall be limited to 60 dBA along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the tracks before 7 AM and after 7 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If 60 dBA is exceeded during these hours, noise attenuation features (i.e. temporary noise barriers, sound curtains, etc.) shall be installed to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA at the exterior of the affected building. These noise attenuation features may be removed if a qualified noise specialist determines that noise levels are not significantly impacted by nighttime construction; • N-2: When excessive noise during construction is anticipated before 7 AM and after 7 PM the contractor shall request an exception to the requirements of Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The request shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6.70 and shall include a construction schedule and a list of equipment to be used during that time frame. This information shall be provided to the Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official for consideration; and Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-14 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation • N-3: Construction equipment and supplies shall be located in staging areas that shall create the greatest distance possible between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project area. This information shall be specified on all grading, excavation and construction plans. Geology and Soils Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to geology and soils. No Impact ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. No Impact ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of the project will locate the project on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially significant • HHM-1: In areas that have been identified as potential soil contaminated (see Figure 3.7 appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at an off-site facility. Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-15 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation measures will be included so that implementation of the BMPs will be implemented and trackedImplementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. No ImpactPotentially Significant WQ: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the City will verify that the project WQMP, which meets the requirements of the DAMP, is complete. WQ2:Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspection, the City will verify that the project BMPs are properly installed as indicated in the WQMP. WQ3: During operations, the City will inspect the BMPs and verify that the BMPs are properly maintained and functioning as per the WQMPARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Aesthetics Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to aesthetic resources. No Impact ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact Cultural Resources Implementation of the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999) Implementation of the project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Implementation of the project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred Potentially significant • CR-1: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The archaeologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-16 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation outside of formal cemeteries. determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the City for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any archaeological work at ARTIC shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the observer can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. • CR-2: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-17 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. • CR-3: In the unlikely event of the accidental discovery of human remains during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, §7050.5(b) and of the State Health and Safety Code, and §5097.94(k) and of the PRC shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that, upon discovery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner shall be contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-18 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. Biological Resources Implementation of the project has the potential to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, or any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Potentially significant • BR-1: No more than one week prior to demolition and vegetation clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct a breeding and nesting bird survey within ARTIC construction footprint and within a 500-foot buffer around the site. The purpose of the survey is to ensure that no active nests are located within or adjacent to the project area. Nesting season for raptors begins February 15 and the traditional breeding season for native and migratory birds begins March 15. If clearing starts after October and before the nesting season, there is no need for nesting bird surveys. If an active nest is detected, a suitable buffer around the nest shall be established dependent on the type of species detected and location of the nest as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the requirements of the CDFG Code. The nest avoidance area shall be flagged and shall be avoided until after the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Documentation showing that this mitigation measure has been completed shall be sent to the City by the contractor. This documentation shall include a description of the survey results and whether any subsequent actions were Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-19 July 19, 2010 Environmental Impact Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation required prior to commencement of demolition and vegetation clearing. The CDFG may authorize the relocation of the nest but consultation is required to ensure that no direct or indirect impacts result from this action and compliance with the MBTA and CDFG Codes. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implementation of the project will not result in any significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. No Impact ARTIC will not have a significant impact on GHG. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR Executive Summary ARTIC Draft EIR ES-20 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction ARTIC Draft EIR 1-1 July 19, 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to serve as a public disclosure document that informs the Lead Agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects anticipated with the approval and implementation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). This EIR depicts the project alternatives (including the No Project Alternative), documents the project’s potential environmental effects pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and proposes mitigation measures, as applicable. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15000 et seq.). Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21067 of CEQA and 14 CCR §§15367 and §§15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim (City) is identified as the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency is “the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.” The City, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to approve ARTIC and implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. ARTIC is located in the City’s municipal boundaries, and the City has land use approval authority over ARTIC. The City, in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station that is located south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor. The total project site is approximately 19 acres, comprised of 16 acres for the facilities, two acres of OCTA and City roads and ROW, and less than one acre of Caltrans ROW. Approximately 18 of the 19 total acres are owned by OCTA and the City. The 405 parking spaces at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are not a part of the project construction site as no improvements are anticipated but will continue to be utilized as parking for the project. ARTIC includes improvements to Douglass Road and Katella Avenue, and the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. In addition to the surface access points, improvements envisioned for ARTIC include a pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue connecting the project site and the Honda Center, and a trail easement, adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. The ARTIC Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to include space up to 310,000 square feet, Platforms up to 86,000 square feet, and a Stadium Pavilion up to 12,000 square feet. For the purpose of the EIR these are the maximum sizes and the impacts are the “worst case”. The construction analysis is based on the worst case scenario of a 26-month construction period. The size and timing of construction will depend on available funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction ARTIC Draft EIR 1-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ARTIC Draft EIR 1-3 July 19, 2010 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The purpose of this EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a project. CEQA states the purpose of an EIR is to: Inform the public and decision-makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project; Identify methods that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts of a project; and Identify alternatives that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts or propose more effective use of the project site. EIR Adequacy The principal use of this EIR is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. An EIR is an informational document and is not intended to determine the merits or recommend approval or disapproval of a project. Ultimately, the City decision-makers must weigh the environmental effects of a project among other considerations, including planning, economic, and social concerns. The standards of adequacy of an EIR, defined by §15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient level of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and good faith effort at full disclosure.” The City, acting as the CEQA Lead Agency, has a duty pursuant to CEQA guidelines to neither approve nor carry out a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level, where possible (CEQA Guidelines §15091 and §15092). An acceptable level is defined as eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening the significant effects (impacts) resulting from a project. If such a reduction is not possible, a lead agency must adopt Findings of Fact and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As defined in CEQA Guidelines §15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations balances the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental consequences. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ARTIC Draft EIR 1-4 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.2 CEQA EIR Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-5 July 19, 2010 1.2 CEQA EIR PROCESS The EIR process for ARTIC was initiated on February 10, 2010 with the posting of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (sent February 4, 2010) with the State Clearinghouse (Appendix A public scoping meeting was conducted on February 24, 2010 at the Anaheim West Tower, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard in the City. The intent of this meeting was to receive input on the issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. The meeting format included tables and displays arranged by topical issues for planning and environmental, supported by maps of the project study area. Project staff members and resource specialists were available to answer questions. There were approximately forty members of the public that attended the scoping meeting. Public participants were invited to fill out comment cards expressing their concerns. Eleven written comments were received during the meeting. Written comments were also received from four agencies (City of Orange - Department of Community Development, Orange County Department of Public Works, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and Caltrans District 12). The issues identified by the public and agencies include:  Air quality;  Noise;  Traffic;  Aesthetics;  Cumulative Impacts;  Water Quality/Flood Control/Santa Ana River;  Santa Ana River Trail; and  Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and State Bill (SB) 375. A scoping summary and comment letters that were received during the scoping period are presented in Appendix A. Specific concerns are also identified and addressed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.2 CEQA EIR Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-6 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.3 Draft EIR Review Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-7 July 19, 2010 1.3 DRAFT EIR REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with §21091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR will be available for public review and comment for a 45-day period. During the public review period interested individuals, organizations, and agencies can provide written comments. All comments should be addressed to: Jamie Lai, P.E. Project Manager Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, California 92805 Fax Number: (714) 765-5225 The Draft EIR will be available for review at the following locations:  Anaheim City Hall, Public Works, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., 2nd Floor, Anaheim, CA 92805  Sunkist Public Library, 901 S. Sunkist, Anaheim, CA 92806  Planning Department website: www.anaheim.net/planning  ARTIC website: www.articinfo.com The City will receive written public input on the EIR during the public comment period which extends from July 19, 2010 to September 3, 2010. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, your comment must be sent to the City at the earliest possible date, but no later than September 3, 2010. An agency response to this EIR should include the name of a contact person within the commenting agency. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.3 Draft EIR Review Process ARTIC Draft EIR 1-8 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.4 Organization of this EIR ARTIC Draft EIR 1-9 July 19, 2010 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR The content and format of this EIR are designed to meet the current requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Chapter 1.0 – Introduction: This chapter describes the purpose and organization of the EIR and its preparation, review, certification, and permitting process. Chapter 2.0 – Project Description: This chapter provides a description of the regional and local environmental setting, project background, project objectives, and project specific details. Chapter 3.0 – Environmental Analysis: This chapter provides a description of the environmental setting, regulatory compliance, significance criteria, potentially adverse environmental impacts for each environmental resource area, and mitigation measures, as required. Chapter 4.0 – Issue Areas Found Not To Be Significant: This chapter discusses resource areas that were found not to be significant, such as agriculture and mineral resources. Chapter 5.0 – Project Alternatives: This chapter describes alternatives considered and compares the relative impacts to those of ARTIC, and provides a brief description of alternatives considered. Chapter 6.0 – Growth Inducing Impacts: This chapter describes potential significant irreversible environmental changes that will be caused by ARTIC; and addresses how implementation of ARTIC will foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly upon the surrounding environment. Chapter 7.0 – Organizations and Agencies Consulted: This chapter identifies individuals, organizations, and agencies contacted in regards to ARTIC. Chapter 8.0 – List of Preparers: This chapter identifies firms and individuals responsible for the content of this EIR. Chapter 9.0 – Bibliography/Literature Cited: This chapter provides the list of references cited. Appendices: The appendices present data that support the analysis or contents of this EIR. All technical studies are provided electronically on a compact disk (CD) contained within this document. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.4 Organization of this EIR ARTIC Draft EIR 1-10 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-11 July 19, 2010 1.5 PROJECT BACKGROUND The following provides project background including a brief outline of responsibilities and relationships between the City and OCTA. City of Anaheim Located in the northeastern portion of the County of Orange, the City and its sphere of influence lie approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 7 miles north of Santa Ana. The City is surrounded by the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the Cities of Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated County of Orange to the south; the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west; and the City of Orange to the south and east. The City encompasses over 32,000 acres of land stretching nearly 20 miles along Riverside Freeway (State Route [SR]-91). Another 2,431 acres of unincorporated land is included within its Sphere-of-Influence. In addition to SR-91, regional access to and from Anaheim is provided by Santa Ana Freeway Orange Freeway (SR-57), Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), SR-241, and Amtrak and Metrolink passenger train services at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim (herein referred to as “Angel Stadium”) and Anaheim Canyon Stations. Anaheim is currently home to over 328,000 people, approximately 16,000 businesses, and over 4,600 acres of parks and open space. The City encompasses approximately 50 square miles, and generally forms an elongated, irregular shaped area, extending approximately 16 miles east to west. The City developed a Transit Master Plan in December 2007 to meet current and future mobility needs. The plan is the culmination of a year-long study effort which began January 2007. The planning process took into consideration how current commuters, including residents, employees, and visitors travel, while simultaneously exploring new modes of transportation that will enhance the ability to get to places safely and efficiently. The study effort was undertaken in partnership with the cities of Orange and Villa Park, as these two cities were concurrently developing transit concepts to provide service for their residents and workers to the Metrolink system. As commuters in all three cities use stations in both Anaheim and Orange to access multiple activity centers, a comprehensive approach was required in order to arrive at a vision of transit service that would be supported by Anaheim, Orange and Villa Park. The Anaheim Transit Master Plan lays out a plan that helps guide the development of transit projects for the next 25 years. In the short term, the plan recommends a transit system to extend the reach of what will soon be a frequent, all-day Metrolink train service throughout the County of Orange. A major objective is to define feeder routes to improve connectivity to Anaheim’s two Metrolink stations – at ARTIC, and the Anaheim Canyon station (currently located at Tustin and La Palma Avenues). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-12 July 19, 2010 Orange County Transportation Authority OCTA is a multi-modal transportation agency that began in 1991 with the consolidation of seven separate agencies. OCTA is governed by an 18-member Board of Directors consisting of 5 county supervisors, 10 city members, 2 public members, and the Director of Caltrans District 12 as a non-voting member. OCTA serves the County of Orange residents and travelers by providing countywide bus and paratransit service, Metrolink rail service, the 91 Express Lanes, freeway, street and road improvement projects, motorist aid services and by regulating taxi operations. OCTA administers Measure M, a package of transportation improvements promised to voters in 1990 when they approved a half-cent sales tax. Measure M provides funding for freeway improvements, regional/local streets and roads projects and transit improvements. On November 7, 2006, the County of Orange voters approved the renewal of the Measure M one-half cent sales tax for transportation improvements for the next 30 years. ARTIC Background The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station located north of Angel Stadium and south of Stadium Towers was built in 1982 to provide Amtrak inter-city rail service. Since then, Metrolink service has been successfully launched and the station has twice been upgraded and enlarged to meet the resulting rail ridership demand. In 2005, responding to the continued growth in Metrolink ridership demand, OCTA decided to increase rail service in this corridor through the Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP). These factors led OCTA to initiate the Regional Gateway Program to upgrade Metrolink stations to accommodate increased Metrolink service. Through the Regional Gateway Program, OCTA purchased the 13.58 acre site adjacent to the LOSSAN ROW and east of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, for potential development of ARTIC. The intent was for ARTIC to replace the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station with the facilities needed to accommodate planned rail service expansions, as well as other new or expanded transportation services. OCTA administers the transportation funds collected under the local sales tax measure (Renewed Measure M) first approved by the County of Orange voters in 1990 and renewed by vote in 2006. Funding for ARTIC has been identified from the following sources: Renewed Measure M; Current Measure M; State Transportation Improvement Program; Federal Earmark; and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Formula Funds. In 2007, OCTA and the City entered into an agreement to explore the joint development of ARTIC. At that time, the project was envisioned as an Intermodal Center that included transit oriented retail, mixed-use commercial development, and civic space. The Intermodal Center would also accommodate expanded service by Metrolink and Amtrak that had already been approved. In addition, OCTA and the City recognize that the Anaheim Fixed Guideway, the California High-Speed Rail, and the California – Nevada Super Speed Train would potentially use ARTIC when these projects are planned, fully funded, and receive CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) certification. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-13 July 19, 2010 In 2009, OCTA and the City intended to prepare a joint EIR/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for ARTIC and related transit projects. OCTA and the City then revisited the environmental clearance process, recognizing that the proper CEQA process would involve the City serving as Lead Agency for an EIR prepared to analyze ARTIC. ARTIC project objectives and goals changed and the proposed project was refocused. The City in cooperation with OCTA determined that an EIR prepared by the City is appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction 1.5 Project Background ARTIC Draft EIR 1-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description ARTIC Draft EIR 2-1 July 19, 2010 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will be known as ARTIC. The scope of ARTIC is to replace and enlarge the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station at a new location to the east of SR-57 and to accommodate growing passenger demand and increased ridership expected with Metrolink, Amtrak, and other transportation services already approved by other public agencies. In order to evaluate ARTIC, the Project Description is presented in seven subsections. These subsections are Other Related Projects, Project Background, Statement of Objective, Proposed Project, Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Permit and Plan Review. A brief description of each subsection is presented below. The Other Relevant Projects subsection describes four regional transit projects with respect to ARTIC. The Project Background subsection presents the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, the proposed property, and the ROW and ownership. In addition, the Project Background subsection describes the current transportation providers, existing parking, and pedestrian access. The Statement of Objectives subsection describes the vision and the need for ARTIC as well as the project objectives. The Proposed Project subsection describes the Intermodal Terminal, the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Roadway Improvements, Utilities, and Surface Parking/Access. The Construction subsection presents the duration of construction and assumptions. The Operations and Maintenance subsection presents what will be expected when ARTIC opens in 2013. The Permit and Plan Review subsection lists the agencies expected to grant permits or review plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description ARTIC Draft EIR 2-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-3 July 19, 2010 2.1 OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS The following projects listed below are relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need, and regulatory requirements. The localized impacts of these separate projects will be analyzed to the extent required and reasonable in this EIR in the Cumulative Impacts section of the EIR (14 CCR § 15130). Each relevant project listed below has undergone or is currently undergoing their own separate project clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and NEPA. These projects are:  Anaheim Rapid Connection — In 2007, the City in conjunction with the OCTA, developed a Transit Master Plan to guide the development and implementation of transportation projects over the next 25 years. Consistent with the Transit Master Plan, the City and OCTA are now advancing the study of a fixed-guideway project. This project proposes to provide a new east/west transit system between The Anaheim Resort™ and the Platinum Triangle with a connection at ARTIC. The project is envisioned to operate as a high-capacity system, providing convenient and efficient transfers to/from Metrolink, Amtrak, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), local bus, and future high-speed train services connecting at ARTIC. The City is in the process of preparing a joint EIR/EIS for this project.  California High-Speed Rail — In 1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) began planning high-speed train service for travel between major metropolitan areas in California. To develop this project, CHSRA divided the statewide route into sections, including the corridor from Anaheim to Los Angeles. The proposed alignment for the Anaheim to Los Angeles section will travel along the existing LOSSAN Passenger Rail Corridor between Anaheim and the Los Angeles Union Station. An additional station is being considered for either Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs or Fullerton. High-speed trains will reach top speeds of 120 miles per hour (mph) along this section, taking passengers from Anaheim to Los Angeles in just over 20 minutes. Following the completion of a statewide program-level environmental document, the project-level environmental review process for the Anaheim to Los Angeles section was initiated in January 2007. The purpose of the environmental review process is to identify potential environmental benefits and impacts and develop mitigation measures to address the impacts whenever possible. CHSRA is preparing an Alternatives Analysis Report for the Anaheim to Los Angeles section. The report identifies how to best accommodate high-speed trains within the LOSSAN corridor, taking into account what is required to run high-speed trains and minimizing impacts to adjacent communities. The technical team is continuing environmental studies outlined by CEQA and NEPA to determine potential project impacts and mitigation measures. Simultaneously, the design team is moving forward with preliminary design advancing towards 15 percent, with 30 percent design completion expected in 2011. The City has no approval authority over the high- speed rail project, and thus no ability to determine whether or not such project becomes reality. ARTIC is necessary to accommodate transit service capacity within the City and region regardless of whether high-speed rail service eventually comes to ARTIC. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-4 July 19, 2010 CHSRA was created by the Legislature in 1996, with the passage of the California High- Speed Rail Act (the “Act,” set forth at Public Utilities Code (PUC) 185000 et seq.), and consists of a nine-member board (five members are appointed by the governor, two by the Senate Rules Committee, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly). The Authority is charged with preparing and carrying out a plan for the construction and operation of a high-speed train network for the state (PUC § 185032 To that end, the CHSRA has been given “exclusive” authority over, and responsibility for, the planning, construction, and operation of high-speed passenger train service in the State of California (PUC § 185032(a)(2)). CHSRA is thus responsible for conducting environmental review of all high-speed rail projects (PUC 185033 185034(1)). Under the Act, CHSRA was given power to take initial steps related to the development of a high speed rail system, including the development of a business plan and the preparation of engineering and environmental studies, upon passage of the Act (PUC § 185034). CHSRA’s power to actually enter into contracts for the design, construction, and operation of high-speed trains, acquire ROWs, and take certain other necessary actions to develop a high-speed rail system was made contingent upon further approval by the Legislature or voters (PUC § 185036). The approval came in the form of the Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, which was enacted by the Legislature in 2002 and approved by the voters on the November 2008 ballot. CHSRA is thus currently moving forward with plans for a high-speed rail system. In 2005, CHSRA completed a program-level EIS/EIR, which studied the environmental impacts of a proposed state-wide high-speed rail system connecting the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. CHSRA is currently conducting project-level environmental analysis of several sections of the contemplated high-speed rail system, including the Los Angeles-Anaheim section. The Los Angeles-Anaheim section project, if approved by CHSRA in its currently contemplated form, will utilize ARTIC. As a result of the CHSRA agreeing to study track sharing between Los Angeles and Anaheim, the EIR/EIS for that segment, which was to be released in May of 2010, will instead be released in January 2011. This EIR/EIS will fully analyze the environmental impacts that will result from the construction and operation of a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Anaheim. This EIR/EIS will also consider alternatives to the proposed Los Angeles- Anaheim section, including a no project alternative (CHSRA EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report, p. Thus, at this point in time, there is no certainty regarding whether and when the Los Angeles-Anaheim section of the high-speed rail system will be built. Since CHSRA has exclusive authority over high-speed rail projects and is the lead agency for purposes of complying with CEQA on the proposed Los Angeles-Anaheim section project, the City is not in a position to analyze the specific impacts that will result from any possible high-speed rail line which may utilize ARTIC at some point in the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-5 July 19, 2010  California-Nevada Super Speed Train – The is a proposal to connect southern California with southern Nevada. In 2004, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to complete an EIS for the Maglev Project that included a specific EIS for the first forty miles in Nevada. This project was planned to run between Las Vegas and Anaheim. As initially proposed, the train was envisioned to access ARTIC to provide service to the County of Orange. However, the recently enacted federal stimulus bill does not support funding for the Maglev Project from fiscal year 2010 or 2011 dollars and it is doubtful, given the status of the federal and state budget crisis, that future public monies necessary to fund this project will be available in the near future. Thus, it is highly doubtful as to whether the will be constructed within the next 20 years. Nevertheless, the localized cumulative impacts of this project have been analyzed in the cumulative impacts sections of each chapter of this EIR.  Desert Express — The Desert Express is a privately funded high-speed rail concept that has been discussed proposed by various Las Vegas-based business interests for years. The initial segment is anticipated to run from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada. This project is at the concept stage at this point.  Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion — The proposed project (the “Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project”) includes a General Plan Amendment, amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and Zoning reclassifications to expand the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone and increase permitted residential, office, commercial and institutional development intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The proposed project includes upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the proposed increased intensity of land uses. These upgrades include roadway improvements, sewer upgrades, two new water wells, a new electrical substation, natural gas infrastructure improvements and an additional fire station. A NOP for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 339 and the project’s initial study were distributed on December 10, 2008 to Trustee Agencies, the State Clearinghouse, area property owners and parties that had requested such information (“interested parties”). The Anaheim Rapid Connector, CHST, Desert Express, and the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project are separate and distinct projects, most of which are outside of the control of the City and are at various stages of funding and planning. In addition, each of these projects is undergoing its own separate environmental assessment process pursuant to CEQA. With the exception of the Platinum Triangle, these projects are in various stages of the planning and environmental clearance process; and it is uncertain, at the time of this EIR, when these projects will be fully funded and operational. The EIR nevertheless includes these projects in the cumulative impacts analysis section within each environmental issue area of the EIR. Thus, the localized cumulative impacts of these projects (and others) are included in the cumulative impact analysis contained in this EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Other Relevant Projects ARTIC Draft EIR 2-6 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-7 July 19, 2010 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The ARTIC Project Description provides the required information on project background, the Statement of Objective, and details of the proposed project. A conceptual architectural rendering of ARTIC is presented to demonstrate the size and scale of the facility (Figure 2.2-1). Graphics are also provided to identify the location of the project, the project site boundary, and ARTIC elevations and site plans. The City in partnership with OCTA is proposing to relocate the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station (see 2.3 Statement of Objectives) that is south of Katella Avenue and adjacent to The Grove of Anaheim. The new location will be approximately one quarter (0.25) mile east along the existing OCTA railroad ROW (Figure 2.2-2 and Figure 2.2-3). The OCTA railroad ROW is part of the LOSSAN Corridor. ARTIC is envisioned to include an Intermodal Terminal space up to 310,000 square feet, Platforms up to 86,000 square feet, and a Stadium Pavilion up to 12,000 square feet. The Intermodal Terminal space includes Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, Transit Space, The Public Hall/Waiting Area, and Program Space. For the purpose of this EIR these are the maximum sizes and impacts are the “worst case”. The size and timing of construction will depend on available funding. 2.2.1 Existing Station Information The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is located west of SR-57, north of Angel Stadium, and south of Katella Avenue with The Grove of Anaheim to the west. Direct access to the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is provided by an entrance on Katella Avenue through Sportstown. On non-event days secondary access is sometimes available via State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way. The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station consists of a 6,814 square foot ticketing and operations office that includes two ticket windows manned during hours of operation, a single Amtrak self-service ticket kiosk, baggage claim office, restrooms for both men and women, and a waiting area with approximately 40 seats. Additional facilities that are outside the ticket and operations office include a covered waiting area with two Metrolink/Amtrak unmanned ticket kiosks, four 10-foot benches, and four five-foot benches for waiting patrons. Common areas to the east and west of the office include drought resistant landscaping, benches for public use, and a single bicycle rack built to accommodate approximately five bicycles. Facilities also include an electric car recharging station and bicycle lockers. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station also provides an adjacent drop-off area for the OCTA Station Link, Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles, private shuttles, and taxis. The configuration of the trackway includes a centerline rail with northbound and southbound side platforms. There is also an underpass that allows passengers to move across the rail tracks safely. The existing 800- foot long by 16-foot wide platforms and the tracks are situated on a 100-foot OCTA ROW. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-8 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- SOURCE: PB/HOK, 2010 The infomrafion irrdoded on fhsi graplrio represenfafron has heen oomplled fromavahefy of 500r000 cod fo oharrge wfhoef oohoe, lhfeiofeieer makes no mpresenfahons or warramies, eoprene or implied, as fo snooraoy, oompiefenese, fimaloera, or ro the use of sodr ioforrerason. This is ref iofeoded for use asafarrd suroey pmdicf nor is C designed or infended as a ooosirroheoo desrgo dooonreof. The use or misuse of the ioforroafioo infomrefioo. PROJECT NO. 109528 DRAWN: 7/12/10 KLE/NFELflEA Brighf People. dighf Tolofiomo. DRAWN BY: JP CHECKED BY: ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF ARTIC CC FILE NAME: 1 O9528artistElR.dwg FIGURE L2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTIC ANAHEIMr CALIFORNIA ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 2.2-2 109528 7/12/10 JP CC 109528vicEIR.mxd The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. 5 ARTIC ·I}þ 22 ·I}þ 57 ·I}þ 55 ·I}þ 91 Santa Ana Orange Garden Grove Anaheim I 5 Katella Tustin Chapman East Collins Glassell Anaheim Garden Grove Haster Main State College Harbor Orangewood Lewis Sant Walnut N Disneyland West Disney State Hwy 72 Grand Park Bristol Parker Broadway Convention Owens Gene Autry Glassell Taft Orangewood I 5 Lincoln La Veta The City Chapman PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE 0 1 2 0.5 Milesq www.kleinfelder.com DETAIL AREA CALIFORNIA PACIFIC OCEAN ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- nO ci ID -Q coFI :u mm > > 0 F’J C) < < C coz : m >m C) icJw - mmw z p - co cc, 0 0c C) 0o Co mz< >z z > 0 C 01 m ;o’I? -I 10 mc) — 5; -I -u Cl) 0o -1 44 3 L) 11 0’ C ;om ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-15 July 19, 2010 2.2.2 Existing Transportation Providers The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station provides access to several transportation providers that include Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA Station Link, OCTA local bus service, the Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles, and taxi services. The existing (2009) ridership and daily service levels for the various modes of transportation was developed for the project Needs Assessment Update and Validation, (August, 2009) and included in Table 2.2-1, below (Cordoba Corporation 2009). Currently, a bus zone approximately 76 feet long has been designated for use by OCTA’s Station Link service and Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles. The Station Link buses are the only OCTA buses that actually enter the station area. All other station-serving OCTA buses are accessible along Katella Avenue. Local OCTA bus service can be accessed via the pedestrian underpass and the walkway through the adjacent commercial development and parking area. This private walkway is generally available from 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM. There is no designated taxi area. Taxis typically queue up curbside to the station, within or adjacent to the bus zone. Table 2.2-1 Existing (2009) Anaheim Station Service Levels and Daily Boardings Existing Conditions Existing Service Levels Existing Daily Boardings Metrolink 19 trains per weekday 782 Amtrak 22 trains per weekday 487 OCTA Bus Route 50 96 buses per weekday (15 min headways) 271 OCTA Bus Route 53 82 buses per weekday (15 min headways) 62 OCTA Bus Route 57 86 buses per weekday (15 min headways 300 Station Link Bus (Route 430) 11 buses per day 31 OCTA Bus Route 757 4 buses per day 5 Anaheim Resort Transit (ART – Route 15) 16 shuttles per day 587 Taxis 22 per day 38 Service levels and boardings provided by Metrolink, as part of the MSEP, Orange County Metrolink 2010 Ridership Projection Analysis Technical Memorandum, Parsons Brinkerhoff, June 5, 2008. Service levels and boardings provided by Amtrak on June 5, 2009. Service levels are based on Route schedule effective June 14, 2009; daily boardings provided by OCTA Bus Operations, June 9, 2009. It should be noted that some bus lines do not stop at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and that most of the daily boardings listed do not use the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Service levels and boardings provided by City of Anaheim on June 2, 2009. Estimated based on field observation and conversations with taxi cab drivers at the Anaheim Station on June 30, 2009. Source: Needs Assessment Update and Validation, Cordoba Corporation, August 2009 Note: Since the above data was collected, Route 153 was initiated on March 14, 2010. This route operates between Main and Katella and Brea Mall. Shuttle times are coordinated with the train schedules. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-16 July 19, 2010 2.2.3 Existing Parking The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station currently provides 405 parking spaces for passengers using motor vehicles to access the station site, which will remain for ARTIC. Typically, the station parking demand approaches the allocated number of spaces. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station’s parking is constrained by Angel Stadium parking demand and configuration. In addition, it is constrained by existing agreements between the City and the Angels. According to the agreement between the City and the Angels, the City is prohibited from providing expanded parking rights within the stadium parking areas without the consent of the Angels’ franchise. 2.2.4 Existing Pedestrian Access The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is accessible via a pedestrian underpass north of the platforms and the adjacent parking lots for the Grove of Anaheim and Angel Stadium. This access allows passengers and other pedestrians to walk to the station, the neighboring entertainment venues, as well as surrounding residential, office, and commercial development. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station complies with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station has concrete ramps and a pedestrian underpass for safe access to the platforms. 2.2.5 OCTA-Owned Parcel OCTA purchased the site from Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) on November 21, 2006. Pursuant to cooperative Agreement C-7-1288 that is dated December 11, 2007, OCTA and the City identified this property with the potential to provide a future site as an intermodal center. The property is a 13.58-acre parcel bounded by Katella Avenue on the north, the LOSSAN corridor on the south, Douglass Road on the west, and the Santa Ana River on the east. This site previously served as the County of Orange Katella Maintenance Yard. Concrete, metal, and wood buildings remain on the site. The site also includes work areas covered with metal and wood canopies. The parcel is asphalt-paved with several concrete pads and some ornamental landscaping along Douglass Road. The site is surrounded by chain-link fencing. The site is currently being used for storage for OCTA’s MSEP. MSEP is making improvements in the rail corridor and to existing stations (scheduled to be completed in 2012). The northeast corner of the site is used for employee and over flow parking for the Honda Center and the adjacent Arena Plaza Commercial Center. 2.2.6 City-Owned Parcel The City owns a 2.2-acre parcel directly south of the OCTA owned parcel. This triangular-shaped parcel is bounded by the LOSSAN corridor on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, and SR-57 on the southwest. Access to this parcel is from Douglass Road. The site is mostly paved with asphalt and some gravel areas. There are two small buildings on the site. The entire site is ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-17 July 19, 2010 enclosed by chain-link fencing. A portion of the site is leased on a basis for the storage of retail wood products. 2.2.7 OCTA Railroad Right-of-Way OCTA owns the railroad ROW adjacent to the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and the proposed Intermodal Terminal site. Amtrak service, freight service, and Metrolink service use this ROW. Passenger and freight services will continue through the proposed construction. 2.2.8 SR-57 Right of Way Caltrans owns and manages the SR-57 ROW. The proposed construction may need to use less than an acre of this Caltrans property, mainly below the SR-57 freeway stadium bridge, to improve access to the 2.2-acre parcel and to develop the single-ended siding track (stub-end track). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.2 Existing Conditions ARTIC Draft EIR 2-18 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-19 July 19, 2010 2.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 2.3.1 Vision Statement ARTIC Project Vision…. ARTIC will be a world-class transportation center where people transfer between travel services to reach both regional and interregional activity centers and business districts. 2.3.2 Project Need An efficient multi-modal transportation network is necessary to meet the future mobility needs of residents and businesses in the County of Orange. Local jurisdictions have identified goals and objectives within the local planning documents that address these needs. A brief description of selected documents follows:  The Long-Range Transportation Plan for the County of Orange projects that population in the County of Orange will grow by 24 percent over the next 30 years (OCTA, 2006). As a result, the miles traveled by vehicles will grow by nearly 40 percent, and approximately three million additional person trips per year will be added to the transportation system by 2030. Currently, the freeway and roadway networks in the County of Orange are nearing build-out and the carpool lane network is nearing capacity during peak hours. Without improvements to the existing transportation system, by 2030 traffic during the morning commute will be operating at speeds of less than 25 mph (OCTA, 2006). Since the Long-Range Transportation Plan states that the County of Orange residents and visitors need the ability to travel an integrated and seamless transportation network within the County of Orange, improving mobility is the cornerstone of the Plan (OCTA, 2006). The main objectives for this goal are to offer safe and reliable transportation choices and develop an accessible, integrated transportation network. These can be accomplished, in part, by “expanding transit centers that serve multiple modes of transportation” (OCTA, 2006);  Goal 1.4 of the City of Anaheim Growth Management Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan supports the development of “land use strategies and incentives to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled within the City” (City of Anaheim, 2009). Policy 3 supports the development of diverse types of public transit services;  Goal 2.1 of the City of Anaheim Growth Management Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan calls for the reduction of traffic congestion on the City’s highway system by promoting the use of public transit and alternative modes of transportation, thereby increasing access to public transportation, including convenient pedestrian access (City of Anaheim, 2009). Policy 6 encourages working with OCTA to ensure an adequate mix of transit opportunities in the City;  Policy 2 of the Goal 15.1 of the City of Anaheim Land Use Element within the General Plan encourages the development of a regional intermodal transportation center in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim (City of Anaheim, 2009); and ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-20 July 19, 2010  The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan provides opportunities for “transit oriented development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities . . . [including] the proposed ARTIC station . . (City of Anaheim, 2008). It also calls for maintaining and enhancing connectivity between major entertainment centers throughout the City, including Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, The Anaheim Resort, and Disneyland Resort. The key factors that demonstrate the need for ARTIC are as follows:  Anaheim is the 10th largest city in California (City of Anaheim, 2010);  Anaheim attracts over 18 million tourists and visitors annually, while the County of Orange attracts over 45 million tourists and visitors annually (City of Anaheim, 2010); and  Population and employment in the area will continue to grow, increasing the demand for alternative means for transportation. Projections show that population will grow by 22 percent between 2000 and 2030. Employment will increase by 22 percent between 2007 and 2030 (Center for Demographic Research, 2009). This growth will drive demand for an increase in transit services (OCTA, 2006). 2.3.3 Project Objectives ARTIC is necessary because of the anticipated increase in rail passenger demand and the need to provide convenient intermodal connections. The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station will not be able to meet the future demand for services because of physical and contractual constraints (Cordoba Corporation, 2009). In addition, the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station has restricted access and does not facilitate a seamless transfer of travelers from one mode of transit service to another at a regional center. ARTIC is intended to provide improved and safe pedestrian access to two major sports and entertainment centers within the City. ARTIC is also intended to provide opportunities for transit oriented development as identified within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The specific objectives of ARTIC are:  to provide a regional intermodal center that can combine multiple transportation modes at a central location;  to accommodate projected increases in mass transit ridership;  to provide a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes;  to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to multimodal transit options;  to provide improved access and availability of mass transit resources; ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-21 July 19, 2010  to encourage the reduction of vehicle miles traveled on freeways and local arterial streets; and  to provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. ARTIC will provide a necessary component for this transportation network within Anaheim and will serve as the gateway to the southern California region. ARTIC will enhance the County of Orange’s overall transportation system by accommodating additional bus transit options, additional alternatives to road based travel, and improved services for the transit-dependent. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.3 Statement of Objectives ARTIC Draft EIR 2-22 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-23 July 19, 2010 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT ARTIC will be approximately 0.25 miles east of the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. This location is south of Katella Avenue, on an approximately 19-acre site which is owned by OCTA and the City (see Figure 2.2-3 and Figure 2.4-1). In addition to the two main parcels, improvements to approximately 2 acres of OCTA and City ROW and less than an acre of Caltrans ROW between the Santa Ana River and Katella Avenue are planned as part of the project. The Stadium Pavilion, which will be a pedestrian overcrossing of the tracks west of the SR-57, will be located along the railroad ROW and just northwest of SR- 57. The project also includes improvements to Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. ARTIC is envisioned to include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access (Figure 2.4-2 and Figure 2.4-3). 2.4.1 Intermodal Terminal The Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to be a three-level building of approximately 310,000 gross square feet that is comprised of approximately 140,000 square feet at-grade or above-grade and approximately 170,000 square feet below the building. There will be two levels at-grade or above-grade and one level below the building. The design of the Intermodal Terminal is planned to accommodate near term and future transportation related services. The Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to include the Bus Transit Center, Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, The Public Hall/Waiting Area, and Program Space. The Intermodal Terminal is envisioned to be encased in a translucent glazing material and will rise to a maximum of 150 feet above the existing ground level (approximately 324 feet above mean sea level, North American Vertical Datum 1988). The Intermodal Terminal will be adjacent to the Tracks/Platforms and located north of the LOSSAN corridor. The below building level is envisioned to include the Bus Transit Center, the Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, and Program Space. The at-grade and above-grade levels are envisioned to include the Public Hall/Waiting Area and Program Space. For the purpose of this EIR these are the maximum sizes and impacts are the “worst case”. The size and timing of construction will depend on available funding. Bus Transit Center The Bus Transit Center is envisioned to be located on the lower level of the Intermodal Terminal. This Transit Center is envisioned to include bus islands, waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, and driving ramps for surface street access. The Bus Transit Center is envisioned to contain a 16- bay bus facility (two, eight bay islands) located directly below the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will be an open air facility for ventilation. A waiting area is envisioned to be provided on each bus island. Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse The Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse is envisioned to provide pedestrian access between the Public Hall and the Bus Transit Center to the Tracks/Platforms and the Surface Parking that is located south of the railroad ROW. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-24 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- I— 0z 0<0 -I I II I - I— I- -J 0 _ I-w <0 0 I-a Q Ow D_ ZO — zw C, ‘U-I ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Cl)0C C)m V ;aj : ; -gl inh; ( !iq !1 - 03 0 00 1 GD -1,m 03 0 r\)0 p C i 8 ; LH r 0 m 4(J) i—I m V2 z -1m 0 -1m z --no 0 -0 F:E mm > > 0 N) C) < < C— - mmoj - Z p cc CDc - C) 13 0 o: C,0 mz rn ;J •0 > 0 mCl) I Hm QH mr - rm :5z < J Om > m cl)cn -IIz z -1m 00 m z 1% -n GDC m ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-31 July 19, 2010 Public Hall/Waiting Area The Public Hall/Waiting Area is envisioned to be located on the first level of the Intermodal Terminal. This space is designed to enhance the traveling public’s experience. This area has access to exterior terraces, Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse, and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area. Program Space The Program Space is envisioned to be located on all three levels of the Intermodal Terminal. The below-building level includes spaces for OCTA, mechanical and ventilation, and building services. The at-grade uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. The above-grade uses will include passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. 2.4.2 Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area ARTIC is envisioned to include an exterior Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area of approximately 36,000 square feet (see Figure 2.4-2 and Figure 2.4-3). The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue. The Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area is anticipated to be used for taxi and private automobile Drop-Off, with a designated walkway from the Intermodal Terminal to the surface parking south of Katella Avenue. There will be one-way vehicle circulation around the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area with access from Douglass Road and Katella Avenue. 2.4.3 Stadium Pavilion The Stadium Pavilion is located northwest of SR-57, along the LOSSAN corridor, and provides a pedestrian bridge over the tracks and platforms. The Stadium Pavilion provides access to the stadium, surface parking, and the Tracks/Platforms (see Figure 2.4-3). The Stadium Pavilion includes elevators and stairways. 2.4.4 Tracks/Platforms The proposed Tracks/Platforms construction work will be within OCTA ROW, Caltrans ROW, and City ROW that are bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east and Katella Avenue to the west. There will be no improvements to the existing Santa Ana River railroad bridge or the existing Katella Avenue railroad bridge. The current rail operations, the station operations, and related facilities operations will be maintained during construction. The final configuration is envisioned to consist of two through tracks and one stub-end track with a platform. The stub-end track will be constructed south of the existing tracks (Figure 2.4-4). The stub-end track will allow continued two track service during construction and serve as a station track during operations. The side platform is envisioned to be 21 to 40 feet wide with additional width at each end for circulation, and the center platform will be 38 feet wide. The platforms will be approximately 1,200 feet in length. A replacement railroad bridge is envisioned to be constructed over Douglass Road to accommodate the three track/two platform alignment. The new bridge will contain stairs that allow emergency access from the platforms to Douglass Road. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-32 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-35 July 19, 2010 Passengers are envisioned to access the Tracks/Platforms from the below grade Metrolink/Amtrak Concourse that connects the Intermodal Hall to the station platforms. The Tracks/Platforms can also be accessed from the Stadium Pavilion. Canopies will be provided on the rail platforms per the requirements of Amtrak and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)/Metrolink. 2.4.5 Douglass Road Improvements Douglass Road Between Stadium Parking Lot and the Railroad Bridge To maximize the capacity of the road within the physical constraints of the SR-57 overpass, it is proposed that Douglass Road be improved to the east to allow a pedestrian sidewalk on one side of Douglass Road under the SR-57 overpass. The proposed roadway will consist of four lanes beginning approximately 300 feet from the stadium parking booths to the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road from the Railroad Bridge to Katella Avenue Douglass Road will be four lanes wide under the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road is envisioned to be widened initially to a six lane configuration as it approaches Katella Avenue and widened to eight lanes as traffic warrants (Figure 2.4-5). A left turn pocket from Douglass Road into the bus transit center is provided along Douglass Road just north of the Railroad Bridge. A southbound left turn pocket will be provided for the main entrance into ARTIC. This configuration requires a total ROW width of approximately 120 feet, an increase from the existing 64 feet. This width will allow for Douglass Road ultimately having eight lanes south of the Katella Avenue intersection. The ultimate northbound lane configuration is proposed to have two left turn lanes, one through lane, one right turn/through lane and one right turn lane for northbound traffic. There will be three lanes for southbound traffic. In order to reach the proposed Douglass Road width of approximately 120 feet, approximately 20,000 square feet of ROW located along the east side of Douglass Road and the south side of Katella Avenue will be acquired from the retail center. Two One retail businesses and one two vacant storefront commercial spaces are located on the parcel that will be acquired. The widening of Douglass Road will require reconfiguration of driveway access and parking areas on both sides of Douglass Road. No raised median will be provided on Douglass Road. If the new Railroad Bridge requires columns within the Douglass Road ROW, a raised median will be constructed at the Railroad Bridge. Douglass Road – Vertical Profile In the vicinity of the Railroad Bridge, Douglass Road is envisioned to be lowered approximately eight feet at its lowest point, from the existing road surface. This will allow a wider Railroad Bridge and create a deeper structure than the existing bridge. Lowering Douglass Road is necessary to meet vertical clearance requirements for the new bridge. The proposed profile will meet the Metrolink vertical clearance standard of 16.5 feet for overcrossings. Approximately 1,100 total linear feet of Douglass Road will be re-graded. This re-grading will center north and south of the Railroad Bridge along Douglass Road to meet the grade requirements. A maximum vertical profile of six percent will be used in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Standards for Urban Highways. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-36 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-39 July 19, 2010 Katella Avenue Improvements Katella Avenue may require up to five feet of widening within the ROW to accommodate a new eastbound through lane at the Douglass Road and Katella Avenue intersection. This through lane will feed a right turn lane into ARTIC. The minimum width of curb lanes will be 13 feet and all other lanes will be 11 feet, while the median noses will be four feet wide. 2.4.6 Katella Avenue Pedestrian Bridge A pedestrian bridge is envisioned to be constructed over Katella Avenue, connecting the project site and the Honda Center. The bridge would be a clear span bridge approximately 175 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 17 feet clear above Katella Avenue. Supports within Katella Avenue would not be required. It is proposed that the bridge will include both elevators and stairwells on the north and south ends, with stairwells extending approximately 50 feet from the bridge. The bridge and stairways would be covered, but the bridge would be open on both sides. The touchdown point on the south side of the bridge is proposed within the OCTA owned parcel of the ARTIC site. The touchdown point on the north side of the bridge is proposed within the Honda Center site, which is leased to the Honda Center by the City of Anaheim. The construction of the bridge is envisioned to accommodate future widening of Katella Avenue on the north side of the street (2 additional lanes) as per the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The bridge would also be designed to accommodate widening on the south side of Katella Avenue to incorporate anticipated improvements associated with the ARTIC project. 2.4.7 ARTIC Pedestrian Trail A trail easement, parallel to the existing Santa Ana River Trail is envisioned to be located along the east side of ARTIC between the railroad ROW and Katella Avenue. 2.4.8 Surface Parking/Access ARTIC is envisioned to have approximately 960 surface parking spaces. ARTIC parking will be located in three locations (see Figure 2.4-5). These surface locations are the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak parking (Existing Surface Parking), the parking south of the Intermodal Terminal and the railroad tracks (South Surface Parking), and the parking north of the Intermodal Terminal and south of Katella Avenue (North Surface Parking). The Existing Surface Parking is envisioned to provide approximately 405 spaces that are currently used for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Patrons will access the Tracks/Platforms and the Intermodal Terminal through the Stadium Pavilion. The Existing Surface Parking will be accessed by vehicles from Katella Avenue via Sportstown (see Figure 2.2-3). The South Surface Parking is envisioned to provide approximately 232 spaces. Patrons will access the Tracks/Platforms and the Intermodal Terminal through the Metrolink/Amtrak ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-40 July 19, 2010 Concourse. The South Surface Parking will be accessed by vehicles from Douglass Road (see Figure 2.4-5). The North Surface Parking is envisioned to provide approximately 323 spaces. Patrons will access the Intermodal Terminal and the Tracks/Platforms through the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area. The North Surface Parking will be accessed by vehicles from Douglass Road or Katella Avenue. The main vehicle access to the Bus Transit Center and the Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area will be via Douglass Road from Katella Avenue, which also serves as an entry and exit during events occurring at Angel Stadium. A secondary right in/right out access will be provided to ARTIC from Katella Avenue. The access point will be immediately west of the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River Trail is used by bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians and is located along the east side of ARTIC. Construction and operations of ARTIC will occur without interfering with trail users. Pedestrian access will be provided by sidewalks along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. Bicycle access will be along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. 2.4.9 Utility Relocation and Proposed Utilities Various utility tasks will be required to both accommodate the proposed improvements as well as supply utilities for operation of the proposed facility. ARTIC will require relocating existing utilities and the construction of new utilities. These utilities include electrical, water, sewer, gas, and drainage. Electrical Existing overhead electrical transmission lines located along Douglass Road will be undergrounded as part of the road improvements. Electrical service by the City of Anaheim will be provided via new underground ducts leading from the current service in Katella Avenue south under Douglass Road and into the facility. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are envisioned to be included on the project site to reduce the use of off-site generated electricity. PV panels will be considered as building integrated components, integrated into shading elements on the building or as shading canopies or structures on the site. A PV array of up to 130 kilowatt (kW) (dc) will be considered for the site and could generate between 7 to 10 percent of site annual energy demands, dependent on location, orientation and cell type. Water The existing fire hydrants located on both sides of Douglass Road will be relocated according to the appropriate fire code for the proposed and existing uses. An existing 8-inch water line will be abandoned in lieu of a new 16-inch water line. Sewer The existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line along the west side of Douglass Road that serves the existing uses west of Douglass Road will remain. A new 15-inch sanitary sewer line will be ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-41 July 19, 2010 installed from ARTIC to connect into the main sanitary sewer. This line will connect to the existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sewer line. Gas The 2-inch gas line will remain but may be relocated to accommodate construction. A gas line to the facility will be supplied from the existing 2-inch line located along Douglass Road. Drainage The storm drain will be reconfigured to reflect the change in Douglass Road elevation. The existing stormwater system will require modification based on ARTIC components. Currently, there is a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe that conveys run off from SR-57 to an outfall at the Santa Ana River. Additionally, stormwater from Douglass Road drains into a pump station under the roadway, and is pumped into the existing 48-inch pipe. With the proposed lowering of Douglass Road, this pump station will require replacement and the new installation will conform to the new lower street level. The above identified 48-inch pipe crosses the project site prior to reaching the river. This pipe will be lowered across the area to accommodate the new building. Since the slope of the drain is changing, a second pump station will be installed to continue to discharge stormwater to the river. No new discharge points will be created into the Santa Ana River. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed into the drainage system for ARTIC to comply with current regulations. ARTIC is being designed so no increases in runoff based on current site conditions will occur due to this new construction. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.4 Proposed Project ARTIC Draft EIR 2-42 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.5 Construction ARTIC Draft EIR 2-43 July 19, 2010 2.5 CONSTRUCTION Construction of the proposed project and associated infrastructure improvements is anticipated to take approximately 26 to 36 months. The Air Quality Impact Analysis uses a 26-month construction time frame as the “worst case” scenario. Generally, construction will occur during normal daylight hours but railroad connection activities will require night construction activities. In particular, construction of the rail tracks and the new railroad bridges over Douglass Road will require night time construction. This construction requires that the railroad service be shutdown on a short term temporary basis. This shutdown of rail service can only be done at night to avoid shutdown during peak operational hours. This nighttime construction was assessed in the Noise Impact Assessment (Appendix The approximate volume of cut and fill results in an approximate export of 80,000 cubic yards. Some of the excavated material will be used to raise the new stub-end track to match the existing main line track elevation, and to fill selected areas of the site to the desired grade. All construction workers will be required to park vehicles on-site without impacting either local businesses or local parking lots for the duration of construction. The staging areas for construction are assumed to be on-site. All construction workers will be encouraged to carpool during construction as feasible. Material distribution to and from the site will occur through railroad deliveries and truck deliveries. Truck deliveries will access ARTIC by use of City of Anaheim streets during off-peak hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.5 Construction ARTIC Draft EIR 2-44 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.6 Operations and Maintenance ARTIC Draft EIR 2-45 July 19, 2010 2.6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Operations and maintenance activities for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and ARTIC are presented below. 2.6.1 Operations and Maintenance - Construction The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station will be demolished to make way for the new stub-end track (see Figure 2.4-4). Materials from this demolition will be recycled within the project, hauled to a recycling facility or disposed at a landfill. The Air Quality Analysis and the Traffic Impact Analysis assume a worst case scenario of having all demolished material leave the site. The two Metrolink/Amtrak unmanned ticket kiosks, four 10-foot benches, and four five-foot benches will be reused. The drought resistant landscaping, the bicycle rack, and bicycle locker, will be reused on the project site or at another location. Temporary passenger services will be provided to replace the services of the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. This temporary station will be in the Metrolink/Amtrak parking lot. The existing pedestrian underpass will be extended or other temporary access points will be created. Temporary signage during construction will be erected to direct passengers to the trains and the connecting ground transportation. 2.6.2 Operations and Maintenance – Opening Year 2013 Maintenance for ARTIC will be conducted by the City of Anaheim, and maintenance of the rail ROW will remain the responsibility of Metrolink in keeping with an agreement with OCTA, which owns the ROW. Operations for the 2013 opening year at ARTIC will require planning and route modifications for the following existing and potential providers: Metrolink Metrolink will relocate their existing ticketing, customer services, and security operations to ARTIC from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Metrolink timetables may require adjustment to the new location and bus schedules. Amtrak Amtrak will relocate their existing ticketing, customer service, and security operations to ARTIC from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Amtrak timetables may require adjustment to the new location and bus schedules. Taxi services Taxi services will relocate their existing customer service to the Public Plaza/ Drop-Off Area for queuing and customer pick up and Drop-Off. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.6 Operations and Maintenance ARTIC Draft EIR 2-46 July 19, 2010 OCTA Local Bus and OCTA Bravo! BRT OCTA services will be adjusted to utilize the Transit Center. OCTA will move ticketing, customer service, and security operations to ARTIC. OCTA timetables may require adjustment to the new location and train schedules. Other services Other services that will utilize the Transit Center include Para-transit shuttles, the Anaheim Resort Transit shuttles and circulators, Anaheim Go Local rubber tired mixed-flow shuttles, the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) “Fly-Away” airport shuttles, intercity buses, international buses, and private tourism buses. The estimated use of these transportation services is provided by the project needs assessment and based on a survey of service providers. Table 2.6-1 provides the estimated daily boardings at ARTIC by each service provider. Table 2.6-1 Estimated Daily Boardings at ARTIC Provider Daily Boarding 2009-2013 2014-2020 2021-2030 Metrolink 1,600 2,300 2,900 Amtrak 575 650 800 California High-Speed Rail 0 0 32,900 OCTA/Local Bus Service 545 800 970 Anaheim Resort Transit 685 840 1.130 OCTA Go Local/ARTIC – Anaheim Canyon Station BRT 1,070 1,240 1,620 Employer Shuttles/West Anaheim Commuter Shuttles 355 400 540 Community Circulations/ARTIC – Downtown Anaheim-Fullerton Transportation Center Connector (BRT) 1,600 1,860 2,430 Anaheim Resort Connection– Circulator 850 0 0 ARTIC to Resort Connector– Fixed Guideway/Anaheim Fixed Guideway 0 3,500 4,300 Intercity/International Bus 600 1,205 1,500 LAWA Fly-away 550 1,000 1,000 Taxis 29 35 1,830 Total Daily Boarding 8,614 13,830 51,915 Anaheim Resort Connection ridership moves to ARTIC to Resort Connection starting in 2014. Anaheim Resort Connection is now known as the Anaheim Resort Transit. The Resort Connection is now known as the Anaheim Resort Transit. The Fixed Guideway/Anaheim Fixed Guideway is now known as the Anaheim Rapid Connection. Source: Needs Assessment Update and Validation, Cordoba Corporation, August 2009 . ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.7 Permits and Plan Review ARTIC Draft EIR 2-47 July 19, 2010 2.7 PERMITS AND PLAN REVIEW The following provides a list of the projects permits and plan reviews: Caltrans Encroachment Permit Fair Share Agreement Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Stormwater Permit Compliance MS4 permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030) SCRRA Rail design and operations South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air quality review and Conformity Concurrence City of Anaheim Building permits Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (CUP2010-05492) General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480) Master Land Use Plan Amendment (MIS2010-00437) OCFCD Design Review General Permit for Discharge of Stormwater OCTA Design Review United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Plan Review - Levees OCSD Plan Review ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description 2.7 Permits and Plan Review ARTIC Draft EIR 2-48 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis ARTIC Draft EIR 3-1 July 19, 2010 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Chapter 3.0 provides information on the regulatory setting and affected environment, evaluates potential environmental consequences of the project (individually and cumulatively), and recommends mitigation measures as necessary for each environmental resource category. The intent of the individual analysis is to identify the types, locations, and magnitudes of potential environmental impacts and present the information to decision-makers, agencies and the public. The cumulative analysis explains and evaluates potential significant cumulative impacts resulting from ARTIC in combination with the other identified projects. A cumulative impact is defined in §15355 of the CEQA Guidelines as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project (ARTIC) when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts within the ARTIC project area varies depending on the environmental issue area. For example, the geographic area associated with construction noise impacts will be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise, whereas the geographic area that will be affected by construction related air emissions will include the larger air basin. Aesthetics, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, and noise geographic scopes tend to be localized. Air quality and water quality impacts have the potential to occur over a broader geographical area. The cumulative impacts for ARTIC are evaluated within each environmental resource category. The individual and cumulative environmental evaluations provide a basis for defining mitigation measures in order to reduce the potential impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis ARTIC Draft EIR 3-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-1 July 19, 2010 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section of the EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the project associated with land use and planning. The majority of analysis focuses on land use compatibility, General Plan consistency, and the implications of ARTIC on existing and surrounding land uses. 3.1.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC is designated by the City of Anaheim General Plan for mixed use and institutional land uses. Properties within the vicinity of ARTIC are primarily designated for mixed use land use; this designation allows for residential, commercial, office and mixed-use development. ARTIC is located within an area of the City referred to as the Platinum Triangle, located on the southeastern boundary of the City at the confluence of I-5 and SR-57. The Platinum Triangle includes Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, and The Grove of Anaheim. Project Site The project site is located on approximately 19 acres, formerly used as a County of Orange Maintenance Facility and currently used as a lay-down yard for OCTA and Metrolink construction projects. A portion of the project site is currently leased on a month-to-month basis to a lumber retailer. The project site includes a section of the existing LOSSAN corridor that is owned and operated by OCTA. The City of Anaheim General Plan designates the majority of the project site for institutional land use, which is implemented by the Semi-Public (SP) Zone. This land use designation covers a wide variety of public and quasi-public land uses. Although the City’s SP Zone applies to the majority of the project site, portions of the project site within the Stadium District are within the City’s Public Recreation (PR) Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone. The pedestrian bridge will land on property north of Katella Avenue, designated by the General Plan for mixed-use and within the PR Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone. Surrounding Land Uses Properties that surround the project site are primarily designated for mixed use land use by the General Plan. The PTMU Overlay Zone is applied to the properties within the Platinum Triangle that are designated mixed use by the General Plan. Within the PTMU Overlay Zone, there are five mixed use districts, which include the Arena District, the Katella District, the Stadium District, the Gene Autry District, and the Gateway District. Figure 3.1-1 illustrates the existing City of Anaheim General Plan designations and the PTMU Overlay Zone Districts within the Platinum Triangle. Floodplains ARTIC is located in an area considered protected by levees from the 1 percent annual chance flood (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2009). Despite the protection provided from flooding by levees and the channeling of the Santa Ana River, over-toppling and/or failure of these structures is possible. A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) panels inclusive of the site area is presented as Figure 3.1-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-7 July 19, 2010 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting Existing land uses within the project area (including ROW to be acquired) and the areas adjacent to ARTIC are characterized in the context of the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, associated City zoning ordinances, and other adopted plans and policies. The FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was analyzed because of the flood zone located within ARTIC and the proximity to the Santa Ana River. Federal Policies and Regulations Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood zones are geographical areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk, and are shown on FIRM. High risk flood zones, labeled as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on FIRM, are areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood event. The NFIP and participating communities require that development within floodplains does not exacerbate flooding in adjacent areas. A floodway and the adjacent land areas must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation. The participating communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. Permit requirements to develop within regulatory floodways are described in detail in Section 3.8. State Policies and Regulations There are no state policies and regulations that supersede local policies and regulations for land use, planning, and zoning within ARTIC and adjacent parcels of land. Local Policies and Regulations Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional governing body for the south coast region, which includes the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial. Regional associations of governments were created by the State to guide land use decisions that overlap multiple local jurisdictions by creating joint powers of agreement between these localities, and to provide policy guidance to the region. SCAG serves as southern California’s forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG’s responsibilities under federal law as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) include developing and adopting a long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) every four years. The RTP serves as a basis for transportation decision making in the region. The RTP includes projections for overall growth and economic trends in the SCAG region to provide strategic direction for transportation investments during the applicable time period. The RTP involves the preparation of long range transportation plans and development and adoption of transportation improvement programs that allocate State and Federal funds for highway, transit, and other surface transportation projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-8 July 19, 2010 SCAG is also responsible for developing and approving a short term component of the long range RTP, known as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The RTIP is updated every two years and is a plan which determines and prioritizes how much federal funding state and local agencies in the region receive in a five-year time span. In developing the RTP and RTIP, SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the collection of projects included in these transportation plans helps the region maintain conformity to federal air quality standards as required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Under state law, SCAG as a Council of Governments (COG) is responsible for the development of a portion of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by the SCAQMD. SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing employment, transportation measures, and strategies portions of the AQMP every three years. Pursuant to CEQA, SCAG undertakes the appropriate environmental review for the RTP and RTIP. In most cases, this involves the preparation of Program EIR and amendments thereto. In accordance with CEQA regulations and Presidential Executive Order 12372, SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. City of Anaheim General Plan The City of Anaheim General Plan provides the overall vision and framework for future development of the City. The implementation of ARTIC supports planning goals set forth to achieve the City’s vision:  Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image and stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations;  Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes;  Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses;  Goal 5.1: Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of the City’s residents, employees, and visitors;  Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in the City through strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development; and  Goal 7.1: Address the job-housing relationship by developing housing near job centers and transportation facilities. One additional goal included in the City of Anaheim General Plan addresses the continued detailed planning of the Platinum Triangle, the area of the City where ARTIC is located. It identifies specific goals of the Platinum Triangle, including the advancement of ARTIC: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-9 July 19, 2010  Goal 15.1: Establish the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residence, visitors, and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping, and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit centers, and pedestrian promenades. Policies of Goal 15.1 include:  Continue more detailed planning efforts to guide the future development of the Platinum Triangle;  Encourage a regional inter-modal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium;  Encourage mixed-use projects integrating retail, office, and higher density residential land uses; and  Maximize views and recreational and development opportunities afforded by the area’s proximity to the Santa Ana River. The majority of the project site, which is located east of SR-57 and south of Katella Avenue, is designated by the General Plan for institutional use. The portions of the project site west of SR-57 and east of SR-57, north of Katella Avenue are designated for mixed use. Land designated as institutional is typically implemented by the SP Zone and includes uses such as transportation centers, government buildings, hospitals, libraries, and other similar facilities. Areas designated by the General Plan as mixed use are designed to function differently from typical patterns of individual segregated land uses. Uses and activities are designed together in an integrated fashion to create a dynamic urban environment that serves as the center of activity for the surrounding area. Mixed use areas encourage the use of transit services and other forms of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The General Plan’s mixed use designation is implemented within the Platinum Triangle by the PTMU Overlay Zone. The PTMU Overlay Zone provides an additional zoning layer of opportunity for property owners in addition to the property’s underlying or base zone. The portion of the project site within the PTMU Overlay Zone is also within the PR Zone. The City’s mixed use designation, as implemented by the PTMU Overlay Zone, allows property owners the flexibility to choose their path of development through either the existing zoning the PR Zone) or through the PTMU Overlay Zone. ARTIC meets the intent of the General Plan land use designations for the project site and will expand accessibility public transportation and integrate other major activity centers in the area, which all help achieve the City’s vision for the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan The Platinum Triangle is an 820-acre area located at the intersection of the I-5 and SR-57 freeways within the City of Anaheim, which generally surrounds and includes Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, and The Grove of Anaheim. Planning principles of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan vision include: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-10 July 19, 2010  Balance and integrate uses;  Stimulate market driven development;  Create a unique, integrated, walkable urban environment;  Develop an overall urban design frame work;  Reinforce transit oriented development opportunities;  Maintain and enhance connectivity;  Create great neighborhoods; and  Provide for installation and maintenance of public improvements. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan encourages new development within the Platinum Triangle while providing the planning principles and details to carry out the City of Anaheim General Plan’s vision for this area. The mixed use areas of the Platinum Triangle are divided into five mixed use districts: the Arena District, the Katella District, the Stadium District, the Gene Autry District, and the Gateway District. The majority of the project site is located northeast of the Stadium District, with the southern portion of the site extending into it. Under the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the PTMU Overlay Zone, the portion of the ARTIC site that includes the Stadium Pavilion is within the Stadium District; the landing area for the pedestrian bridge, north of Katella Avenue, is within the Arena District. Development principles of the Stadium District include:  Creating a sustainable balance between everyday land use/services and more intermittent special events activity;  Separate major event circulation and parking from existing and future rail and bus facilities, office, retail, and residential uses;  Provide an internal, pedestrian-scale, “promenade” street that allows walkable access to the transit stations and links the transit oriented development to the adjacent districts;  Balance regional transit access and mixed use place-making to allow the maximum number of workers and residents to be within a five minute walking distance from the stations;  Provide attractive urban streets lined with active ground floor uses and a scale of street width and building placement that creates security, a comfortable human scale and energizes ground floor retail and entertainment uses; and ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-11 July 19, 2010  Encourage a full compliment of uses, including corporate office, for sale residential, rental residential, local professional office, local support retail and community service to create activity 365 days a year. Development principles of the Arena District include:  Create a balance between everyday land uses/services and more intermittent special event activity;  Provide a connection with the existing and future transit stations through Douglass Road; and  Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of Katella Avenue/Douglass Road. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan includes a Landscape Concept Plan, which serves to provide the Platinum Triangle with visual identity and reflect the character of the area, as well as reinforce links to the other areas of the City outside of the Platinum Triangle, including The Anaheim Resort. The Landscape Concept Plan is presented as Figure 3.1-3, and cross sections of the specific landscape concept for Katella Avenue, Douglass Road, and adjacent to the Amtrak- Metrolink ROW are included as Figure 3.1-4, Figure 3.1-5, and Figure 3.1-6. Katella Avenue: The Landscape Concept Plan along Katella Avenue includes the grove-style planting of date palms in the median with flowering vines attached to the trunk of the palm and a single species of flowering shrubs and/or groundcover. The 6-foot wide parkways consist of Mexican Fan Palms with low flowering shrubs and/or groundcover. A 7-foot wide sidewalk is located between the parkway and the setback area. Douglass Road: The Landscape Concept Plan for Douglass Road prescribes a double row of Mexican Fan Palms to be planted within 8-foot parkways and the adjacent setback areas. A 5-foot wide sidewalk is located between the parkway and the setback area. The median will not be landscaped to allow for better traffic flow in and out of the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Yellow Trumpet or similar vines will be attached to the base of the palm trunks and red Daylilies or similar low red flowering shrub will be planted in the parkway. Adjacent to the Amtrak/Metrolink ROW: The Landscape Concept Plan for properties adjacent to the Amtrak/Metrolink ROW consists of Mexican Fan Palms alternating with citrus trees within the 10-foot setback area adjacent to the Amtrak/Metrolink ROW. Anaheim Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) The portion of the project site west of SR-57 and east of SR-57, north of Katella Avenue is within the PR (PTMU) Overlay Zone, which means that the property can be developed according to its base zone, the PR Zone or in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone. The portion of the project site east of the SR 57, south of Katella Avenue, is within the SP Zone (see Figure 3.1-1). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-12 July 19, 2010 ARTIC is proposed to be developed according to the development standards for the PR and SP Zones. Both of these zones are categorized as Public and Special Purpose Zones. Development of a transit facility within these zones requires approval of a CUP. The following development standards are determined as part of the approval process for projects that require a CUP in the PR and SP Zone.  Minimum Site Area;  Lot Width;  Maximum Structural Height; and  Structural Setbacks. Additional standards that apply to development within the PR and SP Zones are:  The size and shape of the site proposed for the use shall be adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the zone;  Adequate provisions shall be made for the safe and orderly circulation of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic between the proposed site and all streets and highways, and between coordinated facilities, accessways or parking areas on adjacent sites;  Adequate provisions shall be made for loading and unloading of persons, supplies and materials in a manner that does not obstruct required parking and accessways or impact adjacent land uses;  The proposed development shall not limit or adversely affect the growth and development potential of adjoining lands or the general area in which it is proposed to be located  Parking and loading requirements are set forth in Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Code. The parking requirements for a transit facility are determined by the Planning Services Manager of the Planning Department and/or his or her designee and/or the Planning Commission based on information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer;  Signs must be in conformance with Chapter 18.44 (Signs) of the Zoning Code;  Landscaping, fences, walls and hedges are subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) of the Zoning Code; and  Refuse storage must conform to the document "Minimum Acceptable Trash Collection Areas" on file with the Public Works Department. The storage shall be designed, located and/or screened so as not to be readily identifiable or visible from adjacent streets, ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-13 July 19, 2010 adjacent residential uses and zones, or other public rights-of-way. Recycling bins also shall be provided. There are no prescribed development standards that apply to development within the PR and SP Zones for lot depth and orientation, floor area, lot coverage, and structural location and orientation ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-23 July 19, 2010 Orange County Flood Control District The Orange County Flood Control Act of 1927 created the OCFCD to provide for the control and conservation of flood and stormwaters, and to protect property and lives from flood damage. OCFCD works cooperatively with cities to reduce the potential for flooding within the County of Orange by constructing flood control facilities that provide 100-year flood event protection. Orange County Department of Public Works Flood Control Division The mission of the Orange County Department of Public Works (OCPW) Flood Control Division is to “protect Orange County areas from the threat and damage of flooding.” ARTIC is bounded on its eastern border by the Santa Ana River, which is considered a potential flood hazard. The Santa Ana River Mainstem project is a project designed and implemented to provide flood protection for residences and business in the southern California communities of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. All three counties coordinated with the USACE to design and construct the project. The section of the Santa Ana River that borders ARTIC is channelized. The channel levees serve to assist in the protection of the surrounding areas from flooding (OCPW Flood Control Division, 2010). United States Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Mainstem Project The USACE’s Santa Ana River Mainstem project is a project designed and implemented to provide flood protection for residences and business in the Southern California communities of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The USACE was consulted by all three counties to provide comments regarding project design and construction to ensure the flood control measures and structures are not impacted. Orange County Transportation Authority OCTA is a multi-modal transportation agency serving the County of Orange. OCTA began in 1991 with the consolidation of seven separate transportation agencies. OCTA is the County of Orange’s primary provider of public transportation, operating in a 798 square-mile area serving more than 3 million residents in 34 cities and unincorporated areas. OCTA provides services for bus, rail feeder, rail, and the 91 Express Lanes. 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Land Use are defined by: a) Would the project physically divide an established community? b) Would the project 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? c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-24 July 19, 2010 3.1.4 Project Impacts ARTIC requires the following discretionary approvals: a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010- 00480), an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010-00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). The General Plan Amendment will modify Figure C-1 (Planned Roadway Network) of the General Plan Circulation Element to classify Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue as a Secondary Arterial. This amendment is intended to provide consistency between the street classification and the existing street design. The amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will allow for greater flexibility of the streetscape improvements prescribed by the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to meet the specific design needs of ARTIC including the proposed pedestrian bridge. A CUP is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code for a transit facility to be developed and operated within the PR and SP Zones. a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact) ARTIC is located in an area of the City known as the Platinum Triangle. It is an area within Anaheim that includes Angel Stadium, the Honda Center and The Grove of Anaheim. ARTIC will be constructed in an area that is bordered to the south by SR-57, Douglass Road to the west, Katella Avenue to the north, and the Santa Ana River to the east. The section of railroad associated with ARTIC will operate entirely within an existing rail corridor and its adjacent parcels will be in an area where the railroad facilities have long been part of the local community setting. Implementation of ARTIC will not restrict the movement of people or physically divide an established community. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project 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 impact? (No Impact) The properties that surround ARTIC are primarily designated as mixed use, which accommodates a variety of uses. Figure 3.1-5 provides an overview of land uses within and adjacent to ARTIC. ARTIC will be compatible with existing and planned land uses within the City. The proposed General Plan amendment pertains to the General Plan Circulation Element and is intended to provide consistency between the street classification and the existing street design and does not pertain to land use. The amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will allow for greater flexibility of the streetscape improvements prescribed by the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to meet the specific design needs of ARTIC. The streetscape for ARTIC will be compatible with the intent of the Landscape Concept Plan to create a memorable, unified and civic-scaled public landscape for the Platinum Triangle and the overall vision of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to create a unique, integrated, walkable urban environment. The proposed project will comply with the development standards for the PR and SP Zones, including those standards that will be determined as part of the approval of a CUP for the transit facility. The evaluation of potential environmental consequences associated with land use reveals consistency with existing and future land uses at ARTIC. City and local land use plans anticipate and support ARTIC, as outlined below: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-25 July 19, 2010  The City of Anaheim General Plan aims to support the “vision” of the City by encouraging growth and utilizing mixed-use areas within the Platinum Triangle, limiting traffic impacts and encouraging alternate means of transportation, and promoting economic development. Other related objectives of the City of Anaheim General Plan include, ensuring compatibility between adjacent land use, creating a dynamic, identifiable sense of place, and taking advantage of existing and implementing new transit to reduce traffic impacts. A specific goal of the City is to establish the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center, and part of the City’s policy to execute this goal is through encouraging the development of ARTIC;  The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and PTMU Overlay Zone provide opportunities for future commercial, office, residential and mixed-use development near existing transit facilities. Part of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan vision includes ARTIC. Other planning principles to support the vision of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan include helping to stimulate market driven development, creating a unique, integrated community, linking housing to employment, and maintaining and enhancing connectivity; and  ARTIC is located on properties within the PR and SP Zones. The intent of the PR Zone is to establish for the benefit of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim and its visitors, a zone to preserve, regulate and control the orderly use and enjoyment of City-owned properties and facilities and adjacent private property. The intent of the SP Zone is to provide locations for uses that support civic, governmental, cultural, health, educational, recreational, and infrastructure uses of the community. The proposed project meets the intent of these zones and will comply with the applicable development standards prescribed by the Anaheim Municipal Code. ARTIC will be compatible with planned land uses and is consistent with the City’s policies and regulations concerning land use, zoning ordinances, and codes. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) No habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans apply to ARTIC. ARTIC will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP). No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC will comply with zoning designations, applicable municipal codes, and be consistent with both the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the City of Anaheim General Plan. There is no impact from ARTIC as a result of cumulative effects. 3.1.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan; ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Land Use and Planning ARTIC Draft EIR 3.1-26 July 19, 2010  Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; and  Anaheim Municipal Code. 3.1.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have no impact on land use. 3.1.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have no impact on land use. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.1.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have no impact on land use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-1 July 19, 2010 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix B of this EIR: Traffic Impact Analysis, ARTIC, Anaheim, California. Prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) Engineers, July 2010. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC Traffic Study Area SR-57 bisects the project site and provides primary regional access to ARTIC through both north and southbound ramps that exit onto Katella Avenue. The principal local network of streets serving ARTIC consists of; Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Struck Avenue, Collins Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street, Manchester Avenue, Anaheim Way, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Howell Avenue, Douglass Road, Eckhoff Street, Main Street and Batavia Street. Existing Street Network The following is a description of the local street network. Katella Avenue is an east-west roadway that borders ARTIC on the north. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Katella Avenue is a six- lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. The intersections of Katella Avenue at Manchester Avenue/I-5 SB Ramps, Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps, Lewis Street, State College Boulevard, Sportstown, Howell Avenue, SR-57 SB Ramps, SR-57 NB Ramps, Douglass Road, Struck Avenue, Main Street, and Batavia Street are controlled by traffic signals. Cerritos Avenue is an east-west roadway located north of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Cerritos Avenue is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Struck Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on the south side of the roadway, but is permitted on the north side of the roadway, within the ARTIC vicinity. Struck Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a double-yellow line. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Collins Avenue is an east-west roadway located east of ARTIC. West of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four-lane undivided roadway with on-street parking permitted on both sides of the roadway. East of Main Street, Collins Avenue is a four lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. On-street parking is not permitted in the vicinity of ARTIC. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Orangewood Avenue is an east-west roadway located south of ARTIC. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. Orangewood ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-2 July 19, 2010 Avenue is primarily a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median, with on-street parking restricted on both sides of the roadway. West of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 40 mph. East of Eckhoff Street, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street is a north-south roadway located west of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. South of Katella Avenue, Haster Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of Katella Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard is a six-lane roadway divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Manchester Avenue is a one-way roadway located west of ARTIC trending in a southeast direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. Manchester Avenue is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Anaheim Way is a one-way roadway located west of ARTIC trending in a northwest direction. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the vicinity of ARTIC. Anaheim Way is a three-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Lewis Street is a north-south roadway located west of ARTIC. On-street parking is generally prohibited in the study area except between Katella Avenue and Anaheim Way where on-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. North of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane. South of Katella Avenue, Lewis Street is a two-lane undivided roadway. North of Anaheim Way, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 45 mph. State College Boulevard is a north-south roadway located west of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. State College Boulevard is primarily a six-lane divided roadway. South of Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard is an eight-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Howell Avenue is an east-west roadway located north-west of ARTIC. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Howell Avenue is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Douglass Road is a north-south roadway that borders ARTIC on the west. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. North of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane, and south of Katella Avenue, Douglass Road is a four-lane undivided roadway. Eckhoff Street is a north-south roadway located south-east of ARTIC. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. South of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit is 25 mph. North of Orangewood Avenue, Eckhoff Street is a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-3 July 19, 2010 Main Street is a north-south roadway located east of ARTIC. South of Collins Street, on-street parking is not permitted on the west side of the roadway, but is permitted on the east side of the roadway, within the vicinity of ARTIC. North of Collins Avenue, on-street parking is generally permitted. Main Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. North of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 40 mph. South of Orangewood Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Batavia Street is a north-south roadway located east of ARTIC. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the roadway within the ARTIC vicinity. Batavia Street is a four-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. An inventory of the existing roadway conditions within the study area is presented in Figure 3.2-1. The number of travel lanes and intersection controls for the key area study intersections are also identified. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the 12 key study intersections, along with existing daily two-way traffic volumes for the eight key roadway segments, were provided by the City. The traffic analysis included existing (i.e. baseline) and future (near term and long term) weekday AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic conditions, Year 2013 and Year 2030 traffic conditions With and Without ARTIC. Seven driveways for ARTIC were also included in the analysis for the near term with ARTIC scenarios. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-4 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-7 July 19, 2010 Traffic Study Area Intersections The study intersections listed below are locations that were evaluated for ARTIC. These existing key study intersections and the seven future ARTIC driveways listed below were selected based on the “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies as well as discussions with the City staff. The key study intersections and driveways are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue (City); 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue (City); 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue (City); 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue (City); 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue (City); 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue (City); 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue (City of Orange); 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange); 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue (City of Orange); 13. Douglass Road at Driveway 1 (Future); 14. Douglass Road at Driveway 2 (Future); 15. Douglass Road at Driveway 3 (Future); 16. Douglass Road at Driveway 4 (Future); 17. Douglass Road at Driveway 5 (Future); 18. Douglass Road at Driveway 6 (Future); and 19. Katella Avenue at Driveway 7 (Future). Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and daily traffic volumes for the 12 key study intersections are presented in Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-3, and 3.2-4, respectively. Traffic Study Area Roadway Segments The eight roadway segments listed below were selected based on the arterial network within the study area: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way (City); 2. Katella Avenue between Anaheim Way and Lewis Street (City); 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard (City); 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown (City); 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue (City); 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway (City); 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street (Cities of Anaheim and Orange); and 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street (City of Orange). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-8 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-15 July 19, 2010 City of Orange The study area was based on the location of ARTIC and “51 or more peak hour trips threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange uses the same methodology to determine intersections to be analyzed in Traffic Impact Studies. The City of Orange sent a scoping letter requesting the analysis of 12 intersections within the City of Orange. In response, the analysis of all 12 requested intersections was conducted to see if they met the minimum peak hour trip threshold. Those City of Orange intersections that were forecast to receive 51 or more peak hour trips from ARTIC were further scrutinized to determine whether ARTIC would create significant traffic impacts in connection with the identified City of Orange intersections because they did not receive 51 or more peak hour trips. Caltrans Facilities There were four Caltrans intersections/ramps within the ARTIC vicinity selected for analysis. These four intersection/ramps were identified within the 19 key intersections and driveways evaluated for the project. The four intersections are: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue In addition to the freeway/street intersection analysis the need for a Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was identified. The locations identified for this analysis included; Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Avenue 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Avenue Weaving Analysis 1. R-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue off- ramp 2. R-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue off- ramp ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-16 July 19, 2010 3. R-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road off-ramp 4. R-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue off-ramp Also the need for Freeway Segment Analysis was identified for the following four Caltrans freeway segments: 1. R-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 2. R-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 3. R-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 4. R-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Traffic Study Methodology The following is a brief discussion of the methodology utilized for the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix In order to assess ARTIC’s impact on future traffic conditions, the traffic analysis included existing (i.e. baseline) and future (near term and long term) weekday AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic conditions for existing (i.e. baseline), Year 2013 and Year 2030 cumulative traffic conditions With and Without ARTIC. Capacity Analysis Methodologies Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the 12 key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 for unsignalized intersections. Methodology outlined in Chapter 16 of the HCM 2000 for signalized intersections was utilized for the Caltrans Analysis. Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the ICU method in conformance with City requirements. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Per City requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 Vehicles per Hour (VPH) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service (LOS) calculation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-17 July 19, 2010 The ICU value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3.2-1. Table 3.2-1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (ICU Methodology) LOS Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) LOS Description A  0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue HCM Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The 2000 HCM unsignalized intersection methodology was utilized in the analysis of stop- controlled intersections. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, this methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the LOS for each movement. The overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle and LOS is then calculated for the entire intersection. The HCM control delay value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the LOS for that approach. The HCM delay value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 3.2-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-18 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-2 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) LOS HCM Delay Value (sec/veh) LOS Description A  10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and  15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and  25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and  35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and  50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that will result during ideal conditions i.e., no traffic control, geometric delay or incidents, and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In Chapter 16 of the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of the HCM (1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped delay. LOS criteria for HCM evaluated traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of LOS that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 3.2-3. Table 3.2-3 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM) LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) (s/v) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle may also contribute to low delay. B > 10.0 and < 20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C > 20.0 and < 35.0 Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-19 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-3 (cont’d) Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM) LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) (s/v) Level of Service Description D > 35.0 and < 55.0 Long traffic delays. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E > 55.0 and < 80.0 Very long traffic delays. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. -F  80.0 Severe congestion. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) In conformance with the City criteria, existing daily operating conditions for the existing key study roadway segments have been investigated using the V/C method. The V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment based on 24-hour traffic count data and the existing roadway capacity based on the City’s classification of each roadway. All of the roadway segments are for Katella Avenue. The City of Anaheim General Plan, Circulation Element and Orange County Highway Design Manual (September 1991) classifications are presented in Table 3.2-4. Table 3.2-4 Daily Roadway Segment Capacities Type of Arterial Lane Configuration LOS E Capacity (Vehicles per Day (VPD)) Major 6-Lanes Divided 56,300 Major 8-Lanes Divided 75,000 Existing Levels of Service Intersections A summary of the existing peak hour LOS calculations for the 12 key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry is provided in Table 3.2-5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-20 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-5 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Existing With Project With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A 0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.503 A 0.010 No Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.497 A 0.001 No 3. Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.485 A 0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.653 B 0.007 No 4. State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.446 A 0.020 No Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.540 A 0.009 No 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.329 A -0.004 No Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.460 A -0.001 No 6. Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.378 A 0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.555 A 0.004 No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.402 A 0.441 A 0.039 No PM 0.407 A 0.429 A 0.022 No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.440 A 0.077 No Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.433 A 0.032 No 9. Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.437 A 0.029 No Katella Avenue PM 0.492 A 0.685 B 0.193 No 10. Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.284 A 0.004 No Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.349 A 0.005 No 11. Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.512 A 0.011 No Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.504 A 0.009 No 12. Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.544 A 0.010 No Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.506 A 0.006 No Roadway Segments A summary of the existing LOS calculations for the eight key study roadway segments based on existing daily traffic volumes and current roadway geometry is provided in Table 3.2-6. All the existing key study roadway segments are currently operating at acceptable LOS C or better except ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-21 July 19, 2010 for the roadway segment of Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and SR-57 Southbound Ramps, which currently operate at an adverse LOS D. Table 3.2-6 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-22 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-6 (cont’d) Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Caltrans Analysis Methods Caltrans requires the use of methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the analysis of signalized ramp intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments. The four intersection/ramps listed below are Caltrans’ intersections/ramps and were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) Methodology: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue The minimum required Level of Service to be maintained at Caltrans intersections/ramps is LOS D as identified by Caltrans District 12 staff. In addition, Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following eight Caltrans ramps: Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-23 July 19, 2010 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Avenue Weaving Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp Freeway Segment Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Freeway Mainline and Ramp Merge/Diverge Points The freeway mainline and freeway ramp criteria are based on peak hour HCM 2000 density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM 2000 and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing count data provided by Caltrans. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software, the electronic version of the HCM 2000 for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM 2000 methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influence area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps:  Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge;  Determination of the capacity for the segment; and  Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and it’s LOS. The LOS for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM 2000. Freeway mainline LOS are similarly determined from segment density. Table 3.2-7 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-24 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-7 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service Criteria (HCM) LOS Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Weaving segments are formed when merge areas are followed by diverge areas within 2,500 feet of the merge area. Auxiliary lanes do not need to be present to be defined a weaving area. Weaving analysis uses the most current version of the HCM 2000 and provides a density for the weaving area within the freeway segment and corresponding LOS. Freeway weaving analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software to weaving areas. According to HCM 2000, the weaving analysis supersedes ramp merge/diverge analysis and therefore were not analyzed for identified weaving segments. Table 3.2-8 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. Table 3.2-8 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service Criteria (HCM) LOS Freeway Weaving Area Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 E ≤ 43.0 F >43.0 Similarly, Freeway Segment Analysis was also conducted using the methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the following four Caltrans freeway segments: 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-25 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Existing Conditions The Caltrans study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, as indicated in Table 3.2-9. Table 3.2-9 Caltrans Existing Intersection Traffic Conditions Caltrans Existing Traffic Conditions for Merge/Diverge Analysis All four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours during the existing traffic conditions, as identified in Table 3.2-10. Table 3.2-10 Caltrans Existing Merge/Diverge Traffic Conditions Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B Katella Avenue PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B Eastbound Katella Avenue PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C Westbound Katella Avenue PM 6,690 460 25.4 C Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 C Katella Avenue PM 17.8 C 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B Katella Avenue PM 8.1 B 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 B Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-26 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Existing Traffic Conditions for Weave Analysis Of the four Caltrans locations the PM peak hours operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse. The LOS during the AM and PM peak hours during the existing traffic conditions are identified in Table 3.2-11. Table 3.2-11 Existing Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Freeway Ramp Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E Impact Criteria and Thresholds In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of ARTIC, a multi step process was utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations and/or rates to ARTIC development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound ARTIC traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-27 July 19, 2010 The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of ARTIC traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway segments and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. For intersections and arterial segments, significant impacts are determined using the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Under the General Plan Build-out scenarios, these locations are governed by the City’s Growth Management Element. All State owned facilities are analyzed consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for all scenarios. Intersections According to the City of Anaheim’s General Plan, Circulation Element and stated in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak commute hours on all City intersections. LOS C is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis for roadway segments. The City of Orange also utilizes LOS D as the performance standard for intersections. The relative impact of the added traffic volumes generated by ARTIC during the AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key study intersections, With and Without, ARTIC. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future delay or volume-to-capacity relationships and LOS characteristics at each study intersection. In determining whether ARTIC will have a significant impact on the signalized study intersections, the sliding scale criteria presented in Table 3.2-12 was used. Table 3.2-12 Significant Impact Criteria Level of Service (LOS) Final V/C Ratio ARTIC-Related Increase in V/C C > 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05 D > 0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01 ARTIC-related increase in ICU value that defines a significant impact at signalized intersections varies with LOS as indicated in Table 3.2-9. For the unsignalized intersections, this analysis defines a significant impact as a decrease in LOS by one level or more for those locations operating at LOS D, E, or F. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-28 July 19, 2010 For General Plan Build-out analysis, consistent with the City’s Growth Management Element, ARTIC is deemed to have a significant impact if it results in deterioration from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS or an increase in the ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection currently operates at LOS E or F under Without ARTIC conditions. Arterial Segments ARTIC is deemed to have a significant impact on roadway segments if it results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS D, E, or F) coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. It is also deemed have a significant impact if it results in an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily Without ARTIC conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, ARTIC is deemed to have a significant impact if it results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) or causes an increase in the daily ICU value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily Without ARTIC conditions. Caltrans Facilities Caltrans District 12 has established that LOS D is the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities. Caltrans has determined that all state owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify ARTIC related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The relative impact of the added traffic volumes generated by ARTIC on a daily basis was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key roadway segments. The capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and LOS characteristics at each roadway segment. 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting Local Policies and Regulations Southern California Area Governments SCAG is the regional governing body for the south coast region, which includes the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial. Regional associations of governments were created by the state to guide land use decisions that overlap multiple local jurisdictions and to provide policy guidance to the region. The SCAG serves as southern California’s forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG’s responsibilities under federal law as a MPO include developing and adopting a long range RTP every four years. The RTP serves as a basis for transportation decision making in the region and involves the preparation of long range transportation plans and development. The RTP also provides for the adoption of transportation improvement programs that allocate state and federal funds for highway, transit, and other surface transportation projects. The RTP includes ARTIC as part of its guide to provide strategic direction and transportation investments during the applicable time period. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-29 July 19, 2010 SCAG is responsible for developing and approving a short term component of the long range RTP, known as the RTIP. The RTIP is updated every two years and is used to determine and prioritize how much federal funding state and local agencies in the region receive in a five-year time span. City of Anaheim General Plan Goal 2.1 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element is to maintain efficient traffic operations on city streets and a peak hour LOS not worse than D at street intersections. Goal 2.3 encourages improving regional access for City residents and workers by engaging in regional and inter-jurisdictional planning efforts, implementing state and regional growth management plans, and implementing public transportation services, including the development of ARTIC. City of Orange General Plan The Circulation and Mobility Plan within the City of Orange General Plan refers to the LOS levels discussed in the Orange County Management Program (City of Orange, 2010). The Circulation and Mobility Plan describes goals, policies, and implementation programs that seek to achieve a better balance between vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel, and provides a wide range of viable transportation options to City of Orange residents. The specific issues discussed include: enhancing the local circulation system; maintaining the regional circulation system; maintaining a viable public transportation network; creating a comprehensive system of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways; providing adequate parking facilities; and improving circulation system aesthetics and safety. 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Transportation and Traffic is defined by: a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic loads and capacity of the street system as measured by the applicable performance standards, or exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by a congestion management agency? b) Would the project 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? c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? e) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-30 July 19, 2010 3.2.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic loads and capacity of the street system as measured by the applicable performance standards, or exceed, either individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by a congestion management agency? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) ARTIC Trip Generation Forecast Volumes The existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station generates 1,015 daily trips (one-half arriving and one-half departing), with 183 trips (119 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour, and 223 trips (86 inbound, 137 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Traffic generation for the AM and PM peak hours was derived using the factors provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use Codes 090 and 093. The trip rate includes buses, taxis, and shuttles. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour existing Station trips at the key study intersections are presented in Table 3.2-13. Table 3.2-13 ARTIC Traffic Trip Generation Rates and Forecast ARTIC Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Factors: ARTIC (TE/PS) 4.91 0.67 0.17 0.84 0.15 0.54 0.69 ARTIC Trip Generation Forecast: ARTIC North Parking Lot - (323 Spaces) 1,586 216 55 271 48 174 222 ARTIC South Parking Lot - (232 Spaces) 1,139 155 39 194 35 125 160 Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot - (405 Spaces) 1,989 271 69 340 61 219 280 ARTIC Trip Generation Forecast 4,714 642 163 805 144 518 662 Existing Station Trip Generation: Metrolink/Amtrak Parking Lot 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Existing ARTIC Trip Generation 1,015 119 64 183 86 137 223 Net ARTIC Traffic Generation Forecast = - 3,699 523 99 622 58 381 439 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-31 July 19, 2010 ARTIC Traffic Distribution and Assignment The directional traffic distribution patterns at the key study intersections for the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station condition and ARTIC are presented in Figure 3.2-5 and Figure 3.2-6, respectively. Traffic volumes, both entering and exiting the site, have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:  Anaheim Metrolink Station Trip Access Distribution Survey;  The Station’s proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. SR-57, Katella Avenue, etc.);  Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals;  Traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the Station;  Existing intersection traffic volumes; and  Ingress/egress availability at the Station. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-32 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-37 July 19, 2010 Existing + ARTIC Traffic Volumes The estimates of ARTIC-generated traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic conditions to develop traffic distribution for the Existing + ARTIC traffic conditions. Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Volumes In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of ARTIC, anticipated Year 2013 traffic volumes were calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 + ARTIC volumes. The status of other known development projects (related projects) in the area has been researched at the City and has been included as part of the cumulative background settings for the Year 2013 traffic conditions. Based on information provided by the City there are 25 related projects located in the City that have been built but not fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. These 25 related projects have been included as part of the cumulative background setting. For the list see Appendix B, page 30. The traffic volumes for Year 2013 Without ARTIC in the AM and PM peak hour traffic at the twelve key study intersections and the eight key study roadway segments was provided by the City. Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Volumes The estimates of ARTIC generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions to develop traffic projections for the Year 2013 + ARTIC. 3.2.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Impact Analysis The existing conditions analysis establishes the basis for the future forecasts for ARTIC. This analysis was based on existing intersection and roadway segment counts collected in Year 2008 and provided by the City. The existing conditions analysis reflects these counts as well as existing lane configurations for all analyzed intersections and roadway segments. Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the key study intersections for existing traffic conditions With and Without ARTIC as shown in Table 3.2-14. Existing conditions both With and Without ARTIC indicate that the twelve key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B or better. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-38 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-14 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Existing + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.584 A 0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 0.004 No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.503 A 0.010 No Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.497 A 0.001 No 3. Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.485 A 0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.653 B 0.007 No 4. State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.446 A 0.020 No Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.540 A 0.009 No 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.329 A -0.004 No Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.460 A -0.001 No 6. Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.378 A 0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.555 A 0.004 No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.441 A 0.039 No Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.429 A 0.022 No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.440 A 0.077 No Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.433 A 0.032 No 9. Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.437 A 0.029 No Katella Avenue PM 0.492 A 0.685 B 0.193 No 10. Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.284 A 0.004 No Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.349 A 0.005 No 11. Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.512 A 0.011 No Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.504 A 0.009 No 12. Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.544 A 0.010 No Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.506 A 0.006 No Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis The daily LOS results at the key eight study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the existing traffic conditions with and without ARTIC as indicated in Table 3.2-15. All eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under existing traffic conditions. All eight of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A or B on a daily basis under Existing + ARTIC traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-39 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-15 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Year 2013 Traffic Impact Analysis Anticipated Year 2013 traffic volumes were calculated by interpolation of model growth. Background ambient traffic growth estimates have been calculated by interpolating between the existing volumes and the Year 2030 + ARTIC volumes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-40 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 Intersection Capacity Analysis A summary of the peak hour LOS results of the key study intersections for Year 2013 Without ARTIC and Year 2013 + ARTIC is presented in Table 3.2-16. Table 3.2-16 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With Project With Improve- ments ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 0.583 A 0.684 B 0.685 B 0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.660 B 0.664 B 0.004 No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.493 A 0.590 A 0.600 A 0.010 No Katella Avenue PM 0.496 A 0.697 B 0.698 B 0.001 No 3. Lewis Street at AM 0.484 A 0.656 B 0.658 B 0.002 No Katella Avenue PM 0.646 B 0.829 D 0.831 D 0.002 No 4. State College Boulevard at AM 0.426 A 0.639 B 0.648 B 0.009 No Katella Avenue PM 0.531 A 0.804 D 0.811 D 0.007 No 5. Sportstown at AM 0.333 A 0.433 A 0.429 A -0.004 No Katella Avenue PM 0.461 A 0.610 B 0.609 B -0.001 No 6. Howell Avenue at AM 0.377 A 0.465 A 0.476 A 0.011 No Katella Avenue PM 0.551 A 0.699 B 0.703 C 0.004 No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 0.402 A 0.496 A 0.545 A 0.049 No Katella Avenue PM 0.407 A 0.589 A 0.627 B 0.038 No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 0.363 A 0.414 A 0.491 A 0.077 No Katella Avenue PM 0.401 A 0.475 A 0.508 A 0.033 No ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-41 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-16 (cont’d) Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With Project With Improve- ments ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 9. Douglass Road at AM 0.408 A 0.442 A 0.441 A -0.001 No Katella Avenue PM 0.492 A 0.524 A 0.585 A 0.061 No 10. Struck Avenue at AM 0.280 A 0.304 A 0.308 A 0.004 No Katella Avenue PM 0.344 A 0.380 A 0.385 A 0.005 No 11. Main Street at AM 0.501 A 0.523 A 0.535 A 0.012 No Katella Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.520 A 0.529 A 0.009 No 12. Batavia Street at AM 0.534 A 0.560 A 0.570 A 0.010 No Katella Avenue PM 0.500 A 0.523 A 0.529 A 0.006 No ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-42 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-43 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis The daily LOS results at the eight key study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2013 traffic conditions is presented Table 3.2-17. Five of the eight key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The same five key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse or worse on a daily basis under Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions. To determine if ARTIC creates a significant impact, these segments are analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any peak hour deficiencies. Table 3.2-17 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arteria l LOS E Capacit y (VPD) Lane s Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volum e V/C Rati o LO S Daily Volum e V/C Rati o LO S Daily Volum e V/C Rati o LO S 1 . Katella Avenue between Mancheste r Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.62 2 B 53,229 0.94 5 E 53,449 0.94 9 E 2 . Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.62 2 B 53,195 0.94 5 E 53,565 0.95 1 E 3 . Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.53 7 A 45,127 0.80 2 D 45,497 0.80 8 D 4 . Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstow n Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.58 3 A 43,779 0.77 8 C 44,412 0.78 9 C 5 . Katella Avenue between Sportstow n and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.60 8 B 47,287 0.84 0 D 47,670 0.84 7 D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-44 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-17 (cont’d) Year 2013 Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arteria l LOS E Capacit y (VPD) Lane s Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volum e V/C Rati o LO S Daily Volum e V/C Rati o LO S Daily Volum e V/C Rati o LO S 6 . Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR- 57 Freewa y Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.67 5 B 52,195 0.92 7 E 52,578 0.93 4 E 7 . Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freewa y and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.52 6 A 38,732 0.68 8 B 39,471 0.70 1 C 8 . Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.51 2 A 36,039 0.61 0 B 36,445 0.61 7 B Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions These study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours as identified in Table 3.2-18. The study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic and no improvements are required. Table 3.2-18 Year 2013 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach (Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 1,691 0.530 A WB 3 2,736 1,680 0.614 B PM EB 3 3,249 1,732 0.533 A WB 3 3,363 2,453 0.729 C 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,022 0.633 B WB 3 2,964 1,274 0.430 A PM EB 3 3,249 1,711 0.527 A WB 3 3,192 2,200 0.689 B ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-45 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-18 (cont’d) Year 2013 Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach (Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Blvd Major AM EB 3 3,705 1,524 0.411 A WB 3 2,679 1,105 0.412 A PM EB 3 2,679 1,498 0.559 A WB 3 2,964 1,842 0.621 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,264 0.326 A WB 3 4,218 1,178 0.279 A PM EB 3 3,762 1,430 0.380 A WB 3 3,648 1,698 0.465 A 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 1,415 0.365 A WB 3 4,218 1,660 0.394 A PM EB 3 3,933 1,780 0.453 A WB 3 3,933 1,978 0.503 A Caltrans Facilities Year 2013 Caltrans Facilities Analysis (HCM Methodology) While the City requires the use of the ICU Methodology for analyzing ARTIC impacts, Caltrans requires the use of methods provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) for the analysis of signalized ramp intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments. The four intersections listed below are Caltrans’ ramp intersections and have been analyzed using the HCM 2000 Methodology: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; and 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue. It is expected that the results obtained from using the ICU methodology and the HCM methodology will be compatible and lead to similar conclusions. The two methods measure and analyze different travel flow characteristics, which lead to results that are not identical. The minimum required LOS to be maintained at Caltrans ramp intersections is LOS D as identified by Caltrans District 12 staff. Freeway Ramp Analysis for merge/diverge/weaving was also conducted using the methods provided in the HCM 2000 for the following eight Caltrans ramps: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-46 July 19, 2010 Merge/Diverge Analysis 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Katella Avenue; 2. I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue; 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Eastbound Katella Avenue; and 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Westbound Katella Avenue. Weaving Analysis 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp; 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off- Ramp; 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp; and 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp. Freeway Segment Analysis was also conducted using the methods provided in the HCM 2000 for the following four Caltrans freeway segments: 1. SR-57 Northbound from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue; 2. SR-57 Southbound from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue; 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road; and 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue. Year 2013 Caltrans Intersection Capacity Analysis A summary of the peak hour LOS results for the Year 2013 both With and Without ARTIC for the four Caltrans study intersections is presented in Table 3.2-19. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-47 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-19 Year 2013 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With ARTIC With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 22.1 C 21.5 C No Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B 19.9 B 19.5 B No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 14.4 B 13.0 B No Katella Avenue PM 17.8 B 24.2 C 25.4 C No 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 11.6 B 13.1 B No Katella Avenue PM 8.1 A 16.0 B 15.5 B No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 13.9 B 15.5 B No Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B 11.2 B 12.1 B No Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2013 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.2-20. None of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the existing traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing traffic conditions. None of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. None of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions. Year 2013 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2013 With and Without traffic conditions are presented in Table 3.2-21. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-48 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-20 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On- Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.9 B 4,828 213 19.3 B 4,828 217 19.3 B No Katella Avenue PM 7,230 280 26.8 C 7,471 306 27.5 C 7,471 321 27.4 C No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.7 A 5,735 626 2.6 A 5,735 647 2.8 A No Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue PM 6,930 200 1.2 A 7,121 247 2.0 A 7,121 250 2.0 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.3 B 4,087 326 17.6 B 4,087 311 17.5 B No Eastbound Katella Avenue PM 7,230 450 27.0 C 7,498 467 27.7 C 7,498 444 27.8 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 5,922 237 23.1 C 5,922 268 23.1 C No Westbound Katella Avenue PM 6,690 460 25.4 C 6,890 449 26.0 C 6,890 547 25.9 C No Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-49 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-21 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Freeway Ramp Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Yes/No Year 2013 With ARTIC With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln ) LOS Weaving Movement Volume A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 3,899 12 754 189 19.24 B 3,899 12 869 189 20.02 C No On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,140 15 590 359 32.33 D 7,140 15 602 359 32.42 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 5,820 10 736 150 28.44 D 5,820 10 736 172 28.62 D No 4,850 8 613 143 22.93 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 6,923 22 753 353 35.83 E 6,923 22 753 437 36.59 E Yes 5,769 18 628 364 29.09 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 3,691 10 854 152 23.46 C 3,691 10 854 188 23.76 C No 3,691 10 854 188 18.50 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 7,350 15 726 258 41.72 E 7,350 15 726 396 43.04 F Yes 7,350 15 726 396 33.42 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 5,313 30 850 609 35.32 E 5,313 30 1,038 609 37.10 E Yes 5,313 30 1,038 609 28.65 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 6,376 30 680 511 38.26 E 6,376 30 701 511 38.44 E Yes 6,376 30 701 511 29.88 D Notes: pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane (density). ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-51 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-21 indicates that two of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at adverse LOS under the existing traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 6,923 22 753 353 35.83 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp 7,350 15 726 258 41.72 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp 5,313 30 850 609 35.32 E 6,376 30 680 511 38.26 E ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-52 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 6,923 22 753 437 36.59 E 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off- Ramp 7,350 15 726 396 43.04 E 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 5,313 30 1038 609 35.83 E 6,376 30 701 511 38.44 E Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. Year 2013 Freeway Segment Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2013 traffic conditions are indicated below and summarized in Table 3.2-22. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-53 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-22 Year 2013 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Freeway Segment Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2013 With ARTIC With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 4,765 16.1 B 4,880 16.5 B No Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue PM 7,790 27.4 D 8,093 28.9 D 8,106 29.0 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 6,698 22.8 C 6,720 22.9 C No Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue PM 7,750 27.2 D 7,986 28.4 D 8,070 28.8 D No 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 4,679 19.8 C 4,715 20.0 C No 4,715 15.9 B Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM 7,950 42.7 E 8,243 OVRFL F 8,380 OVRFL F Yes 8,380 30.5 D 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 6,656 30.1 D 6,844 31.5 D No 6,844 23.4 C Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 7,380 36.1 E 7,582 38.2 E 7,603 38.4 E Yes 7,603 26.5 D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-54 July 19, 2010 Existing Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the existing traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 7,950 42.7 E 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 7,380 36.1 E Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 8,243 OVRFL F 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 7,582 38.2 E Year 2013 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans freeway segments operate at adverse LOS with addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining two Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2013 With ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 3. 3. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road 8,380 OVRFL F 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 7,603 38.4 E Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-55 July 19, 2010 2030 Analysis With and Without ARTIC Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Volumes The Year 2030 traffic volume forecasts were obtained from the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). ATAM is the traffic forecasting tool for the City and has been certified by the OCTA to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). ATAM relies upon OCTAM for the regional traffic component. OCTAM is based on and is consistent with the SCAG’s regional transportation model, incorporating adopted regional growth projections. As a sub-area model, ATAM incorporates the City of Anaheim General Plan within the City limits. As General Plan Amendments are processed, ATAM is updated to reflect any changes to the General Plan. ATAM contains every adopted project within the City’s limits. There are also a number of projects which are currently under various stages of analysis, and have been incorporated into ATAM for the purposes of this evaluation. The following projects listed below are some of the projects relevant to ARTIC but are separate, distinct, and independent from ARTIC in terms of funding, lead agency status, purpose and need and regulatory requirements. A complete list of all projects included in ATAM is included in the Section 3.2.5, Cumulative Impacts. Each relevant project listed below has undergone or is currently undergoing its own separate clearance process, including but not limited to CEQA and/or NEPA review. However, it is important to note that in order to be highly conservative, these projects are included in the cumulative analysis of this study. This is “highly conservative” because it is highly speculative as to whether many of these projects get constructed at all, much less by the 2030 timeline. This is particularly true with respect to the High Speed Rail project, the Desert Express and the California Nevada train. Some of the larger projects that are included in the cumulative impact analysis are:  Anaheim Rapid Connection;  California High-Speed Rail;   Desert Express;  Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion;  Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan;  City of Orange General Plan Update; and  Orange Center Specific Plan. Year 2030 Traffic Impact Analysis This analysis was performed with the application of the ATAM to obtain Year 2030 traffic volumes. Future trip activity is estimated and assigned throughout the study area. Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the key study intersections for Year 2030 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions are identified in Table 3.2-23. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-56 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-23 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 + ARTIC With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.583 A 0.761 C 0.768 C 0.007 No PM 0.524 A 0.803 D 0.804 D 0.001 No 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.493 A 0.936 E 0.946 E 0.010 Yes 0.815 D PM 0.496 A 0.896 D 0.897 D 0.001 No 0.776 C 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue AM 0.484 A 0.849 D 0.850 D 0.001 No 0.699 B PM 0.646 B 1.269 F 1.275 F 0.006 No 0.831 D 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue AM 0.426 A 0.928 E 0.937 E 0.009 No 0.900 D PM 0.531 A 0.978 E 0.985 E 0.007 No 0.852 D 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue AM 0.333 A 0.773 C 0.775 C 0.002 No 0.654 B PM 0.461 A 1.003 F 0.975 E -0.028 No 0.737 C 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue AM 0.377 A 0.611 B 0.622 B 0.011 No 0.622 B PM 0.551 A 0.945 E 0.949 E 0.004 No 0.845 D 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.402 A 0.702 C 0.712 C 0.010 No PM 0.407 A 0.690 B 0.691 B 0.001 No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.363 A 0.602 B 0.679 B 0.077 No PM 0.401 A 0.694 B 0.726 C 0.032 No 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue AM 0.408 A 0.973 E 1.035 F 0.062 Yes 0.840 D PM 0.492 A 1.052 F 1.077 F 0.025 Yes 0.868 D 10. Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue AM 0.28 A 0.669 B 0.673 B 0.004 No PM 0.344 A 0.806 D 0.809 D 0.003 No 11. Main Street at Katella Avenue AM 0.501 A 0.791 C 0.803 D 0.012 No PM 0.495 A 0.805 D 0.815 D 0.010 No 12. Batavia Street at Katella Avenue AM 0.534 A 0.757 C 0.766 C 0.009 No PM 0.5 A 0.765 C 0.771 C 0.006 No ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-57 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Six of the key study intersections are forecast to operate at adverse LOS E or worse for the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions are identified in Table 3.2-24. Table 3.2-24 Year 2030 Traffic Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 0.936 E 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue 1.269 F 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue 0.928 E 0.978 E 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue 1.003 F 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue 0.945 E 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue 0.973 E 1.052 F Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions The same six key study intersections are forecast to operate at adverse LOS E or worse for the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions and identified below in Table 3.2-25. Table 3.2-25 Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Key Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 0.946 E 3. Lewis Street at Katella Avenue 1.275 F 4. State College Boulevard at Katella Avenue 0.937 E 0.985 E 5. Sportstown at Katella Avenue 0.975 E 6. Howell Avenue at Katella Avenue 0.949 E 9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue 1.035 F 1.077 F Out of the six key study intersections operating at adverse LOS listed above, only two key study intersections (shown in bold and italic above) will be significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria defined in this report. Three of the remaining four intersections have cumulative impacts due to the increase in the ICU values. The intersection of Sportstown/Katella Avenue has improved LOS with ARTIC. Mitigation measures will be identified for all six intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-58 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis The daily LOS results at the key eight study roadway segments during a “typical” weekday for the Year 2030 traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.2-26. Five of the key study roadway segments are forecast to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions based on the LOS impact criteria. The same five key study roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at adverse LOS on a daily basis under Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions. These study roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, except for Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way as indicated in Table 3.2-27. Mitigation will be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-59 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-26 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 70,870 1.259 F 71,090 1.263 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 75,000 8D 35,040 0.622 B 70,720 0.943 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 75,000 8D 30,260 0.537 A 57,490 0.767 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 32,800 0.583 A 51,287 0.684 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 61,927 1.100 F 62,310 1.107 F 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 70,807 1.258 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Avenue between SR- 57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 62,161 1.104 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 51,164 0.865 D 51,570 0.872 D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-60 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-27 Year 2030 Roadway Segment Peak Hour LOS Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,720 0.852 D WB 3 2,736 2,620 0.958 E PM EB 3 3,249 3,580 1.102 F WB 3 3,363 3,690 1.097 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major AM EB 4 4,256 3,310 0.778 C WB 4 3,952 2,350 0.595 A PM EB 4 4,332 3,730 0.861 D WB 4 4,256 3,780 0.888 D 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-61 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Facilities Analysis for 2030 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans study intersections for Year 2030 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions as presented below and summarized in Table 3.2-28. Table 3.2-28 Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Ramp Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) Yes/No Delay (s/v) Yes/No Yes/No Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I- 5 SB Ramps at AM 16.6 B 55.4 E 59.0 E Yes 33.7 C Katella Avenue PM 15.2 B 71.1 E 70.9 E Yes 22.6 C 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at AM 14.4 B 19.0 B 19.2 B No 16.4 B Katella Avenue PM 17.8 B 79.6 E 81.7 F Yes 54.0 D 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at AM 10.2 B 16.6 B 17.6 B No Katella Avenue PM 8.1 A 12.0 B 12.3 B No 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at AM 9.5 A 12.0 B 15.4 B No Katella Avenue PM 10.4 B 14.2 B 15.6 B No Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Two Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining two Caltrans study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 55.4 E 71.1 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 79.6 E Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions The same two Caltrans study intersections will continue to operate at an adverse LOS with addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are listed below: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-62 July 19, 2010 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Ave 59.0 E 70.9 E 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue 81.7 F Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Merge/Diverge Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the merge/diverge analysis for the Year 2030 With and Without ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-29. Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. Year 2030 + ARTIC Traffic Conditions None of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. All four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-63 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-29 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Merge/Diverge Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Freeway Ramp Analysis Type Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Ramp Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No 1. I-5 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,710 200 18.6 B 5,230 256 19.4 B 5,230 260 19.5 B No Katella Avenue PM 7,230 280 26.3 C 8,290 395 28.1 D 8,290 410 28.0 D No 2. I-5 Off-Ramp Southbound to Diverge Analysis AM 5,590 540 1.4 A 6,230 919 4.4 A 6,230 940 4.6 A No Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue PM 6,930 200 0.9 A 7,770 407 3.1 A 7,770 410 3.2 A No 3. SR-57 Northbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 4,010 300 17.2 B 4,350 415 14.8 B 4,350 400 14.7 B No Eastbound Katella Avenue PM 7,230 450 26.9 C 8,410 523 22.2 C 8,410 500 22.2 C No 4. SR-57 Southbound On-Ramp from Merge Analysis AM 5,490 240 21.7 C 7,390 229 25.7 C 7,390 260 25.7 C No Westbound Katella Avenue PM 6,690 460 25.3 C 7,570 412 26.1 C 7,570 510 26.0 C No ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-64 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Freeway Ramp Analysis (Weaving Analysis) The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans ramp locations for the weaving analysis for the Year 2030 traffic conditions are summarized in Table 3.2-30. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-65 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-30 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Weaving Analysis (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Freeway Ramp Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Traffic Conditions Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Weaving Movement Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C A-C B-D A-D B-C 1. SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Ave AM 3,860 10 730 150 18.66 B 4,030 20 835 320 19.22 B 4,030 20 950 320 19.95 B No On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,960 10 550 270 30.62 D 7,750 30 728 660 34.71 D 7,750 30 740 660 34.79 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave AM 5,490 10 700 150 26.59 C 6,940 10 860 148 31.33 D 6,940 10 860 170 31.50 D No 5,783 8 717 142 25.19 C On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,680 20 710 340 34.09 D 7,750 30 900 396 37.49 E 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E Yes 6,458 25 750 400 30.33 D 3. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave AM 3,600 10 840 140 22.80 C 4,000 10 900 194 18.14 B 4,000 10 900 230 18.34 B No 3,333 8 750 192 15.00 B On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 7,050 10 660 230 39.28 E 8,370 30 950 352 35.25 E 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E Yes 6,975 25 792 408 29.44 D 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd AM 4,890 30 840 600 32.99 D 6,750 30 882 640 39.13 E 6,750 30 1,070 640 40.79 E Yes 6,750 30 1,070 640 31.54 D On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 6,190 30 660 500 37.03 E 7,010 30 749 550 38.46 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E Yes 7,010 30 770 550 30.02 D ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-67 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 7,750 30 900 396 37.49 E 3 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 8,370 30 950 352 35.25 E 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 6,750 30 882 640 37.83 E 7,010 30 749 550 38.46 E Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Three of the four Caltrans ramp locations operate at an adverse LOS with the addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining Caltrans ramp location is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS A-C B-D A-D B-C Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 2. 2. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 7,750 30 900 480 38.20 E 3 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Ave On-Ramp and Ball Road Off- Ramp 8,370 30 950 490 36.17 E 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp 6,750 30 1,070 640 39.41 E 7,010 30 770 550 38.63 E Mitigation is required for the above identified impacts. Year 2030 Freeway Segment Analysis The peak hour LOS results at the four Caltrans freeway segments for the Year 2030 traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-31. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-68 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-31 Year 2030 Peak Hour Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Summary (Caltrans Facilities Analysis) Key Freeway Segment Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Year 2030 Without Project Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Year 2030 With Project With Improvements Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Yes/No Peak Hour Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 1. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,750 16.1 B 5,205 16.1 B 5,320 16.5 B No Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue PM 7,790 27.4 D 9,167 30.5 D 9,180 30.6 D No 2. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,350 21.5 C 7,958 25.2 C 7,980 25.2 C No Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue PM 7,750 27.2 D 9,076 30.1 D 9,160 30.5 D No 3. SR-57 Northbound from AM 4,590 19.4 C 5,104 15.8 B 5,140 15.9 B No Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM 7,950 42.7 E 9,703 33.6 D 9,840 34.5 D No 4. SR-57 Southbound from AM 6,360 28.2 D 8,302 38.4 E 8,490 40.4 E Yes 8,490 27.3 D Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 7,380 36.1 E 8,339 38.8 E 8,360 39.0 E Yes 8,360 26.8 D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-69 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions One Caltrans freeway segment is forecast to operate at an adverse LOS under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions. The location operating at adverse LOS is listed below: Key Freeway Segment PM Peak Hour Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) AM Peak Hour 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,302 38.4 E 8,339 38.8 E Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions One Caltrans freeway segment operates at an adverse LOS with addition of ARTIC traffic, when compared to the Caltrans criteria. The remaining three Caltrans freeway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. The locations operating at adverse LOS are listed below: Key Freeway Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Pk Hr Volume Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS 4. 4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue 8,490 40.4 E 8,360 39.0 E Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis The goals of 2009 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) are to support regional mobility and air quality objectives by reducing traffic congestion; provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy; and determine gas tax fund eligibility. To meet these goals, the CMP contains a number of policies designed to monitor and address system performance issues. OCTA developed the policies that makeup Orange County’s CMP with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and the SCAQMD. As Orange County’s Congestion Management Agency, OCTA is responsible for the administration of the CMP, as well as providing data and models that are consistent with the SCAG region, and developing the deficiency plan processes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-70 July 19, 2010 The 2009 Orange County CMP stipulates the requirements for maintaining LOS E at CMP intersections and roadway segments. The following four CMP intersections are located within the study area: 1. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue; and 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue. The following eight study area arterial segments are included in the CMP network: 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way; 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street; 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard; 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown; 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue; 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway; 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street; and 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street. Existing +ARTIC CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis A comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing traffic conditions and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-32. None of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of ARTIC traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS A for both the Existing and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-32 Existing +ARTIC Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Existing Traffic Conditions Existing +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Existing +ARTIC With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.583 A 0.584 A PM 0.524 A 0.528 A 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.493 A 0.503 A PM 0.496 A 0.497 A 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.402 A 0.441 A PM 0.407 A 0.429 A 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.363 A 0.440 A PM 0.401 A 0.433 A ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-71 July 19, 2010 Existing +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis A comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Existing and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions Table 3.2-33. All eight CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Existing and Existing +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-33 Existing +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Existing Traffic Conditions Existing +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,260 0.626 B 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 35,040 0.622 B 35,410 0.629 B 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 30,260 0.537 A 30,630 0.544 A 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 32,800 0.583 A 33,433 0.594 A 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 34,240 0.608 B 34,623 0.615 B 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR- 57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 37,990 0.675 B 38,373 0.682 B 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 29,610 0.526 A 30,349 0.539 A 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 30,280 0.512 A 30,686 0.519 A Year 2013 +ARTIC CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis A comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-34. None of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of ARTIC traffic based on the CMP ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-72 July 19, 2010 criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS B or better for both the Year 2013 Without ARTIC and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-34 Year 2013 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.684 B 0.685 B PM 0.660 B 0.664 B 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.590 A 0.600 A PM 0.697 B 0.698 B 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.496 A 0.545 A PM 0.589 A 0.627 B 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.414 A 0.491 A PM 0.475 A 0.508 A Year 2013 +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis A comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2013 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions as presented in Table 3.2-35. All eight of the CMP roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better for both the Year 2013 Without ARTIC and Year 2013 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-35 Year 2013 CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 53,229 0.945 E 53,449 0.949 E 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 56,300 6D 53,195 0.945 E 53,565 0.951 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 56,300 6D 45,127 0.802 D 45,497 0.808 D 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 56,300 6D 43,779 0.778 C 44,412 0.789 C ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-73 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-35 (cont’d) Year 2013 CMP Roadway Segment Daily LOS Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Year 2013 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2013 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 47,287 0.840 D 47,670 0.847 D 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 52,195 0.927 E 52,578 0.934 E 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 38,732 0.688 B 39,471 0.701 C 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 36,039 0.610 B 36,445 0.617 B Year 2030 +ARTIC CMP Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis A comparison between the ICU values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.3-36. None of the CMP intersections are impacted by the addition of ARTIC traffic based on the CMP criteria which stipulates maintaining LOS E at all CMP locations. All four CMP intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better after the implementation of the recommended improvements for both the Year 2030 Without ARTIC and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-36 Year 2030 Peak Hour CMP Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 +ARTIC With Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.761 C 0.768 C PM 0.803 D 0.804 D 2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.936 E 0.946 E 0.815 D PM 0.896 D 0.897 D 0.776 C 7. SR-57 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.702 C 0.712 C PM 0.690 B 0.691 B 8. SR-57 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue AM 0.602 B 0.679 B PM 0.694 B 0.726 C ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-74 July 19, 2010 Year 2030 +ARTIC CMP Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis A comparison between the V/C values and the corresponding LOS for the Year 2030 Without ARTIC traffic conditions and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions is presented in Table 3.3-37. Four CMP roadway segments operate at LOS F for both the Year 2030 Without ARTIC and Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions. Table 3.2-37 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Daily Levels of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial LOS E Capacity (VPD) Lanes Year 2030 Without ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major 56,300 6D 70,870 1.259 F 71,090 1.263 F 2. Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street Major 75,000 8D 70,720 0.943 E 71,090 0.948 E 3. Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard Major 75,000 8D 57,490 0.767 C 57,860 0.771 C 4. Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown Major 75,000 8D 51,287 0.684 B 51,920 0.692 B 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major 56,300 6D 61,927 1.100 F 62,310 1.107 F 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR- 57 Freeway Major 56,300 6D 70,807 1.258 F 71,190 1.264 F 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major 56,300 6D 62,161 1.104 F 62,900 1.117 F 8. Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street Major 59,115 6D 51,164 0.865 D 51,570 0.872 D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-75 July 19, 2010 These four segments were analyzed under peak hour conditions to determine if there are any capacity deficiencies on these segments. Three of the CMP roadway segments are forecast to operate at LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hours. These three study roadway segments are not significantly impacted by Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic and no improvements are required at these locations, as presented in Table 3.3-38. The one significantly impacted CMP roadway segment, the segment of Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way, will be mitigated by widening Katella Avenue from six to eight lanes. The envisioned pedestrian bridge spanning Katella Avenue would be constructed 20 feet wide to accommodate the future widening of Katella Avenue, and bridge supports within Katella Avenue would not be included. The recommended mitigation measure will offset the impact of the Year 2030 +ARTIC traffic conditions and bring the significantly impacted roadway segment to an acceptable LOS and is consistent with the 2009 Orange County CMP requirement. Table 3.2-38 Year 2030 CMP Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Type of Arterial Time Period Approach Lanes Total Link Capacity (VPH) Year 2030 +ARTIC Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Volume V/C Ratio LOS 1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Major AM EB 3 3,192 2,720 0.852 D WB 3 2,736 2,620 0.958 E PM EB 3 3,249 3,580 1.102 F WB 3 3,363 3,690 1.097 F 5. Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,170 0.560 A WB 3 4,218 1,870 0.443 A PM EB 3 3,762 2,510 0.667 B WB 3 3,648 2,740 0.751 C 6. Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway Major AM EB 3 3,876 2,430 0.627 B WB 3 4,218 2,310 0.548 A PM EB 3 3,933 2,770 0.704 C WB 3 3,933 3,190 0.811 D 7. Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street Major AM EB 3 3,705 2,960 0.799 C WB 3 3,705 2,240 0.605 B PM EB 3 4,161 2,260 0.543 A WB 3 4,161 3,620 0.870 D b) Would the project 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? (No Impact) The nearest public airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately 2 miles north of the City. Although the airport land use plan extends into the City, neither the airport nor land use plan zoning is in close proximity to ARTIC. There are also five heliports within the City. The closest heliport is the North Net Fire Training Center heliport, located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of ARTIC. Although this heliport is in close proximity to ARTIC, the construction and operation of ARTIC will not change or interfere with air traffic patterns. There will be no impact to this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-76 July 19, 2010 c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? (No Impact) The driveways, access, internal circulation, and rail platforms for ARTIC are designed to comply with City, state, and rail safety requirements. The safety requirements do not allow for incompatible use in close proximity to each other in order to avoid conflicts. This includes previsions such as constructing the envisioned pedestrian bridge to a height of 17 feet clear above Katella Avenue as to prevent the obstruction of traffic signals at Douglass Road. There will be no impact to this issue area. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) The driveways, access to the site, internal circulation, and rail platforms for ARTIC are designed to comply with City, state, and rail safety requirements including emergency access. There will be no impact to this issue area during operations. During construction the project contractor will coordinate with City personnel to ensure that emergency access is maintained and communicated to local first responders. There will be no impact to this issue area during construction. e) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (No Impact) ARTIC will be an intermodal center that will encourage public transit use by allowing transit riders to easily move between transit modes. ARTIC is designed so that there will be no encroachment or impact from construction or operations, on the existing Santa Ana River Trail. Users of the Trail can enter ARTIC from the driveway located on Katella Avenue. Pedestrian access is provided to and from ARTIC via designated walkways, including an envisioned pedestrian bridge spanning Katella Avenue from the project site to the Honda Center. The walkways will allow safe access to and from ARTIC to both Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. There will be no impact to this issue area. 3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts The construction and operation of ARTIC has been considered in both The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Traffic generated from the implementation of ARTIC does not vary from the projections in the General Plan traffic conditions of the area. ARTIC will provide a hub for rail and bus transportation facilities and will reduce overall vehicle traffic impacts in the area. The cumulative impact analysis contained in Traffic Impact Analysis Report evaluated related projects including many large projects that were considered to be the largest contributors to traffic at the 2030 timeline. These projects include, but are not limited to, the Anaheim Rapid Connection, California High-Speed Rail, Desert Express, the Platinum Triangle Project, The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan amendment, the City of Orange General Plan, and the Orange Center Specific Plan. The Traffic Analysis Report discussed numerous regulatory tools and fee ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-77 July 19, 2010 programs the City utilizes to mitigate identified traffic impacts to less than significant levels. Several of these important regulatory tools and programs are discussed below. 3.2.7 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  Congestion Management Plan. OCTA is responsible for adopting the CMP for Orange County. The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation decisions. Proposition 111, passed by California voters in June 1990, provides funds to those urbanized areas that adopt a CMP. In short, cities that contain CMP roadways within their jurisdictional boundaries receive CMP funding to improve these roadways if such roadways operate at deficient LOS (LOSE or below). In Anaheim, the CMP roadway system includes seven streets (Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Imperial Highway) and 15 intersections. The intersections located within The Platinum Triangle are the SR-57 northbound and southbound ramps at Katella Avenue. A standard of LOS E must be met at these locations. If it is not met, the City is responsible for developing a deficiency plan for these intersections.  Traffic Fee Program. Any development in the City of Anaheim is required to pay transportation impact fees per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the completion of the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. With the exception of the State facilities identified below, the intersections located within the City’s municipal boundary that are identified within this traffic impact analysis are contained within the City’s Traffic Fee Program. Like most city infrastructure fee programs, the City imposes traffic impact fees as development occurs. These fees are based on nexus studies and capital improvement program studies required by State law. These studies identify the total cost of infrastructure required to accommodate the circulation needs of the City at buildout 2030). Fees are then assessed on development, collected by the City, and are then placed in separate accounts pursuant to the requirements of State law. Fees collected are then used by the City to construct the infrastructure needed to accommodate the transportation demands of the City and to mitigate identified traffic impacts at the time such facilities are necessary and prior to the occurrence of a significant impact. The City has a demonstrated, proven track record of successfully implementing its traffic impact fee program. Many of the roadways already constructed or at various stages of construction within the Platinum Triangle are due to implementation of the City’s traffic impact fee program.  Community Facilities District. The City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle, including transportation. Nearly all of the mitigation measures in this study within the Platinum Triangle are already identified within the CFD and/or the City’s Traffic Fee Program. The CFD is programmed to provide funding for improvements in the Platinum Triangle identified previously and this study has identified additional improvements that will need to be funded on a fair-share basis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-78 July 19, 2010 3.2.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation This traffic impact analysis has identified the following impacts that will occur with the implementation of ARTIC: 2013 + ARTIC Impacts Intersections Improvements Since there were no impacted intersections under the Year 2013 With Project traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. It should be noted that the intersection of Douglass Road at Katella Avenue assumes a northbound lane configuration of 2NBL, 1NBTR and 1NBR for the + ARTIC as identified in the Project Description. Roadway Segments Improvements Since there were no impacted roadway segments under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the ARTIC will significantly impact one of the of the four key study ramp intersections. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the ramp intersection significantly impacted by the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Re-stripe the northbound approach to have one left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes. Modify the existing traffic signal and install a northbound right-turn overlap phase on the I-5 Southbound Ramp and an eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that ARTIC will significantly impact three of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-79 July 19, 2010  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that ARTIC will significantly impact two of the of the four key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2013 + ARTIC traffic:  SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2013 + ARTIC improvements with the resulting LOS are presented in Table 3.2-39. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-80 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-39 Year 2013 With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2013 With Project Traffic Conditions Year 2013 With Project Recommend Improvement Year 2013 With Project With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage Delay / Density LOS Delay / Density LOS I-1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Ramp Intersection AM 120.0 s/v F Construct a pedestrian island with buttons on the west leg. Re-stripe for 1NBL and 2NBR. Modify signal and install a NB and EB right- turn overlap phases. 35.4 s/v D 2.14% Katella Avenue PM 143.9 s/v F 50.7 s/v D W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp Weaving Segment AM 27.59 p/m/l C Add a 6th lane. 22.13 p/m/l C 6.47% and Orangewood Off- Ramp PM 35.24 p/m/l E 28.05 p/m/l D W-3. SR-57 NB between Katella Ave Weaving Segment AM 22.98 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 17.90 p/m/l B 8.34% On-Ramp and Ball Rd Off-Ramp PM 41.62 p/m/l E 32.33 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd Weaving Segment AM 35.83 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 27.69 p/m/l C 9.31% On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp PM 37.18 p/m/l E 28.91 p/m/l D F-3. SR-57 Northbound from Freeway Segment AM 19.8 p/m/l C Add a 5th lane. 15.9 p/m/l B 8.28% Katella Avenue to Ball Road PM OVRFL F 30.2 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Freeway Segment AM 31.2 p/m/l D Add a 5th lane. 23.3 p/m/l C 3.38% Ball Road to Katella Avenue PM 38.0 p/m/l E 26.4 p/m/l D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-81 July 19, 2010 2030 + ARTIC Impacts (Cumulative Impacts) Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the ARTIC will significantly impact two of the of the twelve key study intersections. While mitigation measures required for ARTIC related significant impacts, ARTIC will also contribute fair share costs for cumulative impacts under buildout conditions. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal.  Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Roadway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicates that one roadway segment will be significantly impacted based on the LOS impact criteria outlined in this report. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at this roadway segment significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six to eight lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. Caltrans Ramp Intersections Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact two of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp intersections. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp intersections significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue.  Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-82 July 19, 2010 It should be noted that the additional eastbound and westbound through lanes for both intersections are included as part of the roadway segment improvement to widen Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Merge/Diverge Analysis) Since there were no impacted ramp locations based on the merge/diverge analysis under the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions, no improvements have been recommended. Caltrans Ramp Locations Improvements (Weaving Analysis) The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the ARTIC will significantly impact two of the of the four key study Caltrans ramp locations based on the weaving analysis. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans ramp locations significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off- Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Freeway Segments Improvements The results of the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic conditions level of service analysis indicate that the proposed Project will significantly impact one of the of the four key study Caltrans freeway segments. The improvements listed below have been identified to mitigate the traffic impacts at the Caltrans freeway segments significantly impacted by the Year 2030 + ARTIC traffic:  SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway A Summary of Year 2030 + ARTIC improvements with the resulting LOS are presented in Table 3.2-40. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-83 July 19, 2010 Table 3.2-40 Year 2030 + ARTIC Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, Improvements And Project Related Fair-Share Percentage Summary Key Impacted Location Type of Location Time Period Year 2030 With ARTIC Traffic Conditions Year 2030 With ARTIC Recommend Improvement Year 2030 With ARTIC With Improvements Project Fair-Share Percentage ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS ICU/Delay/ V/C/Density LOS I-2. Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps at Katella Avenue Intersection AM 0.946 E Provide a 4th EBT and 5th WBT. Modify signal. 0.815 D 2.93% PM 0.897 D 0.776 C AM 115.8 s/v F 27.4 s/v C PM 53.6 s/v D 31.6 s/v C I-9. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue Intersection AM 1.035 F Widen/Restripe to provide 2NBL, 2NBT, 1 NBR, 2SBL, 2 SBT, and 1 SBR; Provide 4th EBT and 4th WBT. Modify signal. 0.840 D 13.57% PM 1.077 F 0.868 D RS-1. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way Roadway Segment EB AM 0.852 D Widen Katella Avenue from six to eight lanes. 0.639 B 0.95% WB PM 0.958 E 0.718 C EB AM 1.102 F 0.826 D WB PM 1.097 F 0.823 D I-1. Manchester Ave/I-5 SB Ramps at Katella Avenue Ramp Intersection AM 144.0 s/v F Construct a pedestrian island with buttons on the west leg. Provide a 4th EBT and 4th WBT. Modify signal and install EB right-turn overlap phase. 30.9 s/v C 2.14% PM 166.5 s/v F 43.8 s/v D W-2. SR-57 SB between Katella On-Ramp and Orangewood Off- Ramp Weaving Segment AM 30.37 p/m/l D Add a 6th lane. 24.31 p/m/l C 6.47% PM 36.78 p/m/l E 29.23 p/m/l D W-4. SR-57 SB between Ball Rd On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off- Ramp Weaving Segment AM 39.41 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 30.50 p/m/l D 9.31% PM 37.35 p/m/l E 29.04 p/m/l D F-4. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue Freeway Segment AM 39.9 p/m/l E Add a 5th lane. 27.1 p/m/l D 9.31% PM 38.6 p/m/l E 26.6 p/m/l D ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-84 July 19, 2010 3.2.9 Mitigation Measures City facilities that are significantly impacted at the 2013 + ARTIC and 2030 + ARTIC timeframe will be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment of City Traffic Impact Fees and/or implementation of the City’s CFD. The traffic impact analysis has also identified impacts to State Facilities at the 2013 and 2030 time horizons. Consistent with the applicable programmatic City documents in effect or currently under review by the City, the following Mitigation Measures shall apply to the Project:  TT-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall transmit the project’s applicable traffic impact fee into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and pay for the Project’s fair share of City improvements related to ARTIC. City shall ensure that such improvements will be constructed pursuant to the fee program at that point in time necessary to avoid identified significant impacts on traffic.  TT-2: City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort with Caltrans to develop a study to identify fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public development to supplement other regional and state funding sources necessary to implement feasible traffic improvements to State Facilities as identified in this EIR. The study shall include fair share contributions related to private and/or public development based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq.) and 14 CCR. section 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize the state wide and regional contributions to impact State Facilities that are not attributable to local development such that local private and public development are not paying in excess of such developments’ fair share obligations. The fee study shall be compliant with Government Code section 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law. The study shall set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria for the implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to the extent Caltrans and other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program.  TT-3: This EIR has concluded that a number of identified State Facilities will operate at deficient levels of service with the Project at the 2013 and 2030 timelines. The Project’s contributions to traffic in these facilities will contribute to cumulative congestion on these identified State Facilities. Various improvements to these facilities have been identified in Table 3.2-40 above that would mitigate the Project’s impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit the City shall transfer the agreed to amount into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Account and hold the amount in trust and apply such amount following the implementation of any traffic fee program. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-85 July 19, 2010 Year 2013 + ARTIC Caltrans Facilities – Weaving Improvements  TT-4. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  TT-5. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  TT-6. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Facilities – Segment Improvements  TT-7. SR-57 Northbound from Katella Avenue to Ball Road: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway. This improvement is funded by Measure M and is estimated to be completed by Year 2015.  TT-8. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Year 2030 + ARTIC City of Anaheim Facilities – Intersection Improvements  TT-9. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal.  TT-10. Douglass Road at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Douglass Road to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. City of Anaheim Facilities – Roadway Segment Improvements  TT-11. Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue to Anaheim Way: Widen Katella Avenue from six to eight lanes between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way. It should be noted that this improvement has been determined to be feasible through the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-86 July 19, 2010 Caltrans Facilities – Intersection Improvements  TT-12. Manchester Avenue/I-5 Southbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re- stripe Katella Avenue to construct a pedestrian refuge island on the west leg of intersection with pedestrian buttons. Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 4th westbound through lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install eastbound right-turn overlap phase on Katella Avenue.  TT-13. Anaheim Way/I-5 Northbound Ramps at Katella Avenue: Widen and/or re-stripe Katella Avenue to provide a 4th eastbound through lane and a 5th westbound through lane. Modify existing traffic signal. Caltrans Facilities – Weaving Improvements  TT-14. SR-57 Southbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway.  TT-15. SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp: Add a 6th lane on this segment of SR-57 Northbound freeway.  TT-16. SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. Caltrans Facilities – Segment Improvements  TT-17. SR-57 Southbound from Ball Road to Katella Avenue: Add a 5th lane on this segment of SR-57 Southbound freeway. 3.2.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation Participation in and implementation of the City’s traffic impact fee program will mitigate identified impacts to less than significant levels. State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Rather, those improvements 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. In California, most State Highway System improvements are programmed through two documents, the State Transportation Improvement Program or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program. State and federal fuel taxes generate most of the funds used to pay for these improvements. Funds expected to be available for transportation improvements are identified through a Fund Estimate prepared by Caltrans and adopted by the California Transportation Commission. These funds, along with other fund sources, are deposited in the State Highway Account to be programmed and allocated to specific project improvements in both the STIP and SHOPP by the CTC. The STIP is developed from Regional Transportation Improvement ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-87 July 19, 2010 Programs (RTIPs) proposed by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs/MPOs) throughout California and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) proposed by Caltrans. Of the funds made available by the CTC for the STIP, 25 percent is made available for Caltrans to propose expansion and capacity-enhancing improvements on the statutorily designated Interregional Road System while 75 percent of the funds are made available to the RTPAs/MPOs to propose all types of improvements on all other State Highway System Roads, other non-State highway roads eligible to use federal funds, and on the Interregional Road System. Transportation funds generally come from a variety of sources including National Highway System funds; State fuel taxes; federal fuel taxes; sales taxes on fuel; truck weight fees; roadway and bridge tolls; user fares; local sales tax measures; development fees, where applicable; bond revenues; and State and local general and matching funds. Improvements to State Highway Systems are deemed to be matters of federal, State, regional, and local concern. On the federal level, the City, through its Congressional delegation, has aggressively sought federal monies for regional roadway improvements. Within the study area, relatively recent projects have provided improvements to the freeway facilities. Interstate 5 within the study area was widened in the late 1990’s under the OCTA Measure M. Additionally, the I-5, SR-57, SR-22 interchange to the south of the study area was recently upgraded to improve flow on all facilities. The State Highway System freeways and ramps that are cumulatively deficient under 2030 conditions are at their recommended build-out, according to the Route Concept Reports (RCR) for the Interstate 5 facility approved by Caltrans in 2000; SR-22 facility, approved by Caltrans in 1996; and the State Route 57 facility, approved by Caltrans in 1999. On I-5, the RCR identifies a concept facility of eight general-purpose lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for the segment between the SR-22/57 interchange, south of the study area, to SR-91, north of the study area. On SR-22, the RCR identifies a concept facility with six general purpose lanes and two HOV lanes, plus auxiliary lanes. On SR-57, the RCR identifies an eight-lane existing facility with two HOV lanes for the segment between the I-5/SR- 22 interchange, south of the study area to SR-91, north of the study area. For the 2030 analysis, the concept build-out facility of five general-purpose lanes and two HOV lanes was assumed, although there is still ongoing study for the funding and timeline for implementation of these improvements. State and local funding sources, including Renewed Measure M funding through OCTA, is currently assessing improvements on SR- 57. In an attempt to further increase capacity and reduce congestion on SR-57, a feasibility study was conducted by OCTA to examine alternatives for adding an additional lane in each direction between the Los Angeles County line and the I- 5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange. This study concluded that due of extensive right-of-way impacts and expanded traffic at the I-5/SR-22/SR-57 interchange, any consideration of capacity improvements should be deferred until the SR-57 is extended southward to the I-405 freeway. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program.• SR-57 northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment, addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall 2010).• SR-57 northbound from the Katella Avenue off-ramp to the Lincoln Avenue off-ramp addition of auxiliary lane capacity-- (entered the environmental phase in 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.2 Transportation and Traffic ARTIC Draft EIR 3.2-88 July 19, 2010 one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late 2010 if project is approved). For improvements to the Caltrans facilities, the City of Anaheim, lead agency for this project, will have to decide whether changes, alterations, or mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency such as Caltrans and not the City of Anaheim. It must determine if such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency and/or whether any further mitigation to the impacted State Highway System are feasible, and if not, whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts caused by the project. The City of Anaheim has already taken steps to alleviate most of the impacts of increased development of the Platinum Triangle. The Gene Autry Extension Project and recent capacity improvements to State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue are just some of the examples of the City of Anaheim’s commitment to an effective circulation system within the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim has an existing CFD program that outlines its strategy toward implementing many of the improvements necessitated by increased development in the Platinum Triangle. With completion of the improvements described in the mitigation, the significant impacts associated with ARTIC would be fully mitigated with the exception of the intersections identified impacts above in the City of Anaheim and the improvements to State highway facilities. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim Caltrans); there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control. Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. The City is committed to working with Caltrans to identify the most appropriate improvement strategies for their facilities and acknowledges the fair-share cost of improvements to those facilities, however, Caltrans has full jurisdiction toward implementing the identified improvements. This, notwithstanding the fact that the City is imposing feasible mitigation measures in the form of collecting fair share fees for impacted state facilities, because the City does not control the State facilities, it cannot assure that the mitigation measures will mitigate the identified 2030 with project impacts to less than significant levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-1 July 19, 2010 3.3 AIR QUALITY The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix C of this EIR: Air Quality Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Anaheim, California, Prepared by Kleinfelder, 2010. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC is located within the southern portion of the City, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB is an area of high air pollution potential, particularly from June through September. Light winds and shallow vertical atmospheric mix frequently resulting in reduced pollutant dispersion, which causes elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations within the SCAB vary with location, season, and time of day. Ozone (O3) concentrations, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert. The SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAB is comprised of a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The climate in the region is Mediterranean, with low humidity and an average of 328 days of sunshine each year. The average annual rainfall is 14 inches per year, with an annual average temperature of 73°F. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. Periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. Santa Ana wind condition describes a dry and warm wind in southwestern California that blows westward from the desert through the canyons and towards coastal areas. This seasonal phenomenon typically occurs from October through March. The climate and topography are highly conducive to the formation and transport of air pollution. The local wind is generally light and the dominant wind pattern is a daytime on-shore breeze with nighttime offshore breezes. Air stagnation may occur during the early evening and early morning during periods of transition between day and night wind patterns. Santa Ana wind conditions occasionally occur and disrupt this pattern. If the Santa Ana winds are strong, they can surpass the sea breeze and carry suspended dust and pollutants from the desert into the SCAB and off the coast. If they are weak, they are opposed by the sea breeze and cause air stagnation, resulting in high pollution events. The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States (US) gives the SCAB the worst air pollution problem in the nation. Over the past 30 years, the SCAQMD has made substantial progress in reducing air pollution levels in southern California. The area was previously designated nonattainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), except for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). The area is now defined as in attainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, Pb, and carbon ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-2 July 19, 2010 monoxide (CO). Levels of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) and O3, while reduced substantially from their peak levels, are still far from attainment in the Basin. 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting Federal, state and local authorities have adopted various rules and regulations for assessing and mitigating a project’s impact on air quality. ARTIC is within the SCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by SCAQMD. A projects impact on air quality is also evaluated using the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the NAAQS. This regulatory framework and how it related to ARTIC is discussed below. The SCAQMD has also established an interim Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Significance Threshold for CEQA. GHG significance will be discussed separately in Section 3.12. Federal Policies and Regulations Clean Air Act The CAA, enacted in 1970 and its subsequent amendments establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The CAA directs the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish ambient air standards for six pollutants: O3, CO, Pb, NO2, PM2.5 and PM10, and SO2. The standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. The primary standards are set to protect human health and the secondary standards are set to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life. The CAA requires states to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas designated as nonattainment for federal air quality standards. The SIP is reviewed and approved by USEPA and must demonstrate how the federal standards will be achieved. Failure to submit a plan or secure approval could lead to denial of federal funding and permits. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) refer to technology-based standards that were developed for specific categories of stationary sources. These standards found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 are intended to promote use of the best air pollution control technologies by comparing available technologies based on cost of incremental pollution reduction and any other non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy requirements. Transportation Conformity The concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the 1977 amendments to the CAA, which includes a provision to ensure that transportation investments conform to the SIP in meeting the NAAQS. USEPA published a set of the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments, amending the August 1997 regulations, in Federal Register Volume 69 No. 26 on July 1, 2004. The new amendments supplement the NAAQS by providing regulations for the 8- hour O3 and PM2.5. A March 2006 ruling establishes revised criteria for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local particle emissions impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-3 July 19, 2010 State Policies and Regulations California Clean Air Act The provisions contained in the California CAA are more stringent than the federal standards. The CAAQS are enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air pollution control districts. State standards are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans that are incorporated into the SIP. The California CAA requires local and regional air pollution control districts that are not attaining one or more of the CAAQS, to expeditiously adopt plans specifically designed to attain these standards. Each plan must be designed to achieve an annual five percent reduction in district-wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors. Amendments to the California CAA impose additional requirements designed to ensure an improvement in air quality within the next five years. Local districts with moderate air pollution that did not achieve “transitional nonattainment” status by December 31, 1997 must implement the more stringent measures applicable to districts with serious air pollution. Existing air quality conditions in ARTIC can be characterized in terms of the ambient air quality standards that California and the federal government have established for several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for different measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values, such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions. Table 3.3-1 shows the 2010 national and California standards for relevant air pollutants. Assembly Bill 2588 (1987) AB 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, requires stationary sources of air pollutants to periodically report the type and quantities of specified Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) that are routinely or intermittently released. TACs, such as diesel particulate matter are air pollutants that are or may become harmful to human health or the environment. The only device at ARTIC that will potentially be subject to AB 2588 is the emergency diesel generator. Since emissions from the emergency generator are below the applicable AB 2588 threshold of 10 tons per year, ARTIC will not be subject to AB 2588 requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-4 July 19, 2010 Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQS (ug/m3) NAAQS (ug/m3) Most Stringent Standard (ug/m3) O3 1-hour 90 ppb (180 ug/ m3) No separate standard 90 ppb 8-hour 70 ppb (137 ug/ m3) 75 ppb (147 ug/m3) 70 ppb PM10 24-hour 50 150 50 Annual 20 No separate standard 20 PM2.5 24-hour No separate standard 35 35 Annual 12 15 12 CO 1-hour 23,000 35 ppm (40,000 ug/m3) 23,000 8-hour 10,000 9 ppm (10,000 ug/m3) 10,000 NO2 1-hour 339 0.100 ppm (189 ug/m3) 189 Annual 57 0.053 ppm (100 ug/m3) 57 SO2 1-hour 655 No separate standard 655 3-hour No separate standard 1,300 1,300 24-hour 105 365 105 Annual No separate standard 80 80 Pb 30-day 1.5 No separate standard 1.5 Quarterly No separate standard 1.5 1.5 Sulfates 24-hour 25 No separate standard 25 Visibility Reducing Particulate 8-hour bext <0.23 km-1 No separate standard <0.23 km-1 Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 42 No separate standard 42 Vinyl chloride 24-hour 26 No separate standard 26 Notes: 1. California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the CCR. 2. National standards (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the USEPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). ppb = parts per billion ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter km = kilometer Source: CARB, March 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-5 July 19, 2010 California Air Resources Board CARB identified diesel exhaust particulate as a TAC and approved a “Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles” in 2000. The goal of this Plan is to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. CARB has promulgated several regulations with the objective of reducing diesel particulate matter and other criteria pollutants from diesel equipment and commercial vehicles. Much of the equipment that will be used during the construction phase of ARTIC is diesel powered and will be governed by the Off-Road Diesel or the On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle regulations. Per these regulations, the equipment owner is responsible for managing this equipment such that emissions meet specified fleet averages required by CARB. Regional Transportation Improvement Program SCAG, as the MPO for southern California, is mandated to comply with federal and state transportation and air quality regulations. SCAG is a six-county region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) that contains four air basins that are administered by five air districts. ARTIC is included in SCAG’s RTIP and its emissions have been accounted for in the regional emissions burden for the region. Air Quality Management Planning The AQMP was prepared by the SCAQMD Governing Board, CARB, SCAG, and the USEPA. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly emitted PM2.5, and focused control of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by 2015. The eight-hour O3 control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOX and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming an extended attainment date is obtained. Local Policies and Regulations New Source Review The purpose of New Source Review is to prevent operational emissions from new, modified or relocated facilities from causing an exceedance in the region’s attainment of the NAAQS. In SCAQMD, Regulation XIII, which implements New Source Review, governs projects that result in an emissions increase of any nonattainment air pollutant associated with a stationary source of emissions. If certain thresholds are exceeded, projects may be required to mitigate emissions using controls or obtain emission offsets. For ARTIC, relocation of the station to a new location within the air district will primarily result in increases to air emissions associated with mobile sources, including ground and mass transit as well as passenger vehicle traffic to and from the facility. The only permitted source of emissions expected will be a 1,000 kW emergency backup generator with an USEPA Certified Tier 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-6 July 19, 2010 engine, whose planned operation typically will be one hour per month for maintenance and testing purposes. City of Anaheim General Plan The Green Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan combines all of the City’s open space, conservation, recreation, and landscaping resources into one comprehensive, integrated document. The primary objectives are to: expand public parks and open space amenities; improve the City’s trail and bicycle network for local and regional connections; beautify arterial corridors with landscape plans, edge treatments, and gateways; and use existing opportunities to expand accessible open space and recreation opportunities. Conserving natural resources, including quality of air, is a key component of the Green Element. Goal 8.1 specifically aims at reducing locally generated emissions through improved traffic flows and construction management practices. Policy 1 and Policy 2 call for reducing vehicle emissions, regulating construction practices to minimize dust and particulate matter pollution. Goal 11.1 encourages land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile, including transit-oriented development. City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187 Resolution 2006-187 (approved August 8, 2006) of the City Council authorizes and directs the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (PUD) to establish the Green Connection, a program that accommodates the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability. Resolution 2006-187 sets out a series of goals, including encouraging developers and builders in the City to receive LEEDTM registration and certification, reaching a 20 percent reduction in energy use and a 15 percent reduction in water use by 2015, and replacing 10 percent of the City’s light, non- emergency vehicles with low emission technologies. 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for air quality are defined by: a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-7 July 19, 2010 SCAQMD Air Quality Thresholds Table 3.3-2 shows the SCAQMD thresholds of significance and Table 3.3-3 lists the applicable the ambient air quality standards for construction activities and project operation. Table 3.3-2 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Construction Sequence (lb/day) Operational Phase (lb/day) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Source: SCAQMD, 2007 Note: lb/day= pounds per day Table 3.3-3 CEQA Ambient Air Quality Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time Ambient Air Quality Threshold NO2 1-hour Annual 0.18 ppm 0.03 ppm PM10 24-hour (construction) 24-hour (operation) Annual 10.4 µg/m3 2.5 µg/m3 1.0 µg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour (construction) 24-hour (operation) 10.4 µg/m3 2.5 µg/m3 Sulfate 24-hour 1 µg/m3 CO 1-hour 8-hour 20 ppm 9.0 ppm Source: SCAQMD Rule 1303 One of the concerns with ARTIC is the potential increase of CO as a result of increased operational traffic idling at intersections. The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of ARTIC are above or below state and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if the project’s air emissions results exceed one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. The SCAQMD defines a measurable amount as 1.0 ppm or more for the 1-hour CO concentration or 0.45 ppm or more for the 8-hour CO concentration. The potentially significant construction-related TAC related to ARTIC is expected to be diesel particulate matter. Construction-related TAC impacts from ARTIC will create significant exposure impacts to receptors if it results in one or more of the following: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-8 July 19, 2010  Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk for Residential Receptors greater than or equal to 10 in 1 million; or  Non-cancer Hazard Index greater than or equal to 1.0 (proposed project increment) or is greater than or equal to 3.0 (facility-wide). SCAQMD Rule 402 states that a project will be considered to have a significant impact if it resulted in an objectionable odor at the nearest sensitive receptor. This will be qualitatively evaluated for ARTIC. 3.3.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact) The current 2007 AQMP from SCAQMD accounts for area growth projections consistent with city planning documents. ARTIC is designed to increase the availability of mass transit alternative and will help reduce the number of vehicles on the road regionally, which is consistent with the strategies of the AQMP and other regional plans. ARTIC will not obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) SCAQMD developed regional emissions thresholds, shown in Table 3.3-2, to determine whether or not a project would violate air quality standards. Construction emissions include those created by gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment used on-site, both from engine exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from site work excavating, grading, and driving on unpaved roadways). Engine exhaust emissions include criteria pollutants NOx, CO, VOC (or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]), PM10, PM2.5, and SOx), while fugitive dust generates PM10 emissions. Construction emissions associated with constructing the Intermodal Terminal and related facilities were assessed using the Urban Emissions Model, 2007, version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS). Emissions related to construction of roadways, sidewalks, and the stub-end track were estimated using the Road Construction Emissions Model, July 2009, Version 6.3.2 (RCEM) provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Total construction emissions for the development of ARTIC were assessed on a lb/day basis. The maximum daily emissions were calculated for each construction sequence and for each pollutant, and were totaled to create a “worst-case” scenario of annual emissions. This provided a conservative estimate of construction emissions. Actual emissions from construction activities are expected to be lower due to sequencing of activities and varying use of the equipment on a daily basis. The total ARTIC unmitigated emissions for all stages of construction were compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds and are shown in Table 3.3-4. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-9 July 19, 2010 NOx is the only pollutant emitted that exceeds the significance thresholds for construction. Maximum unmitigated NOx emissions from all construction sequences were estimated at 151 lbs/day, which potentially exceeds the significance threshold of 100 lbs/day. Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13). The Air Quality Impact Assessment (Appendix C) lists standard BMPs to further minimize potential NOx emissions and ambient air quality impacts. The worst-case emissions for the construction of the Intermodal Terminal occur during the excavation activities. During excavation the construction of the Bus Transit Center, lowering of Douglass Road, and installing the building piles and foundation will occur. Work will occur on the Douglass Road rail bridge and the stub-end track following the lowering of Douglass Road. Construction activities to widen Douglass Road, including the sidewalk and turn lane to Katella Avenue, will occur following the excavation stage. Diesel equipment and vehicles associated with construction activities will emit diesel particulate matter or TACs, and their emissions are governed by CARB regulations for off-road diesel or heavy-duty diesel vehicles. These regulations require owners to maintain their fleets to certain emission standards, either through replacement with cleaner-burning engines or the addition of diesel particulate filters on the exhaust. The measures are designed to be increasingly stringent to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx, with one of the primary target industries being construction. Diesel particulate matter is the primary component of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from diesel equipment. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities are attributed to engine exhaust and fugitive dust. Modeling shows that for the maximum year 2013), PM10 from engine exhaust is 6.29 lbs/day, which is less than five percent of the significance threshold. PM2.5 from engine exhaust for the same period is 5.90 lbs/day, which is less than 11 percent of the significance threshold. Given the overall short term duration of construction and the fact that diesel particulate matter emissions are well below significance thresholds, no exceedance of the exposure thresholds are expected. The NSPS for compression ignition internal combustion engines will be applicable to the emergency 1,000 kW diesel-fueled generator planned for ARTIC. NSPS regulations (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII [40 CFR 4200 et seq.]) specifies emission limits for emissions for this equipment of 1.2 grams per horsepower hour for NOx and 0.11 grams per horsepower hour for PM10, in addition to proper record keeping and labeling requirements. The manufacturer of the engine is required to certify that the engine does not exceed the emission limits required by this regulation. Potential fugitive dust emissions during construction do not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. SCAQMD Rule 403 specifies BMPs to control fugitive dust during construction. ARTIC operations will not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions, as shown in Table 3.3-5. ARTIC operations will not contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations. ARTIC’s operation-related emissions will not result in a significant air quality impact and will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2007 AQMP. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-10 July 19, 2010 Table 3.3-4 Total ARTIC Construction Emissions from All Stages – Unmitigated Construction Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day)1 PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Intermodal Terminal 86.5 51.8 57.1 0.06 45.3 12.2 Stub-end Track 10.5 1.4 7.6 <1 2.6 1.0 Douglass Road Bridge 19.9 2.4 10.7 <1 1.9 1.1 Douglass Road Widening 17.5 2.5 11.7 <1 3.0 1.3 Douglass Road Sidewalk 1.4 0.4 2.1 <1 0.6 0.2 Katella Avenue Right Turn Lane 15.2 1.8 7.8 <1 1.6 0.8 Total 151.0 60.3 96.9 <1 54.7 16.4 Significance Thresholds 100 75 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact Yes No No No No No Source: Appendix C 1 SOx not calculated in RCEM; assumed to be insignificant < 1 lb/day) Table 3.3-5 Operational Daily Emissions Operational Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Stationary Source (Electricity, Natural Gas Usage, Landscaping) 2.75 1.25 9.96 0.00 0.03 0.03 Emergency Backup Generator 1.54 0.93 8.02 0.57 0.22 0.17 Vehicle Traffic 46.43 29.69 323.78 0.37 3.96 2.54 Total ARTIC Operational 50.72 31.87 341.76 0.94 4.21 2.74 Baseline Operations -Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station -8.32 -5.42 -72.76 -0.10 -0.85 -0.55 Difference in Emissions (ARTIC – Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station) 42.40 26.45 269.00 0.84 3.36 2.19 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact No No No No No No Source: Appendix C Notes: - denotes a benefit c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction emissions generated by ARTIC are anticipated to be highly variable, are of a short term nature, and will comply with SCAQMD regulations. The emissions are related to both ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-11 July 19, 2010 equipment operation and soil excavation activities. The City has not received applications for construction of other projects in the area during the planned construction of ARTIC. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects planned within the project area during ARTIC’s excavation activities, with the exception of the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project. Construction of the SR- 57 Northbound Widening Project will increase emissions of O3, PM2.5, and PM10 as a result of the use of diesel and gasoline construction equipment and soil disturbance (LSA Associates, Inc., 2009). Since these emissions will be temporary and will be minimized through implementation of SCAQMD and Caltrans-required control measures, the project will not contribute to nonattainment within SCAB for O3, PM2.5, and PM10. ARTIC was included in the cumulative impact analysis for the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project, which stated that no significant cumulative impacts would occur. The combined construction emissions for these two projects will not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emission thresholds and will be consistent with the AQMP. Cumulative impacts from the construction of ARTIC are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13). ARTIC will provide a necessary component for the transportation network with the City and will serve as the gateway to southern California region. ARTIC will enhance the County of Orange’s overall transportation system by accommodating additional bus transit, additional alternatives to road-based travel, and improved services for the transit-dependent. Development of ARTIC will reduce the overall number of vehicles on the roads, which will partially off-set cumulative air quality emissions in the local area. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for the operation of ARTIC. Operation of ARTIC will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in non-attainment air pollutants. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Sensitive receptors include areas that are commonly occupied by people that may be more susceptible to health issues caused by air quality. Typical sensitive receptors include residents, school children, the elderly, and hospital patients. A review of the area surrounding ARTIC showed the nearest potential sensitive receptors residential housing) are located more than 0.4 miles away from the main entrance to ARTIC (Figure 3.3-1). Additional potential sensitive receptors include Santa Ana River Trail users, outdoor diners at the JT Schmid’s Restaurant and Brewery, and guests at the Ayres Hotel. As previously discussed, construction of ARTIC is not expected to cause a significant ambient air quality impact with mitigation (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13). ARTIC will have minimal new operational emissions increases. No significant new mobile emissions will result from relocating the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station to ARTIC. As previously discussed, daily operational emissions from ARTIC are below the significance thresholds. Operation of ARTIC in 2013 is not expected to cause a significant ambient air quality impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.3 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-12 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- oz -H t3 -o U) C) C) -H C) U) - C) -H — E > -H W - U) jE C) Z m rm C)mz0 I ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-15 July 19, 2010 CO Hotspot Analysis An analysis was conducted to assess the potential ambient air quality impacts of CO from traffic associated with ARTIC. The intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road was identified as representing the worst-case intersection affected by ARTIC due to proximity and site access. ARTIC impacts were evaluated using traffic data provided by the City (City of Anaheim, 2010). Consistent with the traffic study data, the assessment included a scenario for conditions of ARTIC in year 2013 and a scenario for estimated future build-out of the Platinum Triangle in year 2030. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Appendix the majority of traffic impacts are due to regional growth without ARTIC. The CO assessment addressed the combined impacts from regional growth and the addition of ARTIC. These results summarized in Table 3.3-6 indicate no cumulative impacts from CO Hotspot emissions for the intersections and roadway segments analyzed in the Traffic Study. ARTIC will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Table 3.3-6 Maximum CO Impacts from Traffic at the Katella Avenue and Douglass Road Intersection Scenario Averaging Time CO Concentration with Background (ppmv) SCAQMD Threshold (ppmv) Significant Impact? 2013 - No Project 1-hr 6.1 20 No 8-hr 4.1 9.0 No 2013 w/ ARTIC 1-hr 6.4 20 No 8-hr 4.3 9.0 No 2030 - No Project 1-hr 6.1 20 No 8-hr 4.1 9.0 No 2030 - w/ ARTIC1 1-hr 6.0 20 No 8-hr 4.0 9.0 No Source: Appendix E 1 Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Build-out Note: Future background CO concentrations obtained from the SCAQMD CEQA guidance at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CO/CO.html Less than significant impacts with mitigation are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) Potential odors could result from construction activities including vehicle exhaust, and VOC from asphalt paving and architectural coating. Nuisance odors from these activities will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the activity itself. Odors may occasionally be detected immediately off- site. These odors will dissipate within a short distance of the project site. Odors from the ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-16 July 19, 2010 operation of ARTIC would not be distinguishable immediately off-site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project- level regional or localized air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment would significantly contribute to a cumulative impact. Regional or local emissions that exceed the emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD are considered a substantial source of air pollution that has the potential to contribute significantly to a cumulative impact. Potential projects within the local area include new development as well as general growth within the project area. The SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized emissions thresholds shown in Table 3.3-2. Construction As previously discussed, the combined construction emissions for the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project and ARTIC will not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emission thresholds and will be consistent with the AQMP. Construction of ARTIC is not anticipated to cause significant cumulative impacts with mitigation. Operation ARTIC will increase the availability of mass transit alternatives in accordance with the 2007 AQMP and the 2006 RTIP. A CO hotspot analysis was performed for the intersection most affected by ARTIC Douglass Road and Katella Avenue) using the City’s traffic analysis model to predict traffic impacts from future development projects. As previously discussed, the results show that increased traffic levels in 2030 will not result in CO impacts above the state and federal ambient air quality standards. ARTIC will provide a necessary component for the transportation network with the City and will serve as the gateway to southern California region. ARTIC will enhance the County of Orange’s overall transportation system by accommodating additional bus transit, additional alternatives to road-based travel, and improved services for the transit-dependent. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for the operation of ARTIC. 3.3.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187;  SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct;  SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors; ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-17 July 19, 2010  SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust;  National and California ambient air quality standards (see Table 3.3-1); and  2007 AQMP. 3.3.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: NOx emissions as a result of construction activities were estimated at 151 lbs/day, which will exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. 3.3.8 Mitigation Measures  AQ-1: Excavation of the soil for the Intermodal Terminal shall precede excavation of Douglass Road under the bridge, and both activities shall occur in sequence. The sequencing of grading/excavation activities shall be noted on the grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications.  AQ-2: Exporting of soil during the excavation stage of the project shall be limited to 25 on-road truck trips per day during excavation and grading. An export plan showing quantities and identified haul route shall be shown on grading plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval and in the contractor’s specifications.  AQ-3: Road widening and sidewalk improvement projects shall occur following the completion of the excavating activities. Street improvement plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval shall indicate sequencing of the street improvements.  AQ-4: Construction off-road equipment with engines greater than or equal to 150 brake horsepower shall meet or exceed USEPA Tier 2 engine standards and shall be required to have diesel oxidation installed that meet or exceed 20 percent reduction in NOx. A complete list of construction equipment to be used at the project site shall be submitted to the contractor to confirm compliance with USEPA Tier 2 standards.  AQ-5: Diesel or gasoline power generators shall be limited to less than two hours of use per day. This restriction shall be clearly noted on the grading/excavation and building plans submitted to the Anaheim Public Works Department and Building Division for review and approval. This information shall also be included in the contractor’s specifications. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Air Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.3-18 July 19, 2010 3.3.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation Table 3.3-7 shows that when mitigation measures for scheduling excavation and NOx controls are implemented, NOx emissions from the construction of ARTIC are less than the significance threshold. Table 3.3-7 ARTIC Construction Daily Emissions with NOx Mitigation Measures Construction Activity NOx (lb/day) ROG (lb/day) CO (lb/day) SOx (lb/day)1 PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Intermodal Terminal 73.6 9.7 57.0 0.06 45.3 12.2 Stub-end Track 8.4 1.4 7.6 <1 2.6 1.0 Douglass Road Bridge 16.1 2.4 10.7 <1 1.9 1.1 Total 98.1 13.5 75.3 <1 49.5 14.1 Significance Thresholds 100 75 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact No No No No No No Source: Appendix C The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with air quality to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to air quality have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-1 July 19, 2010 3.4 NOISE The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix D of this EIR: Noise Technical Report for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), prepared by Entech, July 2010. Introduction This section of the EIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts as a result of ARTIC. CEQA has defined threshold limits related to the exposure of persons to noise and vibration. These thresholds are contained in local general plans and noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. A significant impact from noise or vibration would occur if the project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state or local policies and regulations. The City and City of Orange have general plans and local noise ordinances that define maximum noise limits for community activities and local development projects. These ordinances are typically related to construction noise and nuisance noise levels. For purposes of assessing noise impacts relative to CEQA thresholds, the FTA impact criteria is used. The regulatory framework for evaluating noise impacts is discussed in further detail in Section 3.4-1. Noise and vibration generated from ARTIC will occur in the short term with site preparation and construction activities, and long term operation and maintenance. This section examines the following:  Potential increase in commuter train noise and vibration (starting and stopping) from the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station to ARTIC;  Car-and bus-generated noise from ARTIC;  Car and bus noise in the year 2030 at ARTIC; and  Day and nighttime construction impacts at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and ARTIC. Background Noise Noise or unwanted sound is what humans hear when our ears are exposed to small pressure fluctuations in the air (FTA, 2006). Noise is generated by a source and the magnitude of the noise depends on the type of source and its operating characteristics. When excessive noise interrupts ongoing activities, such as sleeping, conversing or watching TV, it can create annoyance, especially in residential areas. In the case of ARTIC, cars, buses, and commuter rail will be the primary sources of noise. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-2 July 19, 2010 Noise is measured using several descriptors:  Decibel (dB) - The logarithmic unit used to measure sound;  A-weighting Sound Level (dBA) –The basic noise unit that measures sound audible to humans. Noise contains sound energy at different frequencies and its range depends on the individual noise source. Human hearing does not register the frequencies of all sounds equally and can reduce the impression of the magnitudes of high and low pitched sounds. dBA units are measured sound levels within the range audible to humans. This process reduces the strength of very low and very high pitched sounds, such as low-frequency seismic disturbances and dog whistles, to more accurately measure sounds that affect humans. Therefore, the dBA scale measures sound lying within the range of 40 to 120 dBA. Reference measurements include a rail transit horn typically at 90 dBA, an idling city bus at 75 dBA, and a jack hammer is approximately 88 dBA (FTA, 2006);  Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) – A single value of sound level that quantifies the amount of noise in a specific environment for a particular period of time;  Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in a particular location for one hour. For example, as a train approaches, passes by, and recedes into the distance, the dBA will rise, reach a maximum level, and eventually fade. The Leq for this event would be a value that measures the cumulative impact of each level of sound that resulted from the train’s passing, in addition to any other sounds that occurred during one hour. It is particularly useful when measuring the cumulative noise impact for communities;  Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in a particular location for 24 hours. This cumulative value also includes a 10 dB penalty imposed on any noise that occurs between 10 PM and 7 AM. Ldn is used to measure the cumulative noise impact at residential areas primarily because it takes into account the increased sensitivity to noise at night, which is when most people are sleeping. Typical ranges for community noise in various settings are shown in Table 3.4-1; and  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - Similar to Ldn, CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB penalty applied to A-weighted sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and a 5 dB penalty applied to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-3 July 19, 2010 Table 3.4-1 Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas Area Ldn, dBA Downtown City 75–85 “Very Noisy” Urban Residential Areas 65-75 “Quiet” Urban Residential Areas 60-65 Suburban Residential Areas 55-60 Small Town Residential Areas 45-55 Notes: Ldn= cumulative noise exposure Source: FTA (2006) A few general relationships may be helpful in understanding the dB scale:  An increase of one dBA cannot be perceived by the human ear;  A three dBA increase is normally the smallest change in sound levels that is perceptible to the human ear;  A 10 dBA increase in noise level corresponds to tenfold increase in noise energy, but a listener would only judge a 10 dBA increase as being twice as loud; and  A 20 dBA increase would result in a dramatic change in how a listener would perceive the sound. Vibration Vibration is a trembling or oscillating motion of the earth. Vibration is transmitted in waves through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural, as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, and landslides, or man-made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery or heavy vehicles such as trains or construction equipment. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Existing Environment There are many noise sources in the City that contribute to the existing noise environment. The major source of noise in the project area is vehicular traffic from SR-57 and surrounding arterial streets. Noise is also generated from several passenger and freight trains that run through the project area. Stationary noise sources include industrial land uses, firework displays at Disneyland on a regular basis and at Angel Stadium for special events. While the noises from these stationary sources are ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-4 July 19, 2010 audible, they are of short duration and as such, do not add substantially to the existing community noise environment as measured by CNEL, which is based on a 24-hour, time-weighted average. The project area consists of mainly commercial land uses including office buildings, restaurants, retail businesses, and one hotel. FTA guidance recommends a screening distance of 1,200 feet from the centerline of the noise-generating activity. Sensitive receivers identified within this screen distance are the Ayres Hotel of Anaheim and the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments, identified within Category 2 of the FTA Land Use Categories (Figure 3.4-1). An Extended Stay Hotel was also identified in the City of Orange approximately 1000 feet from the border of the City and the City of Orange border. However, it resides beyond the FTA screening distance and is not expected to experience noise impacts from ARTIC. A property immediately east of the Santa Ana River is designated "Urban Mixed Use" in the City of Orange General Plan Land Use Plan, which allows and could accommodate residential development in the future. However, currently there are no future plans for such development. Although noise sensitive land uses in the City of Orange are outside of the FTA screening, existing 24-hour noise measurement was taken at the closet location to the project site near the City and the City of Orange border to characterize the existing environment. Field Survey A field survey was conducted from April 4 to April 16, 2010 taking a combination of 24-hour measurements at three locations to determine the current noise environment around the Ayres Hotel, the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and the closest location to the border of the City and the City of Orange (Figure 3.4-2). A summary of the long term existing noise monitoring results at each of these locations is presented in graph form on Figure 3.4-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- mz ;ij > 0 z z m -no m ;IJ > m-o0 -o 0 Cm -zp CD IC,) > CD C) m C) mC C) C) 0 CD (1 C--o Cl)mz -I m m C, m rn Cl) -n • C) . C I m ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- m C) oz - -a ci ç) -no a m - a- 2 Z m cr C) ‘ci -I m ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-11 July 19, 2010 The purpose of long-term monitoring was to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levels associated with operations or activities in the project vicinity. The three long-term measurements were also used to determine the existing cumulative CNEL and Ldn values for each of the three locations within the project area. The cumulative CNEL and Ldn values for each location are shown in Table 3.4-2. Additional details on the monitoring program are provided in Appendix D. Currently, the Ayres Hotel experiences noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL. According to the California Office of Noise Control’s land use compatibility chart for community noise, the Ayres Hotel is within the “conditionally acceptable” category. This is attributed to the hotel being located near SR-57, the dominate noise source observed during field monitoring. A “conditionally acceptable” designation implies that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and necessary noise attenuation features are incorporated in the design. Table 3.4-2 Existing Project Area Cumulative CNEL Values Location CNEL (dB) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 60 59 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 73 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1 dBA. In order to assess the potential for mobile-source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (July, 2010). The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 75 dBA to 76 dBA CNEL as calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 3.4-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-12 July 19, 2010 Table 3.4-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Segment ADT CNEL (dBA at a reference distance of 50 ft) Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 35,040 75.0 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 35,040 75.6 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 30,260 75.0 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 32,800 75.3 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 34,240 75.5 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 37,990 75.9 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 29,610 74.9 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 30,280 75.0 Existing Rail Noise Levels Long-term noise measurements at the project site documented the noise levels from the existing Metrolink and Amtrak train operations through the current Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. The hourly Leq values documented by the long-term noise measurement were weighted and summed to calculate the day-night 24-hour weighted average noise level for all noise sources on the project site. The resulting weekday measured ambient noise level the project site is 59 dBA Ldn. Existing Interior Noise Levels Simultaneous interior and exterior measurements were taken at the Ayres Hotel to determine the building attenuation of the hotel. The interior measurement was taken at Room 135 of the hotel and the exterior measurement was taken at the hotel pool area. The short term measurement results are shown in Table 3.4-4. The existing interior noise level is below the State of California’s Interior Noise level standard. Table 3.4-4 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-13 July 19, 2010 Noise Impact Criteria FTA Noise Impact Criteria The FTA has established noise criteria to assess potential impacts of transit projects. These criteria were developed based on the research done by the USEPA that identified environments particularly sensitive to annoying noises. These environments are known as “noise sensitive land uses” or “sensitive receivers.” The FTA noise criteria groups noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories:  Category 1: Buildings or a park where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose;  Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance; and  Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation and concentration on reading material. The two sensitive receivers identified within the project area (See Figure 3.4-1) are classified within Category 2. Due to the nature of the land uses grouped within Category 2, the Ldn is used to account for nighttime noise occurrences, while the Leq noise descriptor is used for Categories 1 and 3. In most cases, these three categories are the only land uses that would be negatively impacted by high noise levels because industrial or commercial areas are generally compatible with high noise levels. Figure 3.4-4 illustrates the FTA noise impact criteria for transit projects on categories 1, 2 and 3, based on the relative noise descriptor listed above. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-17 July 19, 2010 Noise impacts to these three categories as a result of a proposed project are assessed by comparing the existing and project-related noise levels as illustrated in Figure 3.4-4. Potential noise impacts are classified as having “No Impact,” “Moderate Impact,” or “Severe Impact,” which correlate with CEQA impact terminology no impact, less than significant impact and potentially significant impact).  No Impact - The project, on average, will result in an insignificant increase in the number of instances where people are “highly annoyed” by new noise;  Moderate Impact - The change in cumulative noise is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse community reactions; and  Severe Impact - A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the noise, perhaps resulting in vigorous community reaction. An impact is only potentially significant if it affects a sensitive receiver. An increase in noise in an uninhabited location would not cause a significant impact. As the ambient noise level increases, the noise generated by transit is less perceptible by receivers. However, because the existing noise levels are already elevated, the ability to increase noise levels in the project area without impacting sensitive receivers is reduced (see Figure 3.4-4). Construction Noise Impact Criteria Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Codes states that the sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the noise provisions of the chapter between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM. Compliance with these standards is mandatory and does not require mitigation under CEQA. Construction, even when restricted to these hours, presents a nuisance value when conducted in proximity to sensitive receivers and the impact can be considered potentially significant. Short term noise impacts are impacts associated with demolition, site preparation, grading and construction of the proposed project. Two types of short term noise impacts are likely to occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local roads. The second type of short term noise impact is noise generated by construction equipment at the job site during demolition, site preparation, grading and/or building construction. Construction is performed on a distinct schedule, each phase of which has its own mix of equipment noise characteristics. Table 3.4-5 lists typical construction equipment noise levels used for noise impact assessments. The noise levels noted in the table are based on a distance of 50 feet, the recommended reference distance provided by FTA guidance, between the equipment and a noise receiver. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-18 July 19, 2010 Table 3.4-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Equipment Maximum Noise Level (dBA Leq at 50 feet) Scrapers 89 Bulldozers 85 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 80 Pneumatic Tools 85 Concrete Pump 82 Source: FTA, 2006. 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Noise Control Act of 1972 and Quiet Communities Act of 1978 The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S. Code [USC]) and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (42 USC 4913) were established by the USEPA to set performance standards for noise emissions from major sources, including transit sources. Though these acts are still in effect, their enforcement shifted to state and local governments in 1981. Federal Railroad Administration The FRA adopted the USEPA railroad noise standards as its noise regulations (49 CFR 11, part 210) for purposes of enforcement. These standards provide specific noise limits for stationary and moving locomotives, moving railroad cars, and associated railroad operations. These noise sources are evaluated using an A-weighted sound level at a specified measurement location. Federal Transit Administration The FTA provides capital assistance for a wide range of mass transit projects from new rail rapid transit systems to bus maintenance facilities and vehicle purchases. FTA’s environmental impact regulations classify the most common projects according to the different levels of environmental analysis required, ranging from an EIS to little or no environmental documentation (categorical exclusion). FTA’s environmental impact regulations are codified in Title 23, CFR, Part 771. State Policies and Regulations California Noise Control Act of 1973 The California Noise Control Act of 1973 (§46000 et seq.) was enacted to “establish and maintain a program on noise control.” This act mirrors the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 and also delegates the enforcement of noise emission standards to local county and city agencies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-19 July 19, 2010 California Government Code Section 65302 California Government Code Section 65302 states that general plans must include a noise element section which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community, and recognizes the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control. The adopted noise element should serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise standards. The Office of Noise Control has prepared a land use compatibility chart for community noise (refer to Appendix D for the complete chart). It identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. For example, the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for sports arenas is 75 dBA. The normally acceptable noise exposure level for office buildings is 70 dBA and the normally acceptable noise exposure level for industrial and manufacturing land uses is 75 dBA. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan The intent of the Noise Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan is to set goals that limit and reduce the effects of noise intrusion and to set acceptable noise levels for varying types of land uses. The Noise Element indicates that exterior noise levels at residential locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dBA while interior levels shall not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. The City has adopted the California noise exterior and interior noise standards (refer to Appendix D for the complete table). For example, the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for sports arenas is 75 dBA and the normally acceptable noise exposure level for office buildings is 70 dBA. The Noise Element also contains goals and policies to guide land use planning and design, and govern transportation related and non-transportation related noise sources. Protecting sensitive land uses from excessive noise through planning and regulations (Goal 1.1), encouraging the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources (Goal 2.1), and prohibiting new industrial uses from exceeding commercial or residential stationary-source noise standards at the most proximate land uses (Policy 1 of Goal 3.1). Anaheim Municipal Code Stationary noise sources are governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Section 6.70.010 states that “No person shall, within the City, create any sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property in excess of 60 dB (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response.” The City restricts noise intensive construction activities to the hours specified under Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to minimize disturbance by construction noise weekdays and Saturdays from 7 AM to 7 PM). These hours also apply to any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. Construction is not be allowed any time on Sundays ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-20 July 19, 2010 or federally recognized holidays. Chapter 6.70 allows the Director of Public Works or the Building Official to permit additional work hours if deemed necessary. City of Orange General Plan The City of Orange has adopted a mandatory Noise Element required by California’s Health and Safety Code Section 46050.01. The goal of the Noise Element is to identify problems and noise sources threatening community safety and comfort and to establish policies and programs that will limit the community’s exposure to excessive noise levels. Standards within the Noise Element state that transportation sources not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL at residential locations while interior levels shall not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. See Appendix D for standards for other land uses found within the City of Orange. City of Orange Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Noise Control Interior and exterior noise levels for residential land uses in the City of Orange are governed by the City of Orange’s Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Noise Control. The code states that, “It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other residential property to exceed” the noise levels displayed in Table 3.4-6. Table 3.4-6 City of Orange Municipal Code Residential Noise Levels Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA) Time Period Exterior 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 50 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Interior 55 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. None Given 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Source: City of Orange, Municipal Code, Section 8.24 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Noise and Vibration are defined by: a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity about levels existing without the project? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-21 July 19, 2010 d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.4.4 Project Impacts f) 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) Traffic Impacts Due to the relocation of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, vehicular traffic will be rerouted to ARTIC. To identify any potential traffic noise impacts as a result of ARTIC, the FHWA-RD-77-108 noise calculations were utilized to estimate Without Project and With Project conditions for year 2013. As shown in Table 3.4-7, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible increases (less than 1 dBA) in noise levels from Without Project to With Project conditions. As a result, 2013 With Project noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic will have a less than significant impact. Table 3.4-7 2013 Traffic Noise Levels Segment 2013 Without Project 2013 With Project ADT CNEL ADT CNEL Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 53,229 76.8 53,449 76.8 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 53,195 77.4 53,565 77.4 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 45,127 76.7 45,497 76.7 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 43,779 76.6 44,412 76.6 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 47,287 76.9 47,670 76.9 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 52,195 77.3 52,578 77.4 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 38,732 76.0 39,471 76.1 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 36,039 75.7 36,445 75.8 Rail Impacts There are approximately 22 Amtrak trains and 19 Metrolink trains that arrive and depart from the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. These trains that currently utilize the track will continue to operate with the development of ARTIC. Additional trains are not components of ARTIC. Train noise for year 2013 With Project will be similar to existing conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-22 July 19, 2010 Interior Noise Impacts In order to satisfy local and state standards for interior sound levels, a simultaneous interior and exterior measurement was taken at the Ayres Hotel to determine the building attenuation. The interior measurement was taken in Room 135 of the hotel and an exterior measurement was taken at the hotel pool area, results are shown in Table 3.4-8. The interior measurement was 34 dBA and the exterior measurement was 65 dBA, therefore, the building attenuation for the hotel is 31 dB. The CNEL for the Ayres Hotel was found to be 67 dBA. By applying the building attenuation of 31 dBA to the exterior CNEL of 67 dBA, the interior sound level is expected to be 36 dBA. The 2013 With Project noise levels will remain below the state and local standards interior noise standards. Table 3.4-8 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for 2013 Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (No Impact) During construction it is anticipated that approximately 70,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated. If shoring is needed during the excavation work, the shoring will be vibrated into place and not pile driven. The FTA Vibration Screening procedure provides reference distances for sensitive receivers identified within the proposed project area (FTA, 2006). The Ayres Hotel was identified as the nearest sensitive receiver within the project area that is categorized as a Category 2 Land Use. The screening distance for Category 2 Land Uses is 200 feet from the project ROW. The Ayres Hotel is approximately 800 feet from the project location. Therefore, according to the FTA guidance no vibration impacts are likely to occur at the Ayres Hotel. Metrolink and Amtrak trains currently pass through the project area. For purposes of this analysis, vibration conditions at ARTIC are anticipated to be consistent with conditions at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. No changes in vibration noise levels will occur and the area surrounding ARTIC is not expected to experience excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (No Impact) Nearby sensitive land uses identified within the project area, such as the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments and the Extended Stay Hotel in the City of Orange, fall outside of the FTA noise impact criteria screen distance of 1,200 feet. Therefore, the impact analysis focused on the ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-23 July 19, 2010 Ayres Hotel, which is the closest receiver that will experience changes in noise levels. This receiver location is approximately 800 feet away from the centerline of the platform of ARTIC, placing the station closer to the hotel than its current location. Since operations at ARTIC will be similar to operations at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, the 2013 With Project noise environment will be similar to existing conditions at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Traffic Impacts As shown in Table 3.4-7, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible increases in noise levels from Without Project to With Project conditions. Changes in local traffic patterns and improvements to local roads will not have a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. As a result, 2013 With Project noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic will have a less than significant impact. Rail Impacts Metrolink and Amtrak trains arriving and departing from ARTIC are expected to cause a periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of Ayers Hotel above levels existing without ARTIC. This increase is expected to last no longer than one minute and be intermittent. It will not add substantially to the existing CNEL, which is based on a 24-hour, time-weighted average. As shown in Table 3.4-9, when comparing the existing CNEL value at the hotel to the 2013 With Project CNEL value at ARTIC, it is anticipated that no increase in CNEL will occur. 2013 With Project noise levels will be less than the existing noise levels currently experienced at the Ayres Hotel. No noticeable change will occur in the exterior noise environment near the hotel. Table 3.4-9 2013 With Project Noise Levels Location CNEL (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 60 59 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 73 In addition, the cumulative CNEL and Ldn values found at the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station are well below the cumulative CNEL and Ldn values found at the Ayres Hotel. According to the FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects (see Figure 3.4-4), if the existing noise levels at the Ayres Hotel are 67 dBA and the 2013 With Project are 59 dBA, then the implementation of ARTIC will have no future impact on the Ayres Hotel or the surrounding area. Furthermore, at the border between the City and the City of Orange the existing CNEL is near 73 dBA. 2013 With Project noise levels are expected to be far less than the 73 dBA; therefore, noise levels from the relocation of the station will not be noticeable in this area. No project impacts are expected in the City of Orange. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-24 July 19, 2010 i) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Construction activities, which will include demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction, are expected to cause a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Construction that will occur between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM will be in compliance with Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Constructing the stub-end track along the LOSSAN corridor will require intermittent nighttime construction of the rail bridge over Douglass Avenue in order to maintain operation of the Amtrak/Metrolink rail services. These construction activities may expose noise sensitive receivers, such as the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments and the Ayres Hotel, to significant levels of temporary noise exposure. Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3). As stated previously, the Extended Stay Hotel in the City of Orange is located over 1,200 feet from the project site and construction activities for ARTIC are not expected to impact the hotel. j) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) ARTIC is not located within the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport land use plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. k) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) There are no private airstrips, heliports, or helistops in the vicinity of ARTIC. The closest heliport is the North Net Fire Training Center heliport, located 0.5 miles southwest of ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Construction Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. The ambient noise environment for ARTIC includes traffic noise from SR-57. The two sensitive receptors in the project area are the Ayers Hotel (approximately 800 feet to the northwest) and the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments (approximately 2,400 feet to the west). ARTIC construction will conform to applicable policies, regulations, and codes. Mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce nighttime construction impacts to less than significant levels. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects planned within the project area during ARTIC’s grading and excavation activities, with the exception of the expansion of SR-57. Nighttime construction activities are not planned for the SR-57 Northbound Widening Project (LSA ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-25 July 19, 2010 Associates, Inc., 2009). Noise as a result of daytime construction activities for the two projects will conform to applicable policies, regulations, and codes. Cumulative impacts for the construction of ARTIC will be less than significant with mitigation. Operation Traffic Impacts Cumulative traffic impacts can occur when multiple projects combine and operate concurrently. Future projects will be completed and operating by the year 2030. Therefore, 2030 traffic impacts will be analyzed for ARTIC in conjunction with other future planned projects operating within the project area during this future date. To identify cumulative traffic noise impacts as a result of the project in combination with other project sources, the FHWA-RD-77-108 noise calculations were utilized to estimate 2030 Without Project and 2030 With Project conditions. As shown in Table 3.4-10, on-site traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to the project site at a reference distance of 50 feet have negligible increases in noise levels from Without Project to With Project conditions. Changes in local traffic patterns and improvements to local roads will not have a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. Project related cumulative traffic noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic will be less than significant. Table 3.4-10 2030 Traffic Noise Levels Segment 2030 Without Project 2030 With Project ADT CNEL ADT CNEL Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Way 70,870 78.1 71,090 78.1 Katella Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Lewis Street 70,720 78.6 71,090 78.7 Katella Avenue between Lewis Street and State College Boulevard 57,490 77.7 57,860 77.8 Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and Sportstown 51,287 77.2 51,920 77.3 Katella Avenue between Sportstown and Howell Avenue 61,927 78.1 62,310 78.1 Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Freeway 70,807 78.6 71,190 78.7 Katella Avenue between SR-57 Freeway and Main Street 62,161 78.1 62,900 78.1 Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street 51,164 77.2 51,570 77.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-26 July 19, 2010 Rail Impacts There are approximately 22 Amtrak trains and 19 Metrolink trains that arrive and depart from this station. According to the Final EIR for the OCTA Long-Range Transportation Plan, transit trips in Orange County are expected to increase by 26 percent by the year 2030 (OCTA, 2006). FTA guidance states that a 40 percent change in trains per day or hour can produce an approximate two dBA change in noise exposure at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The 26 percent increase will occur throughout the County of Orange, not just the City. Therefore, it is assumed that the 2030 noise levels will increase by a maximum of 1 dBA from existing noise levels at ARTIC. Sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance (Caltrans, 2009). The Ayres Hotel is located approximately 800 feet from the Intermodal Terminal location and the Extended Stay Hotel is located over 1,200 feet. Therefore, the increase in noise levels from the relocation of the station and the estimated increase in transit trip will have no impact on the Ayres Hotel or the Extended Stay Hotel. Noise levels for the 2030 With Project conditions are shown in Table 3.4-11. Table 3.4-11 2030 With Project Noise Levels Location CNEL (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station 61 60 Ayres Hotel 67 67 City of Orange 73 73 Interior Noise Impacts Noise levels for the 2030 With Project conditions are expected to be similar to the 2013 With Project and existing conditions. As stated previously the building attenuation of the Ayres Hotel was found to be 31 dBA. Therefore, because 2030 noise levels are expected to remain the same as 2013 and existing conditions the interior sound levels for the hotel rooms will be 36 dBA, as shown in Table 3.4-12. The future noise levels will remain below the state and local standards interior noise standards. Table 3.4-12 Ayres Hotel Interior and Exterior Sound Levels for Cumulative Impacts Location Interior Sound Level, dBA Exterior Sound Level, dBA Building Attenuation, dB Ayres Hotel 36 67 31 Cumulative impacts for the operation of ARTIC are anticipated to be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-27 July 19, 2010 3.4.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  FTA noise impact criteria;  California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are incorporated into the California Building Code (24 CCR Part 2) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California;  Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70; and  Community noise standards adopted in the City of Anaheim General Plan. 3.4.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: Construction of ARTIC may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ARTIC. 3.4.8 Mitigation Measures Implementation of ARTIC is expected to result in a temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing noise levels. All other thresholds of significance are not expected to be impacted by the implementation of ARTIC. During construction of ARTIC, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise from project construction will be regulated through the Anaheim Municipal Code. During grading, demolition, and construction, the City shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement mitigation measures to limit construction- related noise.  N-1: Noise generated by construction shall be limited to 60 dBA along Douglass Road, Katella Avenue, and the tracks before 7 AM and after 7 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If 60 dBA is exceeded during these hours, noise attenuation features (i.e. temporary noise barriers, sound curtains, etc.) shall be installed to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA at the exterior of the affected building. These noise attenuation features may be removed if a qualified noise specialist determines that noise levels are not significantly impacted by nighttime construction;  N-2: When excessive noise during construction is anticipated before 7 AM and after 7 PM the contractor shall request an exception to the requirements of Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The request shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6.70 and shall include a construction schedule and a list of equipment to be used during that time frame. This information shall be provided to the Director of Public Works or Chief Building Official for consideration; and ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.4 Noise ARTIC Draft EIR 3.4-28 July 19, 2010  N-3: Construction equipment and supplies shall be located in staging areas that shall create the greatest distance possible between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the project area. This information shall be specified on all grading, excavation and construction plans. 3.4.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to noise have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-1 July 19, 2010 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The information from the following document was used in the preparation of this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix I of this EIR: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed ARTIC Phase I Project, Anaheim, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, November 2009. 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Geologic Setting California is made up of 11 geomorphic provinces as defined by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) California Geologic Survey (CGS) (CGS, 2002). California Geomorphic Provinces are distinctive, generally easy to recognize natural regions in which the geologic record, types of landforms, pattern of landscape features, and climate in all parts are similar (CGS, 2002). ARTIC is located in the southern part of the Los Angeles Basin within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges extends southward from the Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California and is characterized by elongated northwest trending mountain ranges separated by sediment-floored valleys (CGS, 2002). The most dominant structural features of the province are the northwest trending fault zones, most of which die out, merge with, or are terminated by the steep reverse faults at the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. Regional Geology East of ARTIC are the northwest trending Santa Ana Mountains, a large range which has been uplifted on its eastern side along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, producing a tilted, irregular highland that slopes westward toward the sea (Schoellhamer et al., 1981). The area south and west of the Santa Ana Mountains is generally characterized as a broad, complex, alluvial fan, which receives sediments from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries draining the Santa Ana Mountains and Puente Hills, and to a lesser extent the San Bernardino Mountains. These sediments are relatively flat-lying, unconsolidated to loosely consolidated clastic deposits that are approximately 1,700 feet thick beneath the site (Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, 2007; Orange County Water District (OCWD), 2004). ARTIC is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, a braided stream system that has had significant flood control measures constructed along its course over the past 100 years. Prior to flood control, deposition and erosion primarily during flood events contributed to the general geology of ARTIC and the vicinity. The surficial deposits in the vicinity of ARTIC consist of alluvial fan material and alluvium deposited by the Santa Ana River (denoted as Qyfa on Figure 3.5-1) over the last few thousand years. These unconsolidated alluvial sediments are generally composed of flat-lying, non-marine deposits of sand and a minor amount of silt. (Morton et al., 2004). South of Ball Road (north of the site approximately 0.75 mile) these sandy deposits become interbedded with clayey layers in the subsurface, generally at a depth of approximately 50 to 55 feet (OCWD, 2004; SCRRA, 1994). Due to quarrying activities and bank sloughing, most of ARTIC is not underlain by alluvium, but rather an undetermined thickness of ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-2 July 19, 2010 undocumented artificial fill (denoted Afu on Figure 3.5-1). ARTIC was filled in to current grades during development of the property in the early 1970s. Although the bottom elevation of the fill is most likely equal to the river’s elevation in the northern part of the site, in the southern part (quarry area) aerial photography indicate that fill depth may be about 5 to 10 feet deeper than the river’s bottom elevation. The source for, or composition of, the fill material is not known. Underlying the undocumented fill throughout ARTIC is alluvial sand to silty sand. Figure 3.5-1 reflects this mapping and utilizes similar nomenclature Qw and Qyf) presented by the United States Geological Survey (Morton et al., 2004) and CGS (Greenwood and Pridmore, 2001). ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-5 July 19, 2010 Project Soils Undocumented fill soils were encountered during subsurface investigations. Locally derived sand material appears to have been used as fill and site compaction appears to be highly variable. The fill soils were classified mostly as poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and silty sand. This fill is considered undocumented and not suitable for structural support. The fill depth varies throughout ARTIC and is difficult to determine due to the nature of the material, although generally the fill depths range between approximately 7 and 21 feet. Young alluvial deposits were encountered below the fill. The alluvium consists predominantly of interbedded layers and lenses of poorly graded sand, silty sand, lean clay, and sandy silt. Gravel layers were identified in select locations, and sand layers containing significant amount of gravel were also identified. Seismicity and Faulting ARTIC is located in the highly seismic southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. Active and potentially active faults are capable of producing seismic shaking in the area of ARTIC, and it is anticipated that ARTIC will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. The terms “sufficiently active” and “well defined” are used by the CGS as criteria for categorizing faults under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act. A “sufficiently active” fault is one that shows evidence of Holocene (a geologic epoch that began approximately 11,700 years ago and continues to the present [Roberts, 1998]) surface displacement along one or more of its segments and branches. A “well-defined fault” is a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at, or just below, the ground surface. The definition “inactive” generally implies that a fault has not been active since the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch (older than 1.7 million years old). No known active faults are mapped crossing ARTIC, and ARTIC is not located within a California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The potential for future surface fault rupture at ARTIC is considered to be low. The closest mapped faults to ARTIC include the Peralta and El Modeno (3.6 and 2.3 miles, respectively), Puente Hill Blind Thrust (5.3 miles), Whittier-Elsinore faults (8.5 miles), and several unnamed and buried faults to the south of ARTIC. Table 3.5-1 summarizes the distances of the closest known faults. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-6 July 19, 2010 Table 3.5-1 Summary of Closest Mapped Faults Fault Name Type Distance, miles (km) Magnitude, Mw El Modeno Reverse 2.3 (3.7) 6.5 Peralta Reverse 3.6 (5.9) 6.5 Unnamed Buried Unknown 4.2 (6.7) and 4.9 (8.0) Unknown Puente Hills Blind Thrust 5.3 (8.6) 7.1 Whittier-Elsinore Strike Slip 8.5 (13.8) 6.8 The Peralta and El Modeno faults are located north and northeast of ARTIC. The Peralta fault outcrops approximately 3.6 miles from ARTIC (Morton et al., 2004). The El Modeno fault is buried beneath the alluvium of the Santa Ana River and its inferred location is about 2.3 miles north of ARTIC. These faults are considered potentially active. The Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault passes approximately 5.3 miles north of ARTIC. Although the Puente Hills Blind Thrust is buried approximately 0.5 to 1 mile beneath the ground surface, significant seismic shaking can result from this buried fault. Displacement along a section of the Santa Fe Springs segment is believed to have caused the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, confirming the potential for this active fault system to cause significant seismic shaking in the Los Angeles Basin (Dolan et al., 2001; Shaw et al, 2002). The Whittier fault has been mapped by California and designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The surface trace has been mapped approximately 8.5 miles (13.8 km) north of ARTIC. Two unnamed, buried faults are mapped approximately 4.2 miles (6.7 km) and 4.9 miles (8 km) to the southwest and south of ARTIC. No information regarding these faults is available except that they are buried beneath sediments, some older than 11,000 years (Morton et al., 2004). A Regional Fault Map depicting the faults surrounding ARTIC is included as Figure 3.5-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-9 July 19, 2010 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Potential Liquefaction and seismically induced settlement potential refer to another type of geologic hazard, in which loose sand and silt that is saturated with water and behaves like a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Seismically induced soil liquefaction generally occurs in loose, saturated, cohesionless soil when pore pressures within the soil increase during ground shaking. The increase in pore pressure transforms the soil from a solid to a semi-liquid state. The primary factors affecting the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit are: 1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking, 2) soil type and relative density, 3) overburden pressures, and 4) depth to groundwater. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands, and non-plastic silts that are saturated. Silty sands have also been shown to be susceptible to liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction has been mapped as shown on Figure 3.5-3. ARTIC is located within a State of California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction (California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998; City of Anaheim, 2009). Because of the depth of historic groundwater and the local soil types, the potential for liquefaction at ARTIC is moderate to high. Landslides, Rockslides, Debris Flow, and Slope Stability Landslides, rockslides, and debris flow constitute another category of geologic hazards. Landslide refers to the lateral displacement of earth materials on a slope or hillside; while rockslides refer to a geological phenomenon which includes a wide range of ground movement, such as falling rocks, deep failure of slopes and shallow debris flows. Landslides commonly occur in connection with other major natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, and floods. Steep, bare slopes; clay-rich rock; deposits of stream or river sediment; and heavy rains can also cause landslides. Lateral spreading is the term commonly used to describe the permanent deformation of sloping ground that occurs during earthquake shaking as a result of soil liquefaction. Deformations can range from inches to several feet, with the greatest displacements usually occurring near free- faces. Therefore, facilities and structures adjacent to bodies of water (e.g. ports/harbors, lakes, and rivers) are usually at the greatest risk of experiencing damage due to lateral spreading. Stabilization methods include shoring, soil modification or stabilization, drilled piers, and retaining walls that are cast in place. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-10 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- III hf h II ILi - L 1 JLJL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES ANAHEIM (04/15/98) AND ORANGE (04/15/98) QUADRANGLES MAP EXPLANATION Zones of Required Investigation: Liquefaction Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required Th ifti iftd€d thiS g,phi h &ty f I d s bjt t itht KIhfId& ks I ipIid, t y, , tfr€Ii&s, ighft t th f fti Th! is t i,t&dd d it I digd itdd tti dig, Th f th€ ,fti tid th gphi tti i t th ik f th@ pty ig th SITE COORDINATES: I LATITUDE: 33.8022’N LONGITUDE: -117.8993’W 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet) . DRAWN: 7/12/10 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL MAP ;lL1IIEIJV PROJECT NO. 109528 FIGURE DRAWNBY: JP CHECKED BY: CC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 35’3 ‘ KLEINFELDER FILE NAME: CITY OF ANAHEIM . Bright People. Right Solutioni ARTIC 109528L1Q.dwg ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-13 July 19, 2010 The annual precipitation in the City is low, averaging less than 13 inches per year, which is one component generally associated with low risk of debris flow disaster. ARTIC is at a low risk overall for landslides because of the low annual precipitation, limited presence of clay soils, and relatively level topography (City of Anaheim, 2009). The portion of ARTIC bound by the Santa Ana River has potential to be affected by slope instability and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. The top of the embankment to the channel bottom is approximately 15 to 20 feet high with an inclination of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) (Kleinfelder, 2009). Preliminary analyses indicate that, due to liquefaction, the channel slope will not be stable during the design earthquake and may affect improvements at ARTIC. The Intermodal Terminal will be approximately 150 feet from the Santa Ana River. Subsidence Ground subsidence results from fluid (e.g. groundwater, petroleum) withdrawal in weakly consolidated materials. The loss of fluid causes consolidation of the empty pore spaces, which means that any voids in the soil previously filled with fluid are compressed by the mass of the overlying materials, effectively decreasing the soil volume and resulting in land subsidence. ARTIC is not located in an area of known ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Accordingly, the potential for subsidence occurring at ARTIC due to the withdrawal of oil, gas, or water is considered remote (Kleinfelder, 2009). Expansive Soils Certain soils, known as “expansive soils,” are subject to changes in volume and settlement in response to wetting and drying, often resulting in severe damage to structures. Expansive soils have a significant amount of clay particles which can exude water (shrink) or absorb and hold water (swell). The resultant changes in soil volumes exert stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The distribution of expansive soils may be widely dispersed. The upper fill and alluvial soils are generally granular and non-cohesive in nature (sandy soil). The potential for expansive soils impacting ARTIC at shallow depth is low. Subterranean excavations may encounter clayey soils with a medium expansion potential (Kleinfelder, 2009). Corrosive Soils The corrosivity of soils is related to several key parameters: soil resistivity, presence of chlorides and sulfates, oxygen content, and pH. Typically, the most corrosive soils are those with the lowest pH and highest concentration of chlorides and sulfates. High sulfate soils are corrosive to concrete and may prevent complete curing reducing its strength considerably. Low pH and/or low resistivity soils could corrode buried or partially buried metal structures. Based on results from soil tested, ARTIC’s near-surface soils may be considered moderately corrosive towards ferrous metals. The corrosive potential on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is “negligible” (Kleinfelder, 2009). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-14 July 19, 2010 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations International Building Code/California Building Code The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is now referenced as The International Building Code (IBC) and is published by the International Code Council, formally known as International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Revised editions of this code are published approximately every three years. The California Building Code (CBC) was approved and incorporated into the 2006 IBC in 2007. The regulatory environment for design and construction consists of building codes and standards covering local, state, federal, land use, and environmental regulations which are developed specifically for the purpose of regulating the life safety, health and welfare of the public. Once adopted, building codes become law (ICBO, 1997). The building code (which covers all new building construction, additions and renovations) is where the applicable seismic provisions are typically enforced. In addition to structural design requirements, the building code also covers fire resistance, disabled access and other life safety requirements (Fennie, 2005). A new version of the CBC will be effective January 1, 2011. This code will be based on the 2009 IBC. National Engineering Handbook The National Engineering Handbook (National Resources Conservation Service, 1983) Sections 2.0 and 3.0 provide standards for soil conservation during planning, design, and construction activities. ARTIC will need to conform to these standards during grading and construction to limit soil erosion. These measures will be defined and outlined in ARTIC’s stormwater plan. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA) following amendment in 1977, establishes requirements for discharges of stormwater or wastewater from any point source that will affect the beneficial uses of waters of the US (USEPA, 2009). The State Water Resources Control Board adopted one statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit that will apply to stormwater discharges associated with construction, industrial, and municipal activities. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is the administering agency for the NPDES permit program. The CWA’s primary effect on soils within ARTIC consists of control of soil erosion and sedimentation during construction, including the preparation and execution of erosion and sedimentation control plans and measures for any soil disturbance during construction 2009). State Policies and Regulations Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PA) was enacted in 1975 and amended in 1993. The intent of the A-PA was to provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-15 July 19, 2010 state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The A-PA only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. It is the intent of the A-PA to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes (CGS, 2003). Natural Hazards Disclosure Act Natural Hazards Disclosure Act came into effect June 1, 1998 and requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a “Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement” when the property being sold lies within one or more State-mapped hazard areas. Seismic Hazard Mapping Act The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was enacted by the California legislature in April 1997, primarily as a result of the Northridge earthquake of 1994. The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requires the creation and publication of maps showing areas where earthquake induced liquefaction or landslides could occur (CGS, 2003). If a property is located in a Seismic Hazard Zone as shown on a map issued by the State Geologist, the seller or the seller’s agent must disclose this fact to potential buyers (CGS, 2007). Stormwater BMP Handbooks The California Stormwater BMP Handbooks provide guidance to the stormwater community and were published by the Stormwater Quality Task Force in 1993. The Stormwater Quality Task Force became the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) in 2002 and in 2003 CASQA published an updated and expanded set of four BMP Handbooks. These Handbooks reflect the current practices, standards, and significant amount of knowledge gained since the early 90s about the effectiveness of BMPs. Local Policies and Regulations Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17 The Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, details land development and resources restrictions and codes, pertaining to grading, land development, public safety, and other related concerns. City of Anaheim General Plan The Safety Element of the General Plan has been written to establish the City’s approach to ensure a safe environment for residents, visitors, and businesses. The Safety Element establishes goals, policies, and implements programs to guide this effort. Several policies pertaining to landslides, subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils, and other potential hazards on the site are included in the City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, as noted below: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-16 July 19, 2010  Goal 1.1, Policy 3: Enforce requirements of the California Seismic Hazard mapping and A-PA when siting, evaluating, and constructing new projects within the City; and  Goal 1.1, Policy 4: Require that engineered slopes be designed to resist earthquake- induced failure. The City requires that all grading operations be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, as well as the most recent IBC. As part of hazard mitigation, the City also requires geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards. 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Geology and Soils are defined by: a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the project be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the 2007 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-17 July 19, 2010 3.5.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC is located within the southern California region, known to be highly seismically active. No known active faults are mapped crossing ARTIC, and ARTIC is not located within a California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The potential for future surface fault rupture at ARTIC is considered to be low. The closest mapped faults to ARTIC include the Peralta and El Modeno, Puente Hill Blind Thrust, Whittier-Elsinore faults, and several unnamed and buried faults to the south of ARTIC (see Figure 3.5-2). Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC elements including track, bridges, and structures will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, the National Engineering Handbook, current American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) guidance documents, and existing SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. iii) Seismic related ground-failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC is located within a California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction (CDMG, 1998). Because of the depth of historic groundwater and the soil types at ARTIC, the potential for liquefaction is moderate to high. ARTIC elements will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, City, National Engineering Handbook, current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Site specific geotechnical engineering recommendations to reduce seismic impacts from seismic shaking to less than significant include, site grading, modification to foundation design and/or ground improvements. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. iv) Landslides? (Less Than Significant Impact) The annual precipitation in the City is low, averaging less than 13 inches per year, which is one component associated with low risk of debris flow disaster. ARTIC, because of the low annual precipitation, limited presence of clay soils, and relatively level topography, is at a low risk overall for landslides (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC is adjacent to the Santa Ana River and has the potential to be affected by slope instability and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. The top of the embankment to the channel bottom is approximately 15 to 20 feet high with an inclination ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-18 July 19, 2010 of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Preliminary analyses indicate that, due to liquefaction, the channel slope will not be stable during the design earthquake and may affect improvements to ARTIC (Kleinfelder, 2009). ARTIC will be engineered to comply with CBC, Orange County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact) Site preparation and excavation activities associated with ARTIC may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil because of local precipitation and runoff. Due to relatively low annual precipitation, a relatively level topography, and implementation of BMPs, impacts will be less than significant for soil erosion. Development at ARTIC will adhere to the General Plan goals and policies to reduce impacts of erosion to below a level of significance. In accordance with the requirements of the ARTIC, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit [CGP]). The CGP requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to reduce or eliminate soil loss. The will identify BMPs to minimize erosion and sediment loss. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact) The primary geotechnical constraints for site development are the compressibility of the upper alluvial soils (static settlement) and the potential for seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading due to liquefaction. Based on preliminary analyses, the potential for lateral spreading of the Santa Ana River channel slope cannot be precluded. Seismic deformation of the channel slope adjacent to ARTIC will be included in ground improvement and other engineering controls during the design phase of ARTIC. ARTIC elements including track, bridges, and structures will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, the City, the National Engineering Handbook, current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-19 July 19, 2010 d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the 2007 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant Impact) The upper fill and alluvial soils are generally granular and non-cohesive in nature (sandy soil). The potential for expansive soils impacting ARTIC at shallow depth is low. Subterranean excavations may encounter clayey soils with a medium expansion potential. Changes in soil volumes due to shrink-swell potential could result in adverse impacts to buildings at these locations. Impacts from expansive soils associated in these areas can be reduced to less than significant levels through geotechnical engineering design recommendations (Kleinfelder, 2009). Engineering controls will be required to comply with CBC, Orange County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) A sanitary sewer line from the Intermodal Terminal will be connected to the OCSD system. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils are considered less than significant because they are site specific. Project level impacts may be considered potentially significant but will be managed through engineering and construction practices to a less than significant level. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.5.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17; and  IBC. 3.5.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. 3.5.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.5 Geology and Soils ARTIC Draft EIR 3.5-20 July 19, 2010 3.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with geology and soils. No significant impacts were identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-1 July 19, 2010 3.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section evaluates the potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems related to ARTIC. This section discusses power distribution (electricity), water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage and run-off, and solid waste collection and removal, including recycling. 3.6.1 Environmental Setting This section discusses the existing public utility systems within the study area. For utilities, the study area is within or adjacent to ARTIC. Utility providers throughout the study area include municipal agencies, special utility districts, and private companies providing electricity, water, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, stormwater collection, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Water Supply Through the City of Anaheim PUD, the City operates its own water utility and water treatment plant (City of Anaheim, 2009). The City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: The Orange County Groundwater Basin wells and imported water from MWD. MWD obtains its water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project in northern California. The City currently pumps approximately 66 percent of its drinking water from the County of Orange groundwater basins and purchases the remainder from the MWD (City of Anaheim, 2005). OCWD has the responsibility for managing and conserving the groundwater basin and currently owns and operates approximately 1,000 acres of recharge spreading facilities located in cities of Anaheim and Orange adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. OCWD has built a recharge system that supplies the majority of water. Other than recycled water, OCWD primarily recharges the Basin with water from the Santa Ana River and to a lesser extent with imported raw water purchased from MWD. As of January 2008, OCWD began recharging recycled water from the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). The GWRS can currently produce up to 72,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water, and has increased the County of Orange’s water independence by providing a locally controlled, drought-proof supply of safe, high-quality water (Psomas, 2009). The City’s water distribution system is generally divided into two main geographic areas, based on elevation: the Flatland Area and the Hill and Canyon Area. The Flatland Area is approximately 21,000 acres, situation generally north and west of the Santa Ana River, and almost entirely served by groundwater (with MWD imported water supplemented as necessary). ARTIC will be situated in the Flatland Area, west of the Santa Ana River, east of I-5, south of the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, and north of the City limit. The Hill and Canyon Area is approximately 11,000 acres, situated generally south and east of the Santa Ana River, and is served primarily by imported water from the MWD. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-2 July 19, 2010 Wastewater Sewage created throughout the City is collected by the City’s sewer collection system facilities and conveyed to trunk sewers owned and maintained by the OCSD, which then treats the sewage at regional facilities (City of Anaheim, 2009). Two Orange County wastewater treatment plants serve the City. Plant 1 has a current capacity of 144 million gallons per day (mgd) and Plant 2 has a current capacity of 108 mgd. These capacities are expected to expand to 204 mgd for Plant 1 and 144 mgd for Plant 2 (City of Anaheim, 2009). Most of the sewer system is adequate for existing and future development. Some areas will require additional facilities to keep pace with future needs. Various sewer lines are considered deficient (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC is surrounded on three sides by OCSD Trunk Sewer lines along State College Boulevard, along the eastern edge of the Santa Ana River, and to the north of ARTIC, running parallel to the train tracks. A small portion of the sewer trunk line that runs along State College Boulevard, between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way, is considered to be in a state of deficiency. A new 18-inch sanitary sewer line will be installed from ARTIC to connect into the main sanitary sewer. Storm Drains The local storm drains that serve ARTIC are maintained under the jurisdiction of the City and Caltrans. There are also major storm drains under the jurisdiction of the OCFCD. Storm drains collect rainwater and other urban runoff from the community. This water travels through street gutters to storm drains, which channel the runoff to the Santa Ana River and eventually to the ocean. Storm drains run beneath most streets with inlets along the curb face. The City is divided into 44 distinct drainage districts that are supported by a system of regional, intermediate, and municipal storm drainage facilities (City of Anaheim, 2009). Onsite water flows to the Santa Ana River via existing connections. Douglass Road runoff will flow to the river through existing connections. Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal is provided for the City through a private contractor. After the waste is collected, it is processed through the Material Resource Recovery Facility. Remaining non-recyclable waste is processed and consolidated before delivery to southern California landfills (City of Anaheim, 2009). All municipal solid waste generated in the study area will be disposed of at any of the three County of Orange landfills. All three active landfills accept municipal solid waste (trash) and are permitted as Class III landfills. Class III landfills accept only non-hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste is accepted (County of Orange, 2003). The Olinda Alpha Landfill, with a permitted life to 2023, is the closest facility to ARTIC. It will likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project area, although the possibility remains that waste may be disposed of at either or both of the other facilities, depending upon daily permitted capacity and actual closure date (City of Anaheim, 2005). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-3 July 19, 2010 The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) requires that the County of Orange maintain a minimum of 15 years of disposal capacity. OC Waste & Recycling sets long range strategic planning goals to ensure that solid waste is safely disposed of and that future disposal needs are met, and administers the CIWMP. The Regional Landfill Options for Orange County strategic plan was developed to evaluate options for solid waste disposal over the next 40 years. In accordance with the City’s diversion programs, the Regional Landfill Options for Orange County program, and the projected landfill capacities, it is assumed that adequate capacity is available for the City for the foreseeable future (City of Anaheim, 2009). Electricity The City of Anaheim PUD will provide electricity to ARTIC. The City’s electric supply comes from resources located in or near the City and across the western US. Power supply comes primarily from PUD-owned interest in the Intermountain Power Project in Utah and the Magnolia Power Plant in Glendale, California. Electricity is delivered through PUD interstate and SCE interstate high-voltage transmission lines (City of Anaheim, 2010). Power purchases and seasonal power exchanges, along with market purchases as necessary to meet peak demand, provide the overall electric supply to the City. SCE power lines in the project vicinity are currently serving existing demand. The electrical distribution system consists of approximately 1,500 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines, of which 500 miles are underground. Eleven distribution substations are located throughout the City. Nearest to ARTIC are the Lewis and Katella Substation. The PUD provides its current customer base with more than 595,000 kilowatts and 3.3 billion kilowatt-hours annually (City of Anaheim, 2009). The PUD provides service for the City, and will provide service for new developments within the Platinum Triangle, including ARTIC. A minimum service of 4.8 Megavolt Ampere (MVA) will be requested to serve ARTIC’s electrical needs, which includes a future 15 percent increase allowance. A 1,000 kW emergency generator will also be available to provide supply to ARTIC in the event of utility power loss (Buro Happold, 2010). Natural Gas Natural gas supplies to California are expected to remain plentiful for several decades. The total resource base (gas recoverable with today’s technology) for the lower 48 states is estimated to be about 975 trillion cubic feet, enough to continue current production levels for more than 50 years. Technology enhancements will continue to enlarge this resource base. Production capacity increases remain less certain. Despite this concern, production in the continental US is expected to increase from 17.1 trillion cubic feet in the 1994 base year to 25.9 trillion cubic feet in 2019 (California Energy Commission, 2000). ARTIC is within the service area of Southern California Gas Company (SCG) which is a utility provider under the Sempra Energy Company. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SCG is under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-4 July 19, 2010 SCG provides gas service in the City and has facilities throughout the City. SCG has gas lines along Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, and Lewis Street (City of Anaheim, 2005). SCG currently has facilities in the City, and gas mains for ARTIC could be provided from existing SCG gas mains located in various locations throughout the City (City of Anaheim, 2009). Natural gas may be considered as the fuel type for ARTIC’s emergency generator. The natural gas supply from the City mains cannot be considered a guaranteed supply (Buro Happold, 2010). Diesel may be considered as an alternate fuel. Telephone Service Telephone and cable television service are provided by AT&T and Time-Warner throughout the Platinum Triangle (City of Anaheim, 2008). While development of ARTIC may contribute to the cumulative demand on the telephone and/or cable television service, due to the expandable nature of these services, systems can be upgraded as necessary by the provider without significant impacts (City of Anaheim, 2008). 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Clean Water Act (1987) The CWA is the primary federal law governing water pollution (33 USC 1251-1376). The act established the goals of eliminating releases to water of high amounts of toxic substances, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface waters will meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983. Under the CWA, the USEPA’s Office of Waste Management works together with USEPA regions, states and tribes to regulate discharges into surface waters such as wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries, bays and oceans. Specifically, the Office of Waste Management focuses on control of water that is collected in discrete conveyances (also called point sources), including pipes, ditches, and sanitary or storm sewers (USEPA, 2009). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters unless the discharge is authorized by a NPDES permit. The NPDES permit requirements were established in 1987, with the passage of the Water Quality Act. Since 1990, operators of stormwater systems have been required to develop a stormwater management program designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed away by stormwater runoff and discharged into local water bodies. In California, the administers the NPDES permitting program 2009). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-5 July 19, 2010 United States Environmental Protection Agency The USEPA defines solid waste as any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities (USEPA, 2009). Other wastes regulations are set forth in 40 CFR 273, including batteries, pesticides, and some conditionally exempt small quantity generators. State Policies and Regulations State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 1881) The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) was adopted as a comprehensive set of 43 recommendations, basically making changes to the AB 325 of 1990 for water conservation in landscaping, and updating the Model Local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water will also be adopted by regulation. Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, Environmental Protection-Division 2, Solid Waste Title 27 of the CCR addresses landfill closure standards and landfill-related public health and safety issues. Regulations for Title 27 have been set forth by the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan On December 13, 2001, the issued a Municipal Stormwater NPDES (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001) that requires new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate stormwater mitigation measures. Depending on the type of project, either a standard urban stormwater mitigation plan or a site- specific mitigation plan is required to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of rainfall runoff that leaves the site. Water Supply Assessment, Senate Bill 610 SB 610 became effective January 1, 2002. The bill requires a city or county that determines that a project (as defined in Water Code Section 10912) is subject to CEQA to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. The assessment is required to include an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-6 July 19, 2010 California Integrated Waste Management Act, Assembly Bill 939 The California Integrated Waste Management Act (PRC §40000 et seq.) requires municipalities to divert 50 percent of their solid waste from landfills to recycling facilities by 2000. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan The City has prepared an urban water management plan (UWMP) to describe how water resources are used and to present strategies that will be used to meet the City’s current and future water needs. To be consistent with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, the City of Anaheim UWMP focuses primarily on water supply reliability and water use efficiency measures. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires water suppliers to develop water management plans every five years. The City most recently completed this five- year update in 2005. The 2005 UWMP was completed as an update to the 2000 UWMP to comply with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. City of Anaheim General Plan The Public Services and Facilities Element within the City of Anaheim General Plan lists several applicable goals and policies regarding utilities and service systems. Electricity Goal 3.1, Policy 2: Generate electricity in a manner that is reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable by ensuring that adequate electricity capacity exists for planned development. Water System Goal 4.1, Policy 2: Provide a water system that produces high quality water, sufficient water pressure, and necessary quantities of water to meet domestic demands by continuing to provide municipal water service that meets or exceeds state and federal health standards. Sewer System Goal 5.1, Policy 1: Provide a safe and effective sewer system that meets the needs of the City’s residents, businesses, and visitors by ensuring that appropriate sewer system mitigation measures are identified and implemented in conjunction with new development based on the recommendations of prior sewer studies and/or future sewer studies that may be required by the City Engineer. Storm Drain System Goal 6.1, Policy 3: Maintain a storm drain system that will adequately protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of residents, visitors, employees, and their property by minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces in conjunction with new development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-7 July 19, 2010 Waste Management Goal 7.1, Policy 1: Minimize, recycle, and dispose of solid and hazardous waste in an efficient and environmentally sound manner by ensuring that solid waste generated within the City is collected and transported in a cost-effective manner that protects the public health and safety. Private Utilities Goal 8.1: Coordinate with private utilities to provide adequate natural gas and communications infrastructure to existing and new development in a manner compatible with the surrounding community. City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187 Resolution 2006-187 (approved August 8, 2006) of the City Council authorizes and directs the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (PUD) to establish the Green Connection, a program that accommodates the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability. Resolution 2006-187 sets out a series of goals, including encouraging developers and builders in the City to receive LEEDTM registration and certification, reaching a 20 percent reduction in energy use and a 15 percent reduction in water use by 2015, and replacing 10 percent of the City’s light, non- emergency vehicles with low emission technologies. Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance In September 2009, the California Department of Water Resources released an updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to assist cities in reducing water waste in landscapes. In order to comply with the new requirement, the Anaheim City Council adopted the new Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) in December 2009. This ordinance promotes the benefits of consistent landscape ordinances with neighboring local and regional agencies; establishes a structure for planning, designing, installing, and maintaining and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitation projects; and encourages the use of economic incentives that promote the efficient use of water. 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Utilities and Service Systems are defined by: a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-8 July 19, 2010 c) Would the project 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? d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by PRC § 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Would the project 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? f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? i) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? j) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? k) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? 3.6.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Less Than Significant Impact) Point sources, which in the case of ARTIC will include sewage from on-site sanitary systems, will be discharged to a new local collection system and then to the existing sanitary sewer system. It will be treated by OCSD. During construction of ARTIC, construction personnel will use rented portable restrooms and sinks. Wastewater will be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-9 July 19, 2010 During construction of ARTIC, construction personnel will use rented, portable restrooms and sinks. Wastewater will be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment. ARTIC is expected to create approximately 71,600 gallons per day of wastewater (Psomas, 2009; City of Anaheim, 2005). This represents approximately 0.02 percent of the current available combined capacity of 348 mgd between Plants 1 and 2 for the City (City of Anaheim, 2005). This is considered a negligible increase in wastewater flow going into the existing treatment facilities. ARTIC will include wastewater reduction strategies, such as water recycling, within its design goals that will further reduce wastewater created on-site. The existing 8-inch sewer line at Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue, that currently serves the Industrial property and Ayers Hotel will remain and will not be disturbed by ARTIC. A new 18-inch sanitary line will be installed to serve ARTIC and will connect with the existing OCSD sanitary line at Katella Avenue. During construction of ARTIC, water trucks will supply water to the project. The use of water trucks is required during construction to comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403. This water will be supplied by local sources. Other than the installation of a new 16-inch water transmission main in Douglass Road, ARTIC will not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities because the projected use of the volume of water at ARTIC will not exceed existing or projected water uses presented in the Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and the City’s 2005 UWMP (City of Anaheim, 2009; City of Anaheim, 2005). The Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station and existing facilities on the ARTIC site currently have a stated wastewater usage. Operation of ARTIC will have a negligible increase in wastewater in addition to the existing amount. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is currently developed with industrial buildings and associated parking lots. The project site is covered with impervious surfaces and the rate or volume of stormwater generated by ARTIC will not be greater than the existing conditions. According to the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study, the project site is located within Benefit Zone SD-20, which is part of District 27 drainage area and is directly tributary to the Santa Ana River. Additional lines into the zone are not anticipated. Development in this area is based on a 25-year storm frequency and the appropriate surface flow limitations (City of Anaheim, 2009). The design of the storm drainage facilities for ARTIC will be divided into the Douglass Road and Caltrans SR-57 Drainage System, and a drainage system specifically designed for ARTIC, including the building, the plaza and the parking areas Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). Storm drain facilities for Douglass Road and SR-57 will include the construction of a new 48- inch reinforced concrete pipe, a pump station on the east side of Douglass Road including a ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-10 July 19, 2010 diversion structure to discharge the water, a new trunk line located at the west side of Douglass Road, the removal and reconstruction of an existing 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe, and a new manhole structure Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). Storm drain facilities for ARTIC will be separated into three watershed areas for stormwater surface runoff. These watersheds include the collection of stormwater from the following areas:  Parking lot south from the LOSSAN Corridor;  Building pads and underground area; and  Parking area north of the Plaza Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). The criteria to control the discharge of pollutants associated with stormwater runoff will be met through the implementation of BMPs either based on volume or flow. The identified BMPs will be in compliance with the current municipal stormwater permit Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by PRC § 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less Than Significant Impact) During construction of ARTIC, water trucks will supply water to the project. The use of water trucks is required during construction to comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403. This water will be supplied by local sources. The WSA for the expansion of the Platinum Triangle (City of Anaheim, 2009) has found that there will be sufficient water supply to provide water to ARTIC and the rest of the Platinum Triangle. The City of Anaheim PUD will be able to continue to meet its future demand with imported water and groundwater supplies (Psomas, 2009). Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC is expected to create approximately 71,600 gallons per day of wastewater. This represents approximately 0.02 percent of the current available combined capacity of 348 mgd between Plants 1 and 2 for the City. This is considered a negligible increase in wastewater flow going into the existing treatment facilities. ARTIC will include wastewater reduction strategies, such as water recycling, within its design goals that will further reduce wastewater created on-site. This is considered a negligible increase in wastewater flow going into the existing treatment facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-11 July 19, 2010 f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Less Than Significant Impact) During construction, demolition material will be recycled on-site and off-site to reduce the volume of material required for disposal to the landfills. The excess soil generated during excavation will be transported to landfills for daily cover or transported to other developments requiring fill. During operation, ARTIC will create minimal daily solid waste. This will account for less than one percent of the combined daily capacity of the three County of Orange landfills. This percentage will not significantly reduce capacity at these associated landfills. ARTIC will be adequately accommodated by these landfills. Solid waste reduction strategies, waste diversion, and recycling efforts that are being planned for ARTIC will further reduce solid waste associated impacts. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC will comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) Would the project result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Anaheim PUD provides service for the City, and will provide for new developments within the Platinum Triangle, including ARTIC. A minimum service of 4.8 MVA will be requested to serve ARTIC’s electrical needs, which includes a future 15 percent increase allowance. A 1,000 kW emergency generator will also be available to provide supply to ARTIC in the event of utility power loss (Buro Happold, 2010). ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to electricity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. i) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? (Less Than Significant Impact) Due to the availability of natural gas and the limited impact to supply that ARTIC is anticipated to have (City of Anaheim, 2008), ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to natural gas. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. j) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? (Less Than Significant Impact) While development of ARTIC may contribute to the demand on the telephone service, due to the expandable nature of this service, systems can be upgraded as necessary by the provider without significant impact (City of Anaheim, 2008). ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to telephone. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.6 Utilities and Service Systems ARTIC Draft EIR 3.6-12 July 19, 2010 k) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? (Less Than Significant Impact) While development of ARTIC may contribute to the demand on cable and/or television service, due to the expandable nature of this service, systems can be upgraded as necessary by the provider without significant impact (City of Anaheim, 2008). ARTIC will not result in the need for new systems, supplies, or alterations of current systems related to cable and/or television. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts The capacity for utilities and service systems was evaluated in conjunction with service providers to ensure adequate capacity for ARTIC. The overall system capacity is known by the providers who have indicated adequate capacity for the currently anticipated projects in the area. The implementation of ARTIC and proposed projects within the Platinum Triangle were analyzed in Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332, which includes an appropriate payment mechanism that is available to fund the necessary utility improvements as planned by each utility service provider. Impacts as a result of Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332 are considered less than significant. Less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.6.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 10.19 (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance);  Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 10.18 (Water Conservation Ordinance No. 6138);  NPDES Permit No. CAS004001; and  Senate Bill 610. 3.6.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. 3.6.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.6.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact associated with utilities and service systems. No significant impacts were identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-1 July 19, 2010 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section describes the potential presence of hazardous materials within ARTIC, the potential for exposure to hazardous materials during and following construction, and the specific measures that will be employed to protect public health, worker safety, and the environment. A “hazardous material” is generally defined as any substance that poses a threat to human health or the environment. It is often used interchangeably with “contaminated material,” but should not be confused with the term “hazardous waste,” which is a regulatory term (Davis, 2006). “Hazardous waste” is defined in the USEPA regulations (40 CFR 261) and refers to a subset of solid wastes that are either specific wastes listed in the regulations (listed wastes) or solid wastes possessing the characteristic of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity or toxicity (characteristic wastes) (Davis, 2006). ARTIC Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, prepared by Kleinfelder, July 2009, and ARTIC Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Kleinfelder, December 2009. 3.7.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC consists of nine parcels or portions thereof, which are occupied by a former maintenance facility, a retail lumber facility, and a portion of the LOSSAN corridor. Infrastructure in the area includes utilities, sanitary sewer, and storm drains. According to the California State Fire Marshal (SFM) Pipeline Safety Division, there are no pipelines jurisdictional to the SFM in the area. No airports are zoned within the project site. The closest airport to the project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which in located on the western edge of the City of Fullerton, approximately 2 miles north of the City. This airport is designated for general aviation crafts and encompasses about 86 acres of land, and future expansion is highly restricted by existing surrounding development. There are also five heliports within the City. None are located within the project site. The North Net Fire Training Center Heliport is located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of ARTIC, adjacent to and west of SR-57 and the Santa Ana River (2400 E. Orangewood Ave.). The North Net Fire Training Center’s helicopter flight path currently runs north along the Santa Ana River (City of Anaheim, 2009). The City has an emergency preparedness plan that complies with state law and interfaces with other cities and counties in the southern California region. The plan outlines the procedures that will be implemented in the event of a disaster. The City also participates in the Standard Emergency Management System (City of Anaheim, 2009). The County of Orange has a County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. State legislation enacted in 1986 required the development of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan written to address the planned emergency response for hazardous waste management in the County of Orange. The plan is intended to protect the health and welfare of the community, while preserving the vitality of the County of Orange. The Plan, developed in cooperation with the City, was approved by the Anaheim City Council in 1991 (City of Anaheim, 2009). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-2 July 19, 2010 The Orange County Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map) provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection was reviewed to determine the susceptibility of ARTIC to forest fire risks and hazards 2000). According to the Fire Map, ARTIC is not shown to be in or near a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. The project site and immediate vicinity are depicted as developed. There is one school located within one-quarter mile of ARTIC: Westwood College of Anaheim – 1551 S. Douglass Rd., Anaheim, CA (approximately 0.17 mile from ARTIC). Sites of Potential Environmental Concern A site located on or adjacent to a facility, or former facility, which is of potential environmental concern may pose a hazard to public health and safety. An environmental concern is defined as anything that poses a potential risk to the quality of the groundwater in the area and to the health of individuals drinking from the groundwater (USEPA, 2000). Several properties were listed within the government databases evaluated for potential environmental concerns for ARTIC. Of the properties listed, five sites were identified adjacent to ARTIC and three sites were identified within proposed ARTIC boundaries. The five adjacent properties are not considered a concern to ARTIC based on current proposed construction activities and because of their distance from where soil excavation is planned. However, should proposed construction activities change from their current scope, these properties should be reevaluated. The three properties within ARTIC project boundaries are identified as sites of potential environmental concern. Figure 3.7-1 depicts the locations of these properties relative to ARTIC. The adjacent properties are:  2695 E. Katella Avenue (MAP ID  1654 S. Douglass Road (MAP ID  1650 S. Douglass Road (MAP ID  2400 E. Katella Avenue (MAP ID and  N.W. corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road (MAP ID ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 4 2 3 5 6 Katella Ave Orange Fwy Howell Ave Santa Ana River AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF ANAHEIM ARTIC ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 3.7-1 109528 7/12/10 JP CC 109528envconc.mxd The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE 0 1,000 500 Feet q www.kleinfelder.com LEGEND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN MAP ID APPROXIMATE AREA OF PROJECT STADIUM PAVILION PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SOURCE: ESRI STREETMAP SITE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-5 July 19, 2010 The three properties were identified within ARTIC project boundaries are:  1750 S. Douglass Road (Map ID 6) o A gravel-filled pit beneath a corrugated metal building on the southern portion of the property. The former use of this pit is unknown, and any previous sampling in the area was not determined.  2150 E. Katella Avenue (Map ID 7) o Former “pouring” of oil along the railroad tracks at/around/near the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station for weed abatement.  1790 S. Douglass Road (Map ID 8) o Blue-green dye staining near the dipping vat and within the concrete drainage swale at the retail lumber company. Pad-mounted transformers were observed on several commercial on-site and adjoining properties. Many transformers contain byphenyls (PCBs), which present a possible environmental concern. The transformers observed appeared to be in good condition with no visible leaks and no visible soil staining. 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is the statutory basis for the extensive body of regulations aimed at ensuring the safe transport of hazardous materials on water, rail, highways, through air, or in pipelines. It includes provisions for material classification, packaging, marking, labeling, placecarding, and shipping documentation (49 USC 5101-5127). Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act to address large volumes of municipal and industrial solid and hazardous waste being generated nationwide (42 USC 321). Subtitle C addresses hazardous waste generation, handling, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. It includes requirements for a system that uses hazardous waste manifests to track the movement of waste from its site of generation to its ultimate disposition. The 1984 amendments to RCRA created a national priority for waste minimization (40 CFR Parts 260-279). Subtitle D establishes national minimum requirements for solid waste disposal sites and practices. It requires states to develop plans for the management of wastes within their jurisdictions (40 CFR Parts 239-258). Subtitle I requires monitoring and containment systems for Underground Storage Tanks that hold hazardous materials. Owners of tanks must demonstrate financial assurance for the cleanup of a potential leaking tank (40 CFR Parts 280-282). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-6 July 19, 2010 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 The Toxic Substances Control Act provides the USEPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from the Toxic Substances Control Act, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides (15 USC §2601 et seq.). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 The US Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) in 1980. The purpose of CERCLA is to identify and clean up chemically contaminated sites that pose a significant environmental health threat. Under CERCLA, the USEPA maintains a list, known as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), of all contaminated sites in the nation that have to some extent or are currently undergoing clean-up activities. CERCLIS contains information on current hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities. This includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL. The Hazard Ranking System within the CERCLIS database is used to determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for cleanup activities (42 USC 103). Federal Hazard and Solid Waste Amendments The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the 1984 amendments to RCRA. They specifically targeted waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, and focused on corrective action for releases of hazardous waste. Other mandates included increased oversight and enforcement by the USEPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards and practices, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program (Public Law 98- 616, 98 Stat. 3221). Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) pertain primarily to emergency management of accidental releases. Passed by the United States Congress in 1986, it requires formation of state and local emergency planning committees, which are responsible for collecting material handling and transportation data for use as a basis for planning. Chemical inventory data is made available to the community at large under the “right-to-know” provision of the law. In addition, SARA also requires annual reporting of continuous emissions and accidental releases of specified compounds. These annual submissions are compiled into a nationwide Toxics Release Inventory (42 USC 103). Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 The Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety in 1986, under Title III of SARA. This law is designed to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. To help EPCRA be put into action, Congress requires each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission. The State Emergency Response Commissions are ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-7 July 19, 2010 required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee for each district. Fire fighters, health officials, government and media representatives, community groups, industrial facilities, and emergency managers help make sure that all necessary elements of the planning process are represented (42 USC 116). State Policies and Regulations California Hazardous Waste Control Program The Hazardous Waste Control Program (HWCP) is the primary hazardous waste statute in California. The HWCP implements RCRAs “cradle-to-grave” waste management system in California. HWCP specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure their proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or reused as raw materials. The HWCP exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning, and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of types of wastes and waste management activities that are not covered by federal law with RCRA (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC], 2009). California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 Most state and federal regulations and requirements that apply to generators of hazardous waste are listed within Title 22 CCR Division 4.5. Title 22 contains the compliance requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Because California is a fully authorized state according to RCRA, most RCRA regulations (those contained in 40 CFR 260 et seq.) have been duplicated and integrated into Title 22. The DTSC regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the USEPA. The integration of California and federal hazardous waste regulations that make up Title 22 do not contain as many exemptions or exclusions as does 40 CFR 260. As with the California Health and Safety Code, Title 22 regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than does the RCRA regulations in 40 CFR 260. To aid the regulated community, California compiled the hazardous materials, waste and toxics-related regulations contained in CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 into one consolidated Title 26 CCR ‘Toxics’. California hazardous waste regulations are still commonly referred to as Title 22 (DTSC, 2009). Aeronautics Law, State Aeronautics Act The State Aeronautics Act created the requirement for an ALUC in each county and establishes statewide requirements for the conduct of airport land use compatibility planning. State statutes require that, once an ALUC has adopted or amended an airport land use compatibility plan, the county—where it has land use jurisdiction within the airport influence area—and any affected cities must update their General Plans and any applicable specific plans to be consistent with the ALUC’s plan (California PUC, §21670). The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and its purpose is to support and amplify the State article (California PUC, §21670). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-8 July 19, 2010 California PRC § 21081 The PRC § 21081.6 requires that public agencies adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The code applies to both private and public construction projects and is designed to ensure code compliance during project implementation and completion. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan, Safety Element The City has established goals and policies for safety items that should be considered when new development is designed. Specific policies have been adopted for urban and wildland fire hazards, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, and emergency preparedness. Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards Goal 2.1: Protect the lives and property of residents, business owners, and visitors from the hazards of urban and wildland fires. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Goal 4.1: Decrease the risk of exposure for life, property and the environment to hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Emergency Preparedness Goal 5.1: Minimize the risk to life and property through emergency preparedness and public awareness. City of Anaheim Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Section The City Fire Department’s Hazardous Materials Section administers and implements a comprehensive hazardous materials management program within the City. The program has been set up as a Certified Unified Program Agency, authorized by the California Environmental Protection Agency since July 1, 2001. Elements of the program include Above Ground Storage Tanks, California Accidental Release Prevention, Hazardous Materials Inventory and Management/Release Response Plans (Hazardous Materials Business Plans), Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Treatment and Underground Storage Tanks (City of Anaheim, 2010). Emergency Operations Plans Emergency Operations Plans for the City and the County of Orange have been written to address the planned emergency responses associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. Each specifies its own level of response within their jurisdiction. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-9 July 19, 2010 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Hazards and Hazardous Materials are defined by: a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project 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? c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Would the project 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? e) Would the project be 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 f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Would the project 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? 3.7.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact) Construction activities associated with ARTIC will involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The use of these substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations and will not adversely affect on-site construction workers or the public. During operation of ARTIC, there will be transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Any such materials incidental to construction and operational activities, including routine maintenance, will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-10 July 19, 2010 hazardous materials regulations, and will not adversely affect on-site construction workers or the public. Small volumes of hazardous materials will be used during construction and operation of ARTIC. Handling of these materials will be conducted using BMPs. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project 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? (No Impact) According to the SFM Pipeline Safety Division, there are no pipelines jurisdictional to the SFM on-site or in the project area. Prior to conducting any below grade activities, an Underground Service Alert will also be called in to confirm the locations of any utilities or pipelines onsite or in the site vicinity. Construction activities associated with ARTIC will involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local agency hazardous materials regulations. Handling of these materials will be conducted using BMPs. Operation of ARTIC will use small quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local agency hazardous materials regulations. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact) Construction for ARTIC may involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The use of these substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations. The construction of ARTIC will not include power lines or propane tanks within a 1,500-foot setback of the schools, nor will the project introduce newly constructed high pressure natural gas lines or gasoline lines. One school (higher education) is within one-quarter mile of ARTIC. Small volumes of hazardous materials will be used during construction and operation of ARTIC, and handling of these materials will be conducted using BMPs. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) The Phase I and Phase II identify locations of potential environmental concern within and adjacent to ARTIC. The sites of potential environmental concern are shown on Figure 3.7-1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-11 July 19, 2010 Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measure HHM-1). e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The nearest public airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located on the western edge of the City of Fullerton, approximately 2 miles north of the City. This airport is designated for general aviation crafts and encompasses about 86 acres of land, and future expansion is highly restricted by existing surrounding development. The Fullerton Municipal Airport land use plan extends into the City limits, although no airports or airport land use plans are zoned within two miles of ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) ARTIC is not within the vicinity of any private airstrips, although there are five heliports within the City (City of Anaheim, 2009). None are located within ARTIC. The North Net Fire Training Center heliport, is located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the site, adjacent to and west of SR-57 and the Santa Ana River (City of Anaheim, 2009). Due to the distance from ARTIC, the type and frequency of air flight, and the fact that ARTIC will be in compliance with relevant local, state, and federal laws. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) During construction, local emergency services will be notified prior to road closures. Routine operation of ARTIC will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) ARTIC is not located within or adjoining a wildland area, and the portion of the Santa Ana River adjoining the site is channelized. The City has set forth emergency evacuation and preparedness plans that outline what to do in the event of a disaster (City of Anaheim, 2009). Wildfire evacuation plans will not be affected by ARTIC’s construction activities. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC and related projects will be subject to the same local, regional, state, and federal regulations. Removal of contaminated soils from within ARTIC that may be required will involve site-specific activities and will not add to or combine with similar site-specific impacts that may ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ARTIC Draft EIR 3.7-12 July 19, 2010 occur during the development of the nearby area. Mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant for this issue area. 3.7.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  California PRC § 21081; and  Title 26 CCR. 3.7.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: ARTIC is located on or adjacent to sites of potential environmental concern that have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3.7.8 Mitigation Measures  HHM-1: In areas that have been identified as potential soil contaminated (see Figure 3.7-1), appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at an off-site facility. 3.7.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measure identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-1 July 19, 2010 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section analyzes the potential impacts on surface water quality, groundwater, flooding, and stormwater runoff, and assesses these impacts in relation to the construction and operation of ARTIC. Water quality is the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water. Changes to water quality can result from flowing through developed areas, soil, or rock material. The effects can be identified in both surface water and/or groundwater depending on local surface topography as well as subsurface soil types. 3.8.1 Environmental Setting The City is divided into 45 Drainage Districts. The Platinum Triangle generally includes portions of Drainage Districts 25, 26, and 27, with ARTIC falling under District 27. This area of the City is considered part of the Santa Ana River Watershed (Referred to as Watershed Drainage Master Plans have been completed for these Districts and updated after 1986. The City’s current drainage criteria were developed based on the fact that many of the systems in place are undersized for current run-off projections. Most systems within the City will be designed for a minimum storm frequency of 10 years, with specific and practical limits regarding surface flow during storms. A lower limit was established due to the overall limited conveyance capacity The area surrounding ARTIC is almost entirely covered with impermeable surfaces. Run-off in the project area occurs primarily through sheet flow across the parking areas in a southwest direction to the surrounding street system. The street system has been designed to convey a 10- year storm event while maintaining one dry lane in each direction. Catch basins located within the street system collect gutter run-off and transport it via the drainage system to the Southeast Anaheim Channel (referred to as E12), which flows to the Santa Ana River. Storm drain systems tributary to the Santa Ana River require sizing to adequately convey the run- off from a 25-year storm event. ARTIC and the surrounding area will require drainage infrastructure adequate to convey the 25-year run-off. Surface flow limitations also apply to this area of the City and are outlined in the City’s drainage criteria. Additional storm drain construction may be necessary in this area to meet the surface flow limitations, depending on grading and development configuration (City of Anaheim, 2008). ARTIC is located in an area considered protected by levees from the 100-year flood event projected for the Santa Ana River. After flood control measures were implemented with the collaboration of USACE, these levees were accredited by FEMA. Despite the protection provided from flooding by levees and the channeling of the Santa Ana River, over-toppling and/or failure of these structures is possible (FEMA, 2009). The City has an Emergency Action Plan in the case of flooding and the OCFCD has an Emergency Action Plan in case of a breach or overflow of the levee system. The FIRM map panel inclusive of the site area is presented as Figure 3.1-2 in Section 3.1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-2 July 19, 2010 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Water Pollution Control Act The federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the CWA) is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the US. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff (33 USC 1251 et seq.). These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (USEPA, 2009). According to CWA, the only way pollutants can be discharged into water is if authorized by a NPDES permit (USEPA, 2009). Originally, the NPDES permit focused on reducing pollutants from discharges from industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage treatment plants. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require the USEPA to regulate stormwater discharges through the use of the NPDES stormwater permits. The NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states, including California. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA is an agency of the US Department of Homeland Security with the primary purpose to coordinate response to disasters that overwhelm the resources of local and state authorities (FEMA, 2009). President Carter’s 1979 Executive Order merged various functions of disaster assistance and civil defense (previously handled by multiple agencies) under the direction of a single agency, FEMA. FEMA was created to coordinate the federal government’s role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. National Flood Insurance Program Created in 1968, the NFIP is managed by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration and the Mitigation Directorate, which are components of FEMA. NFIP is a federal insurance program under which flood-prone areas are identified and flood insurance is made available to residents of participating communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances (FEMA, 2009). The goal of NFIP is to reduce the loss of life, damage to property and rising disaster relief costs in areas with high flood risks. There are three components of NFIP: Floodplain Management - Floodplain management is the operation of a community program of corrective and preventative measures for reducing flood damage. These measures take a variety of forms and generally include requirements for zoning, subdivision or building, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances. As a component of floodplain management, the NFIP works to enforce no-build zones in known floodplains ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-3 July 19, 2010 and relocate or elevate some at-risk structures so that development within floodplains will not exacerbate flooding in adjacent areas; Flood Insurance – Federal flood insurance options are made available to residents in communities that choose to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances. Flood insurance premium rates depend on what flood zone a resident is located in. Flood zones are geographical areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk, and are shown on FIRM maps; and Flood Hazard Mapping – Flood hazard maps, also known as FIRM, indicate areas with low, moderate, or high risk for flooding, and provide the data needed for floodplain management programs and to actuarially rate new construction for flood insurance. FIRMs specifically illustrate a community’s floodplain boundaries, base flood elevations (BFE), and flood zones. Floodplain boundaries are the areas of land that could be impacted by flooding from a nearby body of water. BFE is the computed elevation (or height) to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during a 100-year flood event. A 100-year floodplain is not an area subject to floods every 100 years; instead, it is land bordering a river or channel that can expect to be flooded in a storm that has a one-percent chance of occurring each year. 100-year flood events are used by the NFIP as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for and cost of flood insurance. There are low, moderate, and high risk flood zone areas. Moderate to low risk areas include zones that are either outside the 100-year floodplain, areas that have a one percent annual chance where the average flood depth is less than one foot, or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile. Purchasing flood insurance is not required in these zones. High risk flood zones, labeled as SFHAs on FIRM, are areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood event. It is mandatory that flood insurance be purchased within these zones (FEMA, 2009). State Policies and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter- Cologne Act) to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of the State’s water resources 2009). The Porter-Cologne Act establishes water quality policies, enforces water quality standards for surface and ground water, and regulates discharges of pollutants 2009). The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the and nine as the principal state agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California. State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Boards The has the ultimate authority over state water rights and water quality policy. Nine are also established to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. The and are responsible for ensuring implementation and compliance with the provisions of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Act. ARTIC is located within Region 8, the 2009). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-4 July 19, 2010 Water Quality Objectives are required to develop and periodically update a Water Quality Control Plan, also known as a Basin Plan 2009). The Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives for the ground and surface waters of the region and includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the Regional Board and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain these water quality objectives. The Basin Plan designates the beneficial uses of receiving waters, including Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River to which the project site currently discharges, and specifies water quality objectives for these receiving waters in the County of Orange. Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River is not on the 2002 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. As defined in the Porter-Cologne Act, water quality objectives are the set limits or levels of chemical constituents allowable in water 2009). The designation of water quality objectives must satisfy all of the applicable requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act and the CWA. The provides for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, taking into account existing water quality, environmental and economic considerations. Beneficial Uses Beneficial uses are defined within the Basin Plan as the uses of water necessary for the survival or well being of man, plants, and wildlife 2008). These uses of water serve to promote the tangible and intangible economic, social, and environmental goals of man and are shown in Table 3.8-1 and Table 3.8-2. Table 3.8-1 Surface Water Beneficial Uses within the Project Area Basin Hydrologic Unit Beneficial Use MUN AGR GWR REC-1 REC-2 WARM WILD RARE Lower Santa Ana River Basin Santa Ana River Reach 2 – 17th Street in Santa Ana to Prado Dam 801.11 (Primary) 801.12 (Secondary) * X X X X X X X Notes: * Excepted from MUN Source: 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-5 July 19, 2010 Table 3.8-2 Groundwater Beneficial Uses within the Project Area Basin Hydrologic Unit Beneficial Use MU N AG R IN D PRO C Lower Santa Ana River Basin Orange 801.11 (Primary) 801.13, 801.14, 845.61, 845.63 (Secondary) X X X X Source: 2008 Anti-degradation Policy water quality objectives conform to USEPA regulations covering anti-degradation (40 CFR 131.12) and State Board Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. The main objective of the anti-degradation policy is “Wherever the existing water quality of water is better than the quality of water established herein as objectives, such existing quality shall be maintained unless otherwise provided by the provisions of the Resolution 68- 16, “Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California”, including any revisions thereto, or the Federal Anti-degradation Policy, (40 CFR 131.12). Applications for the anti-degradation provisions to the standard process requires supporting documentation and appropriate findings whenever a standard (water quality objective) is made less restrictive to accommodate the discharge of pollutants or other activities of man. Resolution No. 68-16 establishes a general principle of non-degradation, with flexibility to allow some changes in water quality which is in the best interests of the State. Changes in water quality are allowed only where it is in the public interest and beneficial uses are not unreasonably affected. The terms and conditions of Resolution No. 68-16 serve as the general narrative water quality objective in all state water quality control plans. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Projects that anticipate disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the CGP 2009). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. This CGP requires the development and implementation of a site specific The should contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the must contain a visual monitoring program; a ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-6 July 19, 2010 chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMP; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body. Effective July 1, 2010, all dischargers are required to obtain coverage under the CGP Order 2009-0009- DWQ. General MS4 Permit ARTIC falls subject to the waste discharge requirements of the Municipal Permit (MS4 Permit) Order No. R8-2002-0010, NPDES No. CAS618030. The new development and component of the MS4 Permit is intended to ensure that combinations of the site planning, source control, and treatment control BMPs are implemented to protect the quality of receiving waters. Permittees must ensure that stormwater discharges from the MS4 shall neither cause nor contribute to the exceedance of water quality standards and objectives nor create conditions of nuisance in the receiving waters, and that the discharge of non-stormwater to the MS4 has been effectively addressed. The MS4 Permit requires that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared for new development or significant redevelopment projects, and a for all municipal construction projects with disturbed areas greater than one acre. Local Policies and Regulations Orange County Department of Public Works Flood Control Division The mission of the OCPW Flood Control Division is to “protect Orange County areas from the threat and damage of flooding” (OCPW Flood Control Division, 2010). ARTIC is bounded on its eastern border by the Santa Ana River, which is considered a potential flood hazard. The Santa Ana River Mainstem project is a project designed and implemented to provide flood protection for residences and business in the southern California communities of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. All three counties, collectively, are working closely with the USACE to design and construct the project. The stretch of the Santa Ana River that borders ARTIC is channelized. The channel and levees serve to assist in the protection of the surrounding areas from flooding (OCPW Flood Control Division, 2010). Orange County Flood Control District The OCFCD to provide for the control and conservation of flood and stormwaters, and to protect property and lives from flood damage. Since then an infrastructure of flood control channels, dams, retarding basins and pump stations have been constructed. Since the creation of the NFIP, OCFCD has worked cooperatively with the County of Orange’s cities to reduce the floodplain within the County of Orange by constructing flood control facilities that provide 100-year flood event protection. Such facilities typically traverse through the cities and ultimately outlet into the Pacific Ocean. City of Anaheim General Plan The City of Anaheim General Plan specifically details planning and precautions for flood control from the Santa Ana River (adjoining the site on the eastern boundary) in the Safety Element, water utilities and storm drain systems in the Public Services and Facilities Element, and water ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-7 July 19, 2010 quality in the Green Element. The Land Use Element defines land use designations within the City, which include a designation for water use/waterways. The City is required by the Santa Ana Region Municipal Permit to minimize short and long term impacts on receiving waters from new development and significant redevelopment to the maximum extent practicable. The City of Anaheim’s General Plan provides a general overview of requirements for development/redevelopment within the City to ensure adequate watershed and water quality protection to receiving waters. The City’s Local Implementation Plan (November 2003) requires new development and significant redevelopment projects within the City to address stormwater quality impacts through incorporation of permanent (post-construction) BMPs in project design and identified within a WQMP. 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Hydrology/Water Quality are defined by: a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Would the project 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)? c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Would the project 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? e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows ? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-8 July 19, 2010 i) Would the project 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? j) Would the project increase the likelihood of inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? l) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or waters? 3.8.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No Impact) Construction activities for ARTIC will include clearing, grading, and excavating activities for the Intermodal Terminal, the stub-end track/platforms, and the road improvement projects. These construction activities will expose surface soils and may require de-watering of groundwater, which could result in sediment eroding into the receiving water, along with attached soil nutrients and organic matter, and other nutrients, soil additives, pesticides, construction chemicals, and miscellaneous waste. Potential pollutants will be controlled by BMPs identified in the construction Minor oil and fluid leaks from vehicles will potentially be transported by runoff water as it flows into the storm drain system during operation of ARTIC. The criteria to control the discharge of construction related pollutants will be met through the implementation of BMPs. BMPs will be in compliance with the current municipal stormwater permit Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010) and will be implemented to control sediment erosion and other pollutants. Permanent BMPs addressing potential and anticipated pollutants during project operation will be identified in the WQMP. Construction and operation of ARTIC will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project 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?) (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC involves constructing an Intermodal Terminal and station platforms, improving Douglass Road, and upgrading rail tracks. No on-site groundwater resources will be used for the construction and operation of ARTIC. ARTIC will receive its water from municipal supply and will not exceed existing or projected water uses presented in the Platinum Triangle WSA and the City’s 2005 UWMP (see Section 3.6 for a detailed discussion). ARTIC will not substantially ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-9 July 19, 2010 deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater resources. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? (No Impact) ARTIC will be constructed on previously disturbed and paved land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. ARTIC components will not create an additional surface that could change the existing drainage area. ARTIC will be designed to direct local drainage into the existing storm drainage system with discharge to the Santa Ana River. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project 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? (No Impact) ARTIC will be constructed on previously disturbed and paved land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. Since the project site is currently covered with impervious surfaces, the rate or volume of surface runoff within the site after the construction of ARTIC will not be significantly greater than the existing conditions. ARTIC will be designed to direct local drainage into the storm drainage system. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (No Impact) ARTIC is currently almost entirely covered with impermeable surfaces. Run-off in the project area occurs primarily through sheet flow across the parking areas in a southwest direction to the surrounding street system. Stormwater flow will be directed into the storm drain line below Douglass Road. Catch basins located within the street system collect gutter run-off and transport it via the drainage system to Channel E12, which flows to the Santa Ana River. According to the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study, ARTIC will be located within Benefit Zone SD-20, which is part of District 27 drainage area and is directly tributary to the Santa Ana River. Additional drainage lines into the zone are not anticipated and the rate or volume of runoff water within ARTIC will not be greater than existing conditions (see Section 3.6 for a detailed discussion). Construction activities could cause sediment to erode into the receiving water, along with attached soil nutrients and organic matter, and other nutrients, soil additives, pesticides, construction chemicals, and miscellaneous waste. Oil and fluid leaks from vehicles could also potentially be added to runoff water as it flows towards the ultimate destination of the Santa Ana River. criteria to control the discharge of pollutants associated with runoff water will be met through the implementation of BMPs. The identified BMPs will be in compliance with the CGP Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-10 July 19, 2010 With the WQMP and planned BMPs in place, the construction and operation of ARTIC will not create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (No Impact) Drainage and pollutants as a result of ARTIC will be managed with appropriate measures that comply with federal, state, and local regulations. The criteria to control the discharge of pollutants associated with runoff water will be met through the implementation of BMPs. The identified BMPs will be in compliance with the current municipal stormwater permit Jones, electronic mail, January 15, 2010). ARTIC will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality standards. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) The project does not include the construction of housing. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) FIRM panel 06059C0142J was evaluated to identify flood designations and floodways including and proximate to ARTIC. Though ARTIC will not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area, the FIRM panel inclusive of ARTIC and surrounding area depicts the site located adjacent to a 100-year flood Zone A (see Figure 3.1-1) (FEMA, 2009). This potential flood zone, the Santa Ana River, is channelized and protected by an up-stream levee system. The FIRM map considers the 100-year flood hazard area to be contained within the channel. Adjacent areas are not likely at risk. The FIRM map notes that overtopping and/or failure of the levee system or channel is possible. Development of ARTIC will remain adjacent to the flood Zone A hazard area and will not add new structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that will impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. i) Would the project 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? (No Impact) The Prado Dam and reservoir are located approximately 2.5 miles east (upstream) of the City and ARTIC, in Riverside County. The Prado Dam was completed in 1941 and provides flood protection to the Lower Santa Ana River Basin. In addition, Prado Dam works in tandem with Seven Oaks Dam, which is also located on the Santa Ana River in the upper Santa Ana Canyon, about eight miles northeast of the City of Redlands in San Bernardino County. Construction of Seven Oaks Dam and improvements to the Prado Dam and channel facilities are ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-11 July 19, 2010 being implemented under the Santa Ana Mainstream Project, constructed by the USACE, Los Angeles District. These improvements have enabled Prado Dam to take full advantage of the improved channel capacity and increase the level of flood protection to communities within the Santa Ana River floodplain. During torrential rainfall events or periods of extended rain, the storage capacity of upstream Prado Dam or Seven Oaks Dam could potentially be exceeded and overflow, increasing flow volume in the channelized Santa Ana River. The potential exists for dam failure. If either occurs, the river could swell and potentially flood the previously designated surrounding areas. Due to currently implemented improvements to the dams, the FIRM map considers the 100-year flood hazard area to be contained within the channel. Adjacent areas are not likely to be at risk. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. j) Is the project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) ARTIC is not located in close proximity to a coast or ocean and implementation of ARTIC will not create or be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. k) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (No Impact) Construction activities associated with ARTIC will involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials and the stockpiling of construction debris. A construction will be prepared and implemented during the construction of ARTIC as a BMP. The will include specific BMPs to minimize the potential for hazardous materials and construction debris from entering the local stormwater drainage system. There will be transport or disposal of hazardous materials during the operation of ARTIC. Any such materials incidental to operational activities, including routine maintenance, will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations (see Section 3.7 for a detailed discussion). Construction and operation of ARTIC will not contribute pollutants that could substantially degrade water quality. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. l) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or waters? (No Impact) Beneficial uses for Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River include uses for agriculture, groundwater recharge, recreational activities, freshwater and wildlife habitat, and rare, threatened or endangered species. Runoff water from ARTIC will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. BMPs will be in place to control pollutants. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ARTIC Draft EIR 3.8-12 July 19, 2010 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts The majority of the Santa Ana River watershed is already developed and surface flows are not expected to increase significantly. To protect existing and future structures, future projects will be required to provide necessary drainage improvements. Cumulative impacts as a result of ARTIC are considered less than significant for this issue area. 3.8.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  City of Anaheim Local Implementation Plan;  CGP Order 2009-0009-DWQ; and  MS4 Permit, Order No. R8-2002-0010, NPDES No. CAS618030. 3.8.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality.Mitigation measures will be included so that implementation of the BMPs will be implemented and tracked. 3.8.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area.WQ1 – Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the City will verify that the project WQMP, which meets the requirements of the DAMP, is complete. WQ2 – Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspection, the City will verify that the project BMPs are properly installed as indicated in the WQMP. WQ3 – During operations, the City will inspect the BMPs and verify that the BMPs are properly maintained and functioning as per the WQMP. 3.8.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality.The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with water quality and hydrology to a leval that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to water quality and hydrology have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-1 July 19, 2010 3.9 AESTHETICS This section provides a discussion of the aesthetic resources in the vicinity of ARTIC. Aesthetics pertain to the elements that make a certain view pleasing to the eye. While the criteria to evaluate this perceived visual quality are subjective, contributing elements may include a distinct element in a visual setting or open space, vegetation, and architecture of a scenic area. Adverse impacts may occur through the removal, alteration, or addition of these important visual resources. 3.9.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting ARTIC is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 13 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and over 20 miles south of the San Bernardino Mountains range. The major natural feature in the area is the Santa Ana River, which flows alongside the eastern boundary of ARTIC. Local Setting The approximately 19-acre site is bounded by Katella Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River Trail to the east, and SR-57 to the south and west (see Figure 2.2-3). The surrounding area is highly urbanized with primarily industrial and commercial multi-storied buildings. Angel Stadium and the Honda Center are two of the most prominent visual features in the area. SR-57 is elevated as it passes by ARTIC. Billboards and overhead utility lines occupy the skyline (Figure 3.9-1). The topography of the surrounding area is flat and views from ARTIC consist primarily of adjacent roadways, structures, and SR-57. The Santa Ana River is the only scenic vista within the vicinity of ARTIC. This portion of the River is devoid of vegetation and is channelized with concrete banks and manipulated for water infiltration. The area surrounding ARTIC has little vegetation and consists mainly of ornamental trees and shrubs. The San Bernardino Mountains range, which is over 20 miles to the north, can be seen in the distance from ARTIC. The Santiago Hills, located over 8 miles east of the site, are not visible from ARTIC. The Santiago Hills can be seen from the Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments, a multi-story complex located west of ARTIC. There are no eligible or designated State Scenic Highways or National Scenic Byways in the vicinity of ARTIC (Caltrans, 2007; United States Department of Transportation [USDOT], 2009). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-5 July 19, 2010 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations National Scenic Byways Program The Federal Highways Administration collaborated with several organizations to create a program for America’s scenic highways, called the National Scenic Byways Program (USDOT, 2000). The US Secretary of Transportation identifies Caltrans as the California agency responsible for implementing the National Scenic Byways Program. State Policies and Regulations California Scenic Highways Program In response to the National Scenic Byways Program, Caltrans established and implemented the California Scenic Highway Program to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment (Streets and Highways Code, §260 et seq). Caltrans defines a State Scenic Highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public ROW that “traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, and other unique natural attributes” (Caltrans, 2009). Caltrans also includes “scenic corridors” in the State Scenic Highway Program: “Scenic corridors consist of land that is visible from, adjacent to, and outside the highway ROW, and is comprised primarily of scenic and natural features. Topography, vegetation, viewing distance, and/or jurisdictional lines determine the corridor boundaries” (Caltrans, 2009). Once a highway has been designated a state or national scenic highway, or a scenic corridor, special consideration must be made whenever a project proposes to develop the surrounding area. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan Goal 8.1 in the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan seeks to preserve natural, scenic, and recreational uses, while Goal 2.1, Goal 4.1, and the associated policies in the Green Element seek to preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space, and other scenic vistas (City of Anaheim, 2009). The Santa Ana River Trail, though not within City limits, is identified as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. The Circulation Element defines Scenic Highways as “transportation corridors where visual intrusions will impact views of natural beauty from the highway” (City of Anaheim, 2009). Goal 4.1 specifically preserves uniquely scenic or special visual resource areas along highways and designated State scenic routes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-6 July 19, 2010 The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan includes landscaping requirements for certain areas of the Platinum Triangle, including along both Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. This Landscape Concept Plan is discussed in further detail in Section 3.1. City of Orange General Plan Goal 5.0 in the City of Orange General Plan Open Space Element states that the City will protect, preserve, and enhance open space and aesthetic resources, including scenic highways and corridors (City of Orange, 2010). Trails are identified as open space land uses. The Land Use and Circulation Element also encourage the protection and enhancement of scenic vistas. 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Aesthetics are defined by: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3.9.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The designated scenic vista in the vicinity of ARTIC is the Santa Ana River (City of Anaheim, 2009). The City of Anaheim (2009) and City of Orange (2010) designate the Santa Ana River Trail as an open space area. The San Bernardino Mountains range (City of Anaheim, 2009) and the Santiago Hills (City of Orange, 2010) are designated scenic vistas in the viewshed of ARTIC. The portion of the Santa Ana River in the vicinity of ARTIC is channelized with concrete banks and a soft bottom. In the vicinity of ARTIC, the Trail is located on both sides of the Santa Ana River. The surrounding land is an urban area with multi-story buildings, elevated freeways, billboards, high-voltage transmission lines, and street lights. Commercial and industrial buildings in the surrounding area currently obstruct most views of the river. The sensitive receptors with views of the Santa Ana River and Trail are trail users along the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC will be built adjacent to the west side of the Santa Ana River and Trail. ARTIC will not obstruct the view of the Santa Ana River from the Trail. Two scenic resources, the San Bernardino Mountain range and the Santiago Hills, are visible from the Santa Ana River and Trail by trail users. The San Bernardino Mountain range can be ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-7 July 19, 2010 seen 20 miles to the north of ARTIC. The Santiago Hills are over eight miles east of ARTIC. Views of the scenic resources from the surrounding area are currently obstructed by the Honda Center and Angel Stadium, other multi-story buildings, SR-57, and overhead utility lines and billboards. Trail users are the primary sensitive receptors with views of the scenic resources. ARTIC will be built west of the Santa Ana River Trail and will not block views of the scenic resources from the Trail. ARTIC will not significantly impact views of the San Bernardino Mountain range and the Santiago Hills. The Avalon Anaheim Stadium condominiums are another sensitive receptor in the area. These condominiums are located adjacent to the western boundary of ARTIC and approximately 0.5 miles west of the Intermodal Terminal. Two scenic resources, the San Bernardino Mountain range and the Santiago Hills, are visible from the condominiums. The San Bernardino Mountain range is visible to the north and northeast. The Santiago Hills are visible behind SR-57 and can be seen from the condominium east-facing windows. ARTIC is located to the east of the condominiums and will not impact views of the San Bernardino Mountain range to the north. The view corridor of the Santiago Hills includes SR-57, Angel Stadium, the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, billboards, telephone poles, high-voltage transmission lines, parking lots, street lights, and road signage. ARTIC development near the condominiums will be at ground-level and will not contribute man-made objects to the viewshed skyline. The Intermodal Terminal, which will be located between SR-57 and the Santiago Hills, will be one more structure added to an already developed visual landscape for the condominiums. The Stadium Pavilion will be located west of SR-57. The structure will be lower in height than SR-57 and built along the existing rail line. Views of the Santiago Hills from the complex will not be significantly impacted by ARTIC. The City of Orange is located east of the Santa Ana River, Santa Ana River Trail, and ARTIC. The San Bernardino Mountain range can be seen to the north and the Santiago Hills are further east. ARTIC will not obstruct views of these scenic resources from the City of Orange. The Santa Ana River Trail and the Santa Ana River are already subject to auditory intrusions from freeway traffic. According to the noise analysis (see Section 3.4), construction and operation of ARTIC will not significantly increase existing noise levels in the area. Noise sources resulting from ARTIC will be consistent with existing surrounding noises and will not degrade the quality of the Trail and River as scenic resources. Current access to the Santa Ana River and Trail will not be restricted during construction, and construction equipment and activities for ARTIC will not utilize these resources. Construction will not degrade the quality of the River and Trail as scenic resources. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-8 July 19, 2010 b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? (No Impact) There are no State Scenic Highways or National Scenic Byways in the vicinity of ARTIC (Caltrans, 2007; USDOT, 2009). The City of Anaheim General Plan and City of Orange General Plan do not identify city designated scenic routes in the vicinity of ARTIC (City of Anaheim, 2009; City of Orange, 2010). No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is currently a maintenance yard for the County of Orange and consists of a paved lot with scattered machinery, railroad ties, and other maintenance materials. Multi-story industrial and commercial buildings surround the site. Angel Stadium is located southwest of ARTIC and west of SR-57, and the Honda Center is located to the north and across Katella Avenue from ARTIC. The surrounding area is designated as mixed use and light industrial. No residential areas are in the immediate vicinity of the Intermodal Terminal (City of Anaheim, 2009; City of Orange, 2010). ARTIC is planned to be consistent with the planned architecture and landscape environment envisioned for the Platinum Triangle (see Chapter 3.1 for additional information). Though ARTIC will change the visual character of the area, it will be a well-landscaped facility that will be an aesthetic improvement from the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. The pedestrian bridge connecting the site to the Honda Center over Katella Avenue will also be consistent with the planned architecture envisioned for the Platinum Triangle. It too will contribute to the enhancement of aesthetic quality and overall visual character of the site vicinity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact) ARTIC is located in an urban area with a significant number of existing sources of light and glare. Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, and associated parking lots create the most prominent sources of light and glare in the area surrounding ARTIC. The sky is lit up during nighttime events, and the existing SR-57, streetlights, parking lots, billboards, and other structures in the area emit sources of light. These sources include neon and fluorescent lights in parking lots, structural lighting for hotels, restaurants, and office buildings, overhead street lighting along roadways, vehicle headlights, and sign and building illumination. ARTIC will create an additional source of light to the nighttime sky. The covering used for the Intermodal Terminal will be translucent, which will diffuse light emitted from the facility. The overall appearance of the Intermodal Terminal at night will be of a glowing half-globe, instead of a glaring dome with direct light shining out in all directions. Nighttime lights are necessary for the safety and security of employees and passengers on site and along the pedestrian bridge and trail easement, but outdoor light fixtures will be shielded so that lighting is focused downward to ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-9 July 19, 2010 restrict any light spillover. Nighttime construction activities will occur. These instances will be temporary and will adhere to local regulations. The issue of shade and shadow is also relevant to this discussion. Shade and shadow are created when structures block direct sunlight, which can make outdoor temperatures unpleasant for people expecting warmth and sunshine. Shadow sensitive areas include residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas (City of Anaheim, 2009). The longest shadows are cast during the winter months, while the shortest are cast during summertime. Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, multi-story industrial and commercial buildings, and SR-57 create the most prominent sources of shadows in the area surrounding ARTIC. The shadow sensitive area in the vicinity of ARTIC is the Santa Ana River Trail. The rising sun in the east will not be blocked from the Trail by ARTIC or the proposed pedestrian bridge spanning Katella Avenue. The setting sun in the west will only be blocked just prior to sunset, causing a minimal shadow just before sunset. SR-57 currently creates a shadow on the Trail in the evening during the winter months. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Light, glare, and shadows as a result of ARTIC will be consistent with existing sources in the area and will not significantly impact day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC and related projects will be constructed among existing development that currently obstructs views of four scenic resources in the viewshed of ARTIC; the Santa Ana River Trail, the San Bernardino Mountain Range, the Santa Ana River, and the Santiago Hills. Development of ARTIC in conjunction with related projects in the area will not cumulatively obstruct views of these scenic resources. Implementation of ARTIC will intensify urban uses in agreement with the vision described in the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and the PTMU Overlay Zone, creating a cohesive and visually appealing character. ARTIC is located in an urban area with a number of existing sources of light, glare, and shadow. Light, glare, and shadows as a result of ARTIC will be consistent with existing conditions in the area and will not impact views in the area. The potential aesthetic impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and existing visual character were evaluated and found to be less than significant. ARTIC’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts will be less than significant. 3.9.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan; and  Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 3.9.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.9 Aesthetics ARTIC Draft EIR 3.9-10 July 19, 2010 3.9.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.9.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-1 July 19, 2010 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section provides a discussion of cultural and paleontological resources in the vicinity of ARTIC, describes the identified resources, analyzes the potential impacts to those resources, and provides mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, or minimize potential impacts. Cultural resources are archaeological, traditional, and built environment buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites that are significant to the history of the US (16 USC 470). Cultural resources can generally be broken up into two time periods: prehistoric and historic. Prehistoric resources were created by humans who lived in a time before the advent of writing. Historic resources were created by humans who lived after the advent of writing. In the US, Native American artifacts that were created before the appearance of Europeans are considered prehistoric resources. Adverse impacts may occur through the removal, alteration, or addition of important cultural resources. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of once-living organisms preserved in rocks and sediments within the earth’s crust that provide information about the history of life on earth. These fossils can include remains such as bones, teeth, shells, wood, and footprints. (16 USC 470). Unless otherwise referenced, the information in this section has been adapted from the Draft Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey Report (Appendix 3.10.1 Environmental Setting Regional Environment and Geology ARTIC is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 13 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and over 20 miles south of the San Bernardino Mountains range in northern County of Orange. The major natural feature in the area is the Santa Ana River, which flows near the eastern boundary of ARTIC. ARTIC is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province that extends from Los Angeles County to Baja California. The Santa Ana range, uplifted along the Whittier-Elsinore fault, is a prominent feature of the skyline between Orange and Riverside Counties. The project area is located within the Central Block portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which is a trough filled with thousands of feet of Quaternary and Tertiary sediments. The project area was formed by stream deposits primarily derived from the meandering of the Santa Ana River, prior to the river being channelized. The surficial sediments where the project site is located are Quaternary Younger Alluvium dating to the Holocene age (10,000 years to present). Holocene deposits are too geologically recent to contain fossils and therefore have a low paleontological sensitivity level. Fossiliferous older Quaternary sediments potentially underlie the Holocene deposits at various depths in the area as part of the floodplain deposits from the Santa Ana River. These deposits do not usually contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers. However, fossils have been unearthed in the vicinity of ARTIC. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-2 July 19, 2010 Existing Setting ARTIC is bounded by Katella Avenue, Douglass Road, the LOSSAN rail corridor, SR-57, and the Santa Ana River. Prior to development, the site was open land utilized for agricultural purposes. The area has been further disturbed by grading and construction of buildings, parking lots, and other improvements. The site was previously a maintenance yard for the County of Orange and currently consists of a paved lot with scattered machinery, railroad ties, and other maintenance materials. The surrounding area consists of a variety of land uses including retail and hotel land uses; sports and entertainment centers (Angel Stadium and the Honda Center); light industrial land uses; and an intercounty riding, hiking and bike trail. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR, the majority of historically designated resources are located in residential areas of the community, particularly in the Anaheim Colony area (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC contains a small number of commercial and industrial buildings less than 45 years of age, which are considered ineligible for federal, state, and/or local landmark designation because of lack of historical significance, architectural merit, and compromised integrity. Adjacent to ARTIC and west of the SR-57 is Angel Stadium and its “Big A” scoreboard. Historic Setting Prehistoric Resources The prehistoric occupation of southern California is divided chronologically into four temporal phases, or horizons. Horizon I, or the Early Man Horizon, began at the first appearance of people in the region approximately 12,000 years ago, and continued until approximately 5,000 Before Common Era Although little is known about these people, it is assumed that they were semi-nomadic and subsisted primarily on game. Horizon II, also known as the Millingstone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition, began around 5,000 B.C.E. and continued until approximately 1,500 B.C.E. The Millingstone Horizon is characterized by widespread use of milling stones (manos and metates), core tools, and few projectile points (such as arrowheads) or bone and shell artifacts. This horizon appears to represent a diversification of subsistence activities and a more sedentary settlement pattern. Archaeological evidence suggests that hunting became less important and that reliance on collecting shellfish and vegetal resources increased. Horizon III, the Intermediate Horizon or Campbell Tradition, began approximately 1,500 B.C.E. and continued until approximately 600–800 Common Era Horizon III is defined by a shift from the use of milling stones to increased use of mortar and pestle, indicating a greater reliance on acorns as a food source. Projectile points become more abundant and, together with faunal remains, indicate increased use of both land and sea mammals. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-3 July 19, 2010 Horizon IV, the Late Horizon, which began approximately 600–800 C.E. and terminated with the arrival of Europeans, is characterized by dense populations; diversified hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, including intensive fishing and sea mammal hunting; extensive trade networks; use of the bow and arrow; and a general cultural elaboration. Following the Protohistoric period, there was a brief period (Ethnohistoric) when Native American culture was initially being affected by Euroamerican culture and historical records on Native American activities were limited. Archival and published reports from this time suggest that the project area lies within the territory of the Gabrielino Native American people. The Gabrielino are characterized as one of the most complex societies in native southern California, primarily as a result of their overall economic, ritual, and social organization. The intrusion of Spanish missionaries and subsequent forced relocations of southern California Indians resulted in polyethnic native communities. Historic Resources Mission San Gabriel Archangel, for which the Gabrielino Indians are named after, was founded in 1771. It soon became one of the richest missions, controlling all of the property in what is today the County of Orange, north of Aliso Creek and a large portion of Los Angeles County. In the County of Orange, Mission San Juan Capistrano was established by Franciscan missionaries in 1776. By the early 1800s, Spanish army officers and veterans began receiving large land grants and established cattle ranches or ranchos. In 1809, Jose Antonio Yorba and Juan Pablo Peralta were granted land east of the Santa Ana River, titled Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. The Yorba and Peralta families raised cattle on their land for a half-century. In 1821, Mexico won independence from Spain and subsequently became a republic of states. In 1833, the Mexican government secularized the missions and began to redistribute the mission land holdings. The land was redistributed in the form of land grants to individuals who promised to work the land, primarily by raising cattle. Although secularization was intended to distribute the mission lands to the settlers and native population, the large-scale cattle ranchers or rancheros claimed the bulk of the resources, and few Native Americans received land grants. These cattle ranches became the driving force in the economy and the dominant culture of California, including in present County of Orange. The colony of Anaheim was originally located within the southeast portion Los Angeles County before the County of Orange became its own entity in 1889. The land on which the Colony was settled was originally part of the San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana Rancho belonging to Don Bernardo Yorba, who later sold it to Don Pacifico Ontiveras. Anaheim was founded in 1857 as a German cooperative colony by Germans Otto Weyse, John Frohling, and George Hansen, with most of its original settlers, including its three founders, relocating from San Francisco. The City’s name is a composition of Ana, from the nearby Santa Ana River, and heim, which is German for home. Anaheim was considered one the most successful southern California start-up colonies of the 19th century. In its early years, the Anaheim Colony was considered a significant regional wine growing district and its vineyard business was called “The Los Angeles Vineyard Company.” These ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-4 July 19, 2010 vineyards were irrigated by a 7.1-mile long zanja (irrigation ditch) connecting the colony to the Santa Ana River. The zanja was dug by fifty Native American Indians, who called the colony Camp Aleman (German Camp). An 1881 plague decimated the vineyards and in their place almond, walnut, fig, lemon, and orange trees were planted. The first commercially grown oranges in the County of Orange were grown in Anaheim, where the growers attributed their success to the local hills which protected the fruit against the cold winds coming down from the mountains. The Southern Pacific Railroad arrived in Anaheim in January 1875, and the City was incorporated on December 6 of the following year with a population of 881. It was with the appearance of the Santa Fe Railroad in 1887 that Anaheim began to see some of the growth experienced by other regions of the southland, resulting from the competition between Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific railroad. In 1887 the Santa Fe Railroad began plans for the “Surf Line,” which would connect Los Angeles to San Diego, running along the Pacific Coast much of the way and serving as Santa Fe’s primary line between these two cities. The line, a portion of which today is located near Angel Stadium, was completed on August 12, 1888. By 1900, Anaheim had a population of 1,568 people and was a closely knit agricultural community. The Valencia Orange became the city’s primary export during this time and throughout the remainder of the first half of the twentieth century. The Santa Fe railroad used another of its lines through Santa Ana Canyon, San Bernardino, and other points eastward, to ship out oranges grown in Anaheim and other parts of the County of Orange. The four-lane I-5 freeway was completed in 1954 and facilitated travel between Anaheim and other major cities. The post World-War II period was a remarkable boom time for Anaheim. Land developers constructed numerous housing tracts in the city with thousands of single family homes. Disneyland theme park opened in 1955, attracting tourists from around the world. Throughout the 1950s Anaheim boomed, and citrus and other agriculture that previously defined the city began to disappear. Aggressive annexation increased the size of Anaheim in both acreage and population. In 1966, Angel Stadium, a 45,000 seat ballpark largely funded by the City, became home to the California Angels Major League Baseball team. The expansion team began in 1961 and was owned by cowboy singer Gene Autry. Angel Stadium was built on 150 acres of former citrus and walnut groves. A 230-foot tall A-shaped scoreboard, known as the Big Scoreboard, was also originally constructed behind the park’s left field area. It is topped by a 70-foot diameter halo, which mimics the team logo. At that time, the Big Scoreboard was the tallest scoreboard ever made and at 1 million dollars it was one of the most expensive. Relocated to a site adjacent SR- 57, the scoreboard is still a familiar icon for Anaheim and the County of Orange. Throughout the 1970s Anaheim continued its annexations, largely eastward into the Santa Ana Canyon where the planned community of Anaheim Hills was constructed beginning in 1971. In 1993, the new Disney-owned Mighty Ducks Hockey Team began playing in a newly completed arena called Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim (today called the Honda Center), and in 2001 Disney opened a second theme park just south of Disneyland called Disney’s California Adventure. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-5 July 19, 2010 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Antiquities Act of 1906 The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433) was one of the first federal regulations to address the preservation of cultural resources. The Antiquities Act of 1906 prohibits the destruction of “any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity” on Federal lands. Although neither the Antiquities Act nor its implementing regulations (43 CFR 3) specifically addresses paleontological resources, many federal agencies have interpreted “objects of antiquity” to include fossils. National Natural Landmarks Program The National Natural Landmarks (NNL) Program was established in 1962 under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and is administered by the National Park Service. The goals of the NNL Program are:  To encourage the preservation of sites illustrating the geological and ecological character of the US;  To enhance the scientific and educational value of sites thus preserved; and  To strengthen public appreciation of natural history, and to foster a greater concern for the conservation of the nation’s natural heritage. A National Natural Landmark is an area designated by the Secretary of the Interior as being of national significance to the US because it is an outstanding example(s) of major biological and geological features found within the boundaries of the US or its Territories or on the Outer Continental Shelf (36 CFR Part 62.2). National significance describes an area that is one of the best examples of a biological community or geological feature within a natural region of the US, including terrestrial communities, landforms, geological features and processes, habitats of native plant and animal species, or fossil evidence of the development of life (36 CFR Part 62.2). All designated NNLs are listed on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Examples of paleontological NNLs in California include: Rancho La Brea in Los Angeles; Sharktooth Hill in Kern County; and Rainbow Basin in San Bernardino County. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) states that cultural resources must be taken into consideration before construction can begin on any federally funded project. Section 106 uses the term “historic properties” to describe cultural resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-6 July 19, 2010 An historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (16 USC 470). National Register of Historic Places The NRHP was established in 1966 as the official national listing of important cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the NHPA, NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate and protect significant cultural resources. The criteria to determine the significance of a cultural resource is found in 36 CFR 60 of the NRHP. “The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and:  Criterion A: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or  Criterion B: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or  Criterion C: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or  Criterion D: That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.” State Policies and Regulations California Environmental Quality Act Under CEQA, cultural, paleontological, and geological resources are considered important components of the environment and should be preserved. Accordingly, CEQA requires that a proposed project first evaluate the significance of any cultural, paleontological, and geological resources located in the project area. If the project will have an impact on any significant resource, alternative plans or mitigation measures must be provided. CEQA breaks down the meaning of cultural resources into two terms: “historical resources” and “archaeological resources.” The definition of a historical resource under CEQA is found in 14 CCR §15064.5. Historical resources are: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-7 July 19, 2010 1. A resource listed in, or eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC §5024.1); 2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in §5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements §5024.1(g); 3. Any object, building structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California; and 4. A resource that is not listed, or eligible for listing, in the CRHR but that is deemed significant by the lead agency. The definition of an archaeological resource includes any archaeological resources, not otherwise determined to be historical resources, that are “unique.” A “unique” archaeological resource meets one of the following criteria (PRC §21083.2): 1. The resource contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2. The resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; and 3. The resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Under CEQA, a cultural resource shall be considered significant if the resource is 45 years old or older, possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meets the requirements for listing on the CRHR. California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR is the official state listing of important cultural resources that are worthy of preservation, and is maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office. Properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are nominated and selected to be listed on the CRHR. Any resource eligible for the NRHP is also automatically eligible for CRHR (PRC §5020 et seq). Similar to the NRHP, a cultural resource may be considered significant by CEQA if it meets the following criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1): 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; or 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to California’s past; or ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-8 July 19, 2010 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. California Health and Safety Code Quality Act Human remains are sometimes associated with archaeological sites. According to CEQA, “archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Health and Safety Code (§7050.5).” The protection of human remains is also ensured by California PRC 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.97. Local Policies and Regulations City of Anaheim General Plan There are no policies or goals within the City of Anaheim General Plan that call for the general protection of cultural or paleontological resources. However, according to the City of Anaheim General Plan Community Design Element, “The Big A” Scoreboard at Angel Stadium is considered an important landmark to the City (City of Anaheim, 2009). Additionally, Goal 14.1 and subsequent policies 1 through 7 promote the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the Anaheim Colony Historic District, an area in downtown Anaheim bounded by North Street, South Street, East Street, and West Street (approximately two miles northwest of ARTIC). 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Cultural Resources are defined by: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-9 July 19, 2010 3.10.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) No surficial historical resources were observed during the cultural survey (ICF, 2009). An alluvial outwash plain of the Santa Ana River forms near the eastern boundary of ARTIC, according to the historical records search. Prior to channelization of the Santa Ana River, the ARTIC site was crossed by many tributaries and smaller creeks. The flow of water and accumulation of sediments over time may have buried evidence of past occupations in the project area. Previous cultural studies conducted less than 1/8 mile from ARTIC have determined the vicinity to be sensitive for historical resources (ICF, 2009). There is a potential for buried historical resource deposits to exist beneath previously disturbed and developed land surfaces, and ground disturbing activities as a result of ARTIC could unearth these resources. Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential construction impacts to less than significant levels (Mitigation Measure CR-1). The historical literature and records search identified three potentially significant historical resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. The City of Anaheim General Plan identifies the Big scoreboard as an important visual landmark (2009), while the City of Orange (2010) does not identify historical resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. The Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan does not list any historic structures located in the vicinity of ARTIC (City of Anaheim, 1999). Angel Stadium of Anaheim Angel Stadium is located southwest of ARTIC and west of SR-57. Angel Stadium is the fourth oldest ballpark in Major League Baseball and was built during the time when Gene Autry owned the baseball club. Although Angel Stadium has a direct historic connection with Gene Autry as the former owner which would qualify it for eligibility under the CRHR, Angel Stadium is too altered to convey this association. The most significant of these presently visible alterations occurred after Autry’s tenure as the owner of the team and the property. At present Angel Stadium represents a mix of 1960s institutional architecture and themed 1990s post-modernism. Besides regularly scheduled baseball games, no known significant events are associated with Angel Stadium warrant listing of the resource on the CRHR or NRHP. Angel Stadium is considered ineligible for the CRHR and NRHP. Angel Stadium is not considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Big Scoreboard The Big scoreboard is a sculptural, 230-foot-tall metal frame scoreboard located southwest of ARTIC and west of SR-57. From its north-facing front elevation, the object reads as a programmatic sign: a thin, elongated capital representing the Angels major league baseball ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-10 July 19, 2010 team that plays at Angel Stadium. The resource is clad in a heavy gauge corrugated metal and is topped by a suspended metal halo that is 70 feet in diameter. The scoreboard itself is a large, multi-bulb square screen between the two extended legs of the Originally located just beyond left field of the ballpark, the scoreboard was moved to its present location in 1979 when the ballpark was enclosed as part of an expansion project. The electronic message board of the scoreboard was upgraded and enhanced in 2009 to include a full color display and to be more energy efficient. The Big scoreboard appears eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 1 due to its iconic association with the California Angels. The Big scoreboard is a highly visible, monumentally scaled programmatic icon for the City. The nationally recognized, commonly used nickname for Angel Stadium, “The Big is taken from this scoreboard. The Big scoreboard appears eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 2 for its associations to Gene Autry, a legendary singer and cowboy actor of the early part of the twentieth century who became the first owner of the California Angels and who was ultimately responsible for the construction of Angel Stadium and the Big scoreboard. The Big scoreboard appears eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 3. Upon its 1966 completion as the signature element of Angel Stadium, at 230 feet the scoreboard was the tallest structure in the County of Orange and was also believed to be the tallest sports scoreboard in the world. The scoreboard’s scale, aspirational lines, themed lighting, and high technology for its time, make the resource a significant example of mid-century signage for the greater Los Angeles region. The City’s Community Design Element of the General Plan lists the Big scoreboard as one of the City’s “important visual landmarks” (City of Anaheim, 2009). The Big scoreboard is considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Big scoreboard is partially separated from ARTIC by the SR-57 freeway and is surrounded by the Angel Stadium parking lot. Cars, trucks, and other machinery currently drive past the scoreboard at various times of day, as well as park underneath and around it. Since the scoreboard is located more than 300 feet outside of the project area, no direct impacts will occur to this historic resource with the implementation of ARTIC. Douglass Road Rail Bridge/Rail Alignment Constructed circa 1977, the Douglass Road railroad bridge is a welded steel, deck-plate, through- girder bridge supporting two parallel track alignments for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. This bridge and rail alignment crosses over Douglass Road and extends through ARTIC. Construction activities will alter the bridge. The Douglass Road railroad bridge is a common example of a steel, through-girder bridge of the type used nationwide, especially at-grade separations. Though the style of the girders dates back to the first half of the twentieth century, railroad companies, including BNSF, consistently utilize standardized stock designs. The smooth, welded joints present at its stiffeners and across its floor indicate this particular bridge is less than 50 years old. The Douglass Road railroad bridge does ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-11 July 19, 2010 not appear to meet local, state, or federal level significance criteria. Douglass Road railroad bridge is not considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. The tracks within the Douglass Road rail bridge are part of the BNSF rail alignment that was initially constructed between 1885 and 1888 by the Riverside, Santa Ana, and Los Angeles Railway Company as part of the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe line from Los Angeles to the County of Orange and San Diego. This rail alignment was previously evaluated for historical significance in 2002 for CEQA compliance associated with a grade separation project by BNSF/Metrolink. At that time, the rail line was found ineligible for federal, state, and local designation due to compromised integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting, and feeling. The property was re-evaluated in 2007 and the initial finding of ineligibility to the NRHP and CRHR was concurred at that time. The BNSF rail alignment is not considered a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) No archaeological resources were identified in the vicinity of ARTIC. Additionally, the City of Anaheim (2009) the City of Orange (2010) General Plans do not identify archaeological resources within the vicinity of the project area. Construction and operation of ARTIC are not expected to adversely change the significance of an archaeological resource. As described in part there is the potential for buried archaeological resource deposits to exist beneath previously disturbed and developed land surfaces. Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential construction impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation Measure CR-1). c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) No paleontological resources or unique geologic features were identified within ARTIC. The City of Anaheim (2009) and the City of Orange (2010) General Plans do not identify paleontological resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. According to Dr. Samuel McLeod of the Vertebrate Paleontology Section of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, surficial sediments occurring at various depths within ARTIC have the potential to yield paleontological resources. Paleontological resources have been unearthed in the surrounding area. ARTIC is located in an area that may contain the presence of paleontological resources and mitigation measures are required to reduce potential construction impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation Measure CR-2). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-12 July 19, 2010 d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (No Impact) Implementation of ARTIC is not expected to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered, mitigation measures will be required (Mitigation Measure CR-3). 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts Potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of ARTIC will be localized and will remain within the project area boundaries. Mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to cultural resources as a result of ARTIC to less than significant levels. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant for this issue area. 3.10.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  CEQA; and  California Health and Safety Code Quality Act. 3.10.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: ARTIC construction activities may significantly impact cultural or paleontological resources. 3.10.8 Mitigation Measures  CR-1: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The archaeologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the City for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-13 July 19, 2010 c) Any archaeological work at ARTIC shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the observer can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted.  CR-2: A letter shall be submitted by the contractor to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a) The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage; b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution; c) Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological observer is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area; and d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted.  CR-3: In the unlikely event of the accidental discovery of human remains during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, §7050.5(b) and of the State Health and Safety Code, and §5097.94(k) and of the PRC shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that, upon discovery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner shall be contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.10 Cultural Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.10-14 July 19, 2010 3.10.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to cultural resources have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-1 July 19, 2010 3.11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Biological resources are terms that describe individual species as well as the habitat types used by these species. This section addresses biological resources within and adjacent to ARTIC. Potential impacts to biological resources associated with the construction of ARTIC and mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts are described in the following sections. METHODOLOGY The following assessment of biological resources is based on review of relevant literature and previous studies including the biological resources sections of the City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR (City of Anaheim, 2004), The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332 (City of Anaheim, 2005), The Initial Study for Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Associated Actions (City of Anaheim, 2008) and natural resource databases, maps, and aerial photographs. Specific species and habitat information for ARTIC was obtained from the Biological Resources Technical Report, Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Anaheim, California, prepared by ICF dated November 2009 (Appendix This study included results of field assessments of the project site and a 500-foot buffer area, a special status species and habitat assessment, review of potential federal or state jurisdictional water features, results of queries to the California Natural Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database, and correspondence with local regulatory agencies to confirm the presence or absence of listed species or critical habitats within the vicinity of ARTIC. 3.11.1 Environmental Setting Physical Characteristics ARTIC is located within a highly urbanized area and the proposed construction footprint is currently developed with paved parking areas, buildings, railroad tracks, and ornamental landscaping. ARTIC occurs at an elevation of approximately 150 feet above mean sea level and due to the developed nature of the site lacks natural topography or drainage features and is relatively flat. The Santa Ana River, present east of ARTIC, is channelized with concrete banks. The soft bottom is continually maintained and manipulated for groundwater infiltration. ARTIC is located on the historic floodplain of the Santa Ana River which has headwaters in the San Bernardino Mountains and drains to the Pacific Ocean. Botanical Resources ARTIC is largely developed with impervious surface coverage and the areas that have exposed soil are landscaped with ornamental vegetation or are highly compacted soils with non-native weed species. There are no natural or native vegetation communities present onsite or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that will function as viable habitat. The Santa Ana River is continuously cleared of vegetation and manipulated for groundwater infiltration. The Santa Ana River does not support native riparian or wetland vegetation communities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-2 July 19, 2010 Zoological Resources Due to the lack of native vegetation communities to serve as functional wildlife habitat, most of the wildlife species observed during the field studies conducted by ICF represent animals that have adapted to urban and disturbed environments. Birds were the most commonly observed species and included, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock pigeon (Columba livia), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (Corvus European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Two raptor species were observed, a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), which were considered transient and are typically only observed in urban settings during migration. Two species of mammals were detected: desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). No reptiles or amphibians were detected during the field surveys. Sensitive Resources Sensitive Plant Species Sensitive plant species are those listed, or are candidates for listing, by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and CNPS. According to results from the and correspondence with the USFWS, no sensitive plant species are expected to occur on ARTIC or in the vicinity of the project site. There is no suitable habitat on-site to support any of the sensitive plant species identified to have the potential to occur within the larger geographic vicinity of ARTIC. Sensitive Wildlife Species Sensitive wildlife species are those listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), candidates for listing by the USFWS or CDFG, species of special concern to the USFWS or CDFG, and those included in the NCCP/HCP. Based on the habitat assessment and sensitive species evaluation performed by ICF for ARTIC and surrounding 500 feet, three sensitive species were identified to have a least a low potential to occur within the study area. The species identified are the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) a CDFG “Species of Special Concern,” the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) a CDFG “Fully Protected” species, and the western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) a Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered and a CDFG “Species of Special Concern.” No listed Threatened or Endangered Species were identified with the potential to occur on-site or within the vicinity of ARTIC. No nesting or roosting habitats for these species are present within ARTIC. These species may occur on an infrequent and transitory basis. Marginal foraging habitat for these species was noted along the Santa Ana River, which will not be disturbed by ARTIC. Sensitive Plant Communities and Federal Critical Habitats Sensitive habitats are those that are considered rare or endemic within a region, are considered sensitive by the CDFG or USFWS, or support sensitive plant or wildlife species. The ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-3 July 19, 2010 tracks the occurrence of these habitats. No sensitive vegetation communities or critical habitats were identified onsite or within the vicinity of ARTIC. Raptor Foraging and Nesting Habitats Foraging requirements for raptor species include extensive open areas that have low lying vegetation, perching opportunities, and an abundance of small burrowing mammals and other small prey species. Some habitat types that serve as suitable raptor foraging grounds include grasslands, wetlands, and agricultural fields. Other raptor species prey on small birds and use riparian areas and wooded areas to hunt. Raptor nesting habitat may include mature riparian woodlands, wooded areas, or cliffs that are typically located away from areas with high levels of disturbance and ongoing human activity. Two raptor species were observed during the field assessments: a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). These species were considered transient and are typically only observed in urban settings during migration. Other raptor species that are expected to occur on a limited basis within the general area of ARTIC include American kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and barn owl (Tyto alba). There is extremely marginal foraging habitat on-site and within the immediately vicinity of ARTIC and a very low likelihood of any raptor nesting on-site. Wildlife Corridors A wildlife corridor is a landscape feature, usually relatively narrow, that allows animal movement between two patches of habitat or between habitat and geographically discreet resources. There are no wildlife corridor features within ARTIC. The adjacent Santa Ana River is expected to serve as a wildlife corridor for species such as coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). The River may act as a flyway for shorebirds and waterfowl during daily and seasonal migration. The River’s utility as a corridor has been disturbed by the continual manipulation of the bed of the river for groundwater infiltration and routine removal of vegetation. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters No federal or state jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present within ARTIC. The Santa Ana River is jurisdictional, but encroachment or disturbance to this feature is not proposed as part of ARTIC. 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1544) The ESA directs all federal agencies to participate in endangered species conservation. The federal ESA provides protection for endangered and threatened species, and requires conservation of designated species’ critical habitats. An “endangered” species is a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is one that is ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-4 July 19, 2010 likely to become “endangered” in the foreseeable future without further protection. Other special status species include “proposed,” “candidate,” and “species of concern.” “Proposed” species are those that have been officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as threatened or endangered. “Candidate” species are those for which sufficient information is available to propose listing as “endangered” or “threatened.” “Species of concern” are species for which not enough scientific information has been gathered to support a listing proposal, but still may be appropriate for listing in the future after further study. A “delisted” species is one whose population has reached its recovery goal is no longer in jeopardy. The ESA is administered by the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). Under the ESA, it is prohibited to take, harm, or harass species listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. A permit for taking a federally listed threatened or endangered species may be obtained either through Section 7 consultation (where the proposed action requires approval of a federal agency) or Section 10(a) where the proposed non-federal action requires development of a HCP). Both cases require consultation with the USFWS and/or NMFS, which ultimately issues a final opinion determining whether the federally listed species will be adversely impacted by a proposed project. Under Section 4(d), an alternative permitting approach can be written by the Secretary of the Interior for use with federally threatened species. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667E) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), authorized the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce to assist and cooperate with Federal and State agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, and to study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife. Amendments to the Act require consultation with the USFWS, NMFS, and state agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources for all proposed federal undertakings and non-federal actions needing a federal permit or license that will impound, divert, deepen, or otherwise control or modify a stream or water body; and to make mitigation and recommendations to the involved federal agency. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provides special protection for migratory families of birds those avian species that winter south of the US but breed within the US) by regulating hunting and trade. The MBTA prohibits anyone to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). “Take” includes any disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort killing or abandonment of eggs or young). Such activity may be punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. The use of families as opposed to individual species within the Act means that numerous non-migratory birds are extended protection under the MBTA. Most nesting birds are covered by the MBTA. Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251-1376) The CWA provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. There are numerous sections of the CWA that provide guidance related to implementation of this type of project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-5 July 19, 2010 Section 401 requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in discharge to jurisdictional waters (including wetland/riparian areas) of the US must obtain a state water quality certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The administer the certification program in California. Section 402 is regulated by the USEPA and establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the US. It establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. The also administer the NPDES permits for construction activities and operations. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the USACE regulating the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the US, including wetlands, and jurisdictional non-wetland waters. The USACE has permit authority derived from Section 404 of the CWA (33 CFR 320- 330). State Policies and Regulations California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 -1616 The CDFG Code 1600 requires that any person, state or local government agency or public utility proposing a project that may result in impacting a river, stream, or lake to notify the CDFG. In addition to protection of state listed species under CESA, the agency also has surface water jurisdiction to protect wildlife values and native plant resources associated with waters of the State. If CDFG determines that the project may adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required. Required conditions within the Streambed Alteration Agreement are intended to address potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFG jurisdictional limits. California Fully Protected Animals California first began to designate wildlife species as “fully protected” prior to the creation of the CESA. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to protect those animals that were rare or facing possible extinction, including fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and birds. Most of the “fully protected” species have been listed as threatened or endangered under CESA and/or the federal ESA. The Fully Protected Species Statute (CDFG Code Section 4700) states “fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.” California Endangered Species Act The CESA states that “all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, will lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or preserved.” CESA mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that will jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that will avoid jeopardy. For projects that affect both a state- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-6 July 19, 2010 and federally listed species, compliance with the federal ESA will satisfy CESA if CDFG determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with CESA under California Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1. For projects that will result in take of only a state-listed species, the project proponent must apply for a take permit under Section 2081 California Fish and Game Codes 3503, 3503.3, 3505, 3800, 3801.6 These regulations protect all native birds, birds of prey, and all non-game birds including eggs and nests, that occur naturally within the state and are not already listed as full protected. Local Policies and Regulations The City does not have any additional ordinances or regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources other than requiring projects to comply with provisions of the MBTA, ESA, and the CESA for protection of federal and state listed species. 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for Biological Resources are defined by: a) Would the 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? b) Would the project 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? c) Would the project 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? d) Would the project 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? e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-7 July 19, 2010 3.11.4 Project Impacts Impacts to biological resources are normally classified as direct, indirect or cumulative. In addition, these types of impacts can be considered permanent or temporary. a) Would the 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? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Sensitive Plants No sensitive or special-status plants were observed or are known to occur within the vicinity of ARTIC. No suitable habitat has been identified on-site with the potential to support special-status plant species. No impacts to sensitive or special status plant species or their associated habitats will result from ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Sensitive Animals There is potential for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) a CDFG “Species of Special Concern,” the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) a CDFG “Fully Protected” species, and the western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) a Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered and a CDFG “Species of Special Concern” to occur within ARTIC. No significant nesting or foraging habitats for northern harrier or white-tailed kite have been identified within ARTIC. No direct permanent or temporary impacts to these will result from ARTIC. Temporary disturbance to these species may occur from construction activities associated with ARTIC but will not impede life processes. Based on the field assessment conducted by ICF, no large maternal roosts sites were identified for the western mastiff bat. The removal of buildings, modification of bridges, and removal of mature trees may temporarily disturb a limited number of individuals. The western mastiff bat was last reported in the Anaheim quadrangle in 1949, so it is highly unlikely that this species even utilizes resources within the vicinity of ARTIC. Potential temporary impacts to northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and western mastiff bat are considered remote. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Raptor Foraging and Nesting Habitat There is extremely marginal raptor foraging habitat on-site and along the Santa Ana River and a very low likelihood of any raptor nesting on ARTIC. ARTIC will not result in the removal of any significant raptor foraging or nesting habitat and no significant change in land use is proposed. Impacts to raptor foraging and nesting habitat will not occur. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. Nesting and Breeding Native Birds – MBTA Covered Species Bridges, buildings and mature trees and shrubs in the existing ornamental landscaping within ARTIC may provide nesting habitat for native bird and raptor species. ARTIC will result in the removal of existing structures and landscaping for redevelopment, which could result in impacts ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-8 July 19, 2010 to breeding and nesting birds protected by the federal MBTA and the CDFG Codes. Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation Measure BR- b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) No riparian habitat, sensitive natural community or designated critical habitat occurs within or adjacent to ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) No federal or state jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present within ARTIC. No impacts to jurisdictional resources will result from ARTIC. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (No Impact) No wildlife corridors or water resources that support migratory fish are present within ARTIC. The adjacent Santa Ana River likely serves as a wildlife corridor for resident and migratory wildlife species, but ARTIC will not impact this resource. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preserving policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The City does not have any local policies or ordinances other than compliance with federal and state regulations. ARTIC is committed to complying with all state and federal regulations. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) ARTIC is not located within a NCCP/HCP or other conservation planning area. ARTIC will not conflict with established provisions of conservation plans. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-9 July 19, 2010 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC will not adversely impact federal or state listed species, protected natural plant communities, or waterbodies. Potential to impact nesting migratory birds will be less than significant with mitigation. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant for this issue area. 3.11.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim General Plan;  ESA;  MBTA;  CESA; and  CDFG Code. 3.11.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impact will be potentially significant: ARTIC will result in the removal of existing structures and landscaping for redevelopment, which could result in impacts to breeding and nesting birds protected by the federal MBTA and the CDFG Codes. 3.11.8 Mitigation Measures  BR-1: No more than one week prior to demolition and vegetation clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct a breeding and nesting bird survey within ARTIC construction footprint and within a 500-foot buffer around the site. The purpose of the survey is to ensure that no active nests are located within or adjacent to the project area. Nesting season for raptors begins February 15 and the traditional breeding season for native and migratory birds begins March 15. If clearing starts after October and before the nesting season, there is no need for nesting bird surveys. If an active nest is detected, a suitable buffer around the nest shall be established dependent on the type of species detected and location of the nest as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the requirements of the CDFG Code. The nest avoidance area shall be flagged and shall be avoided until after the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Documentation showing that this mitigation measure has been completed shall be sent to the City by the contractor. This documentation shall include a description of the survey results and whether any subsequent actions were required prior to commencement of demolition and vegetation clearing. The CDFG may authorize the relocation of the nest but consultation is required to ensure that no direct or indirect impacts result from this action and compliance with the MBTA and CDFG Codes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.11 Biological Resources ARTIC Draft EIR 3.11-10 July 19, 2010 3.11.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above will reduce potential impacts associated with biological resources to a level that is less than significant. No significant impacts relating to biological resources have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-1 July 19, 2010 3.12 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section addresses the potential global climate change impacts that could occur from ARTIC. At the direction of the State Legislature in SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines that require analysis of climate change and GHG emissions in CEQA documents; these amendments were effective March 18, 2010. GHGs are atmospheric gases and clouds within the atmosphere that influence the Earth’s temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation that rises from the sun warmed surface and that would otherwise escape into space. This process is commonly known as the “Greenhouse Effect”. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). General discussions on climate change often include water vapor, ozone, and aerosols in the GHG category. Water vapor and atmospheric ozone are not gases that are formed directly in the construction or operation of development projects, nor can they be controlled in these projects. Aerosols are not gases and are therefore not GHGs. While water vapor, atmospheric ozone and aerosols have a role in climate change, they are not considered by either regulatory bodies (such as CARB) or climate change groups (such as the California Climate Action Registry [CCAR]) as gases to be reported or analyzed for control. Therefore, no further discussion of water vapor, atmospheric ozone, or aerosols is provided in this section. 3.12.1 Environmental Setting ARTIC Site ARTIC is located within the City, which is part of the SCAB. The SCAB is an area of high air pollution potential, particularly from June through September. Light winds and shallow vertical atmospheric mixing frequently reduce pollutant dispersion, thus causing elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations within the SCAB vary with location, season and time of day. O3 concentrations, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert. The SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Additional description of the SCAB and air quality at the ARTIC site is provided in Section 3.3. Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Climate change is a recorded change in the average weather of the earth measured by variables such as wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Historical records show that global temperature changes have occurred naturally in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Eleven of the twelve years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). An increase of 0.74 degree Celsius (or 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit in the global surface temperature occurred during the 100-year period from 1906 to 2005, and the linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC, 2007]). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-2 July 19, 2010 An increase of GHG emissions has led to an anthropogenic warming trend of the earth’s average temperature, which is causing changes in the earth’s climate. GHG emissions are primarily associated with the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, consumption of natural gas, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; deforestation; agricultural activity; and solid waste decomposition. This increasing temperature phenomenon is known as “global warming”, and the climatic effect is known as “climate change” or “global climate change”. Greenhouse Gases GHGs are global pollutants and are unlike air pollutants such as O3, particulate matter and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern (see Section 3.3). While pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (generally on the order of a few days), GHGs have relatively long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHGs to disperse around the globe. GHG impacts are global, as opposed to the localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and TACs. Since GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, since CH4 and N2O are approximately 21 and 310 times more powerful than CO2 in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 21 and 310 (CO2 has a GWP of CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e. Global, National, State, and Regional Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 3.12-1 shows the magnitude of GHG emissions on the global, national, state, and regional scale. Table 3.12-1 Comparison of Worldwide GHG Emissions Area and Data Year Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e) World (2006) 29,000 United States (2007) 7,150 California (2006) 480 Orange County (2008) 30 MMTCO2e: million metric tons of CO2 equivalent Source: WRI 2009, USEPA 2009, CARB 2007, SCAG 2008. Worldwide, China is the world’s largest emitter, contributing approximately 19 percent, just ahead of the US, with approximately 18 percent. Approximately half of global emissions come from developed countries and half from developing countries; note that China and India are considered developing countries (WRI, 2009). The most common GHG is CO2, which constitutes approximately 84 to 85 percent of all GHG emissions in the US and California. The primary ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-3 July 19, 2010 contributors to California GHG emissions are transportation, electric power production from both in-state and out-of-state sources, and industrial uses. Scientific Debate As a matter of public policy, through the enactment of AB 32 and other legislation, California has declared that the continued rise in the level of GHGs pose a threat to the health and welfare of the people of California. This EIR sets forth a comprehensive analysis consistent with the framework provided by state and regional authorities of ARTIC’s impacts with respect to climate change. Nevertheless, there continues to be significant debate among scientists on the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming, and (ii) even assuming human activities are the cause of climate change, whether assuming California can even achieve AB 32’s goals, whether this will have any affect on global climate change trends. Significant scientific debate continues to exist regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming. In 2008, 650 scientists from around the globe submitted a several hundred page report calling into question the claims that global warming exists and is caused by humans made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). During the past two years, additional significant evidence and factual material has been disclosed, calling into question the integrity of scientific methodologies of the IPCC (the primary basis for much of the proposed regulatory action throughout the world). This factual material includes/supports: the charge that the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific organization; extensive criticism that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (“AR4”) lacked any sort of meaningful scientific peer review; the assertion that the AR4 report contains numerous errors and unsubstantiated factual assertions such as the use of the “Hockey Stick” graph that directly contradicts earlier graphs and data contained in earlier IPCC reports with insufficient explanation for the change; (ii) leaked emails from the University of East Anglia that suggest that British scientists deleted and hid data. Voluminous scientific publications exist that call into question the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Thus, while California has embarked upon a comprehensive regulatory program and has declared that climate change poses a significant threat to the health and welfare of the citizens of California, it is nevertheless true that significant scientific debate exists regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming. In addition, even assuming that the combustion of fossil fuels is the source of climate change, and assuming further that California can achieve its GHG emissions reductions goals set forth in AB 32, it is nevertheless doubtful as to whether the achievement would have any effect on any global warming trends allegedly cause by fossil fuel combustion. For example, according to a forecast by CARB, if no actions are taken to reduce GHG emissions, California emissions would be approximately 596.4 MMTCO2e by the year 2020, up from approximately 427 MMTCO2e and an average of 468.8 MMTCO2e between 2002 and 2004 (California EPA, 2010). Consequently, if California is successful in reducing GHG emissions to 1990 level by 2020 (as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2002 [“AB emissions will be reduced by approximately 169.4 MMTCO2e, compared to what they would be under a “business as usual” scenario (California EPA, 2010) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-4 July 19, 2010 Unfortunately, these savings are not nearly enough to compensate for the expected increase in emissions in developing countries during the same period alone. For example, according to projections from the Energy Information Administration, carbon emissions from Brazil alone are expected to increase from 216 MMTCO2e in 1990 and 356 MMTCO2e in 2005 to 541 MMTCO2e in 2020, i.e. they will have increased by 325 MMTCO2e between 1990 and 2020, nearly double the amount of emissions which will be saved by the implementation of AB 32. During that period, India’s emissions are projected to increase by about 1253 MMTCO2e. Both of those increases, however, are insignificant compared to the increases projected for China. According to one estimate, there will be a 7234 MMTCO2e projected increase in China’s 2020 carbon emissions during the same period of time (2241 MMTCO2e in 1990 versus 9475 in 2020). A 2009 analysis of Chinese emissions by the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations is even more staggering; despite assurances by the Chinese government that it will increase energy efficiency, projections indicate that the Chinese economy may grow by about eight percent a year. Even if the Chinese government reduces carbon emissions by about 40 to 45 percent per unit of gross domestic product (a difficult target), China will still have an approximate 75 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. The result is 2020 emissions of around 12,000 MMTCO2e. A different study by the Climate Change Institute at Australian National University suggested that China’s emissions may grow even more: doubling by 2020. Moreover, scientists from the University of California have determined that a ton of CO2 emitted from China comingles with a ton of carbon dioxide emitted from Southern California in approximately 72 hours. According to one European expert, China’s increase in emissions alone will be three to four times higher than the combined cuts promised by the US and the European Union. Consequently, it is clear that any steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California will be ineffective with respect to global phenomena, unless similar steps to reduce emissions are taken, and subsequently adhered to, in developing countries. Because it does not appear that developing countries are willing to take these steps, it is questionable as to whether the efforts of California (and perhaps other nations) will have any meaningful effect on global climate change. Currently, there is no international or national regulatory program regulating emissions from various nations. A brief summary of the state of international and national climate change regulation is set forth below. In 1992, 154 nations including the US entered into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change a nonbinding agreement under which industrialized countries pledged to work to reduce GHG emissions. Five years later, in 1997, the parties to the adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community, with the objective of reducing their collective omissions by five percent below 1990 levels during the “commitment period” of 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries, but has not been ratified by the US. Indeed, in 1995, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a 95-0 vote, stating the Senate’s directive that ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-5 July 19, 2010 the US should not enter into any protocol that did not set binding targets for developing and industrialized nations. Many of the industrialized countries which ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not and/or are not expected to meet their Kyoto targets. For example, Canada, which currently has emissions that are 30 percent above 1990 levels, announced last year that it would not be able to meet its obligations under Kyoto. Instead, Canada intends to focus on “the development and implementation of a Made-in-Canada plan for reducing greenhouse gases” which it says “will be effective, realistic and focus on achieving sustained reductions in emissions in Canada while ensuring a strong economy” (Canada, 2010). Likewise, Japan has not indicated that it will not comply with its targets, but as of 2005, its emissions were approximately eight percent higher than in 1990 (National Public Radio, 2010). Despite this increase in emissions, Japan has not taken any regulatory steps to reduce the increase in its emissions. Since the US declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1995, it has become increasingly clear that global climate change cannot be addressed without limiting GHG emissions from developing and developed countries. It now appears fairly settled that China has surpassed the US as the world’s largest GHG emitter and is building new coal-fired power plants at a rate of approximately one per week. A recent study conducted by economists at University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Diego estimated that China’s CO2 emissions are growing by as much as 11 percent annually. In 2007, China released its first national plan on climate change, which includes goals related to increasing energy efficiency and increasing use of renewable resources (BBC, 2007). The plan, however, makes no commitments regarding reduction of GHG emissions. Like China, India is already one of the top emitters of GHGs, and continues to grow rapidly. India has recently pledged to take more action to fight global warming, for example, by pursuing solar energy, urging energy efficiency, and conservation, but it has not set any concrete goals in these areas, let alone pledged to reduce its carbon emissions. To the contrary, India’s emissions are projected to increase fourfold by 2030. Similarly, Brazil, the largest economy in South America and another rapidly developing county, has no national policy requiring it to reduce carbon emissions. Brazil’s carbon emissions increased by more than 60 percent between 1990 and 2004, and are projected to continue to rise at a similar pace (International Energy Agency, 2010). The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. Formal negotiations to replace the protocol officially begin in December 2007 at the Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia. Presently, whether a workable agreement can be reached remains to be seen; as the US continues to press for an agreement which requires firm commitments from developing nations, countries like China and India continue to oppose binding targets. The federal government has taken a number of steps toward addressing global climate change over the past 30 years, but thus far, such actions have been mostly policy oriented with very little regulatory requirements. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, which required an investigation into climate change (although at that time the federal concern was whether the world was entering into a prolonged ice age). In 1987, Congress enacted the Global Climate Protection Act for the purpose of “establish[ing] a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-6 July 19, 2010 processes and their implications” (15 USC § 2902.). The act required the establishment of various programs to further climate change research (15 USC § 2904(d)). Despite the fact that climate change has been on the federal government’s radar for 30 years, Congress has not enacted any legislation requiring economy-wide mandatory reductions in GHG emissions to date. Several different “cap-and-trade” proposals which would require such reductions have recently been introduced in Congress, but none of them have been passed by either branch of Congress, let alone become law. All such plans would place caps on the total amount of GHG which can be emitted during future years and allow emitters to buy and sell emission credits. However, such plans vary widely on what caps they would place on emissions and how quickly such caps would come into effect, as well as how their specific mechanisms would work. Currently, the federal government’s policy on climate change has three objectives: 1) “Slowing the growth of emissions”; 2) “Strengthening science, technology and institutions”; and 3) “Enhancing international cooperation,” which it is implementing “through voluntary and incentive-based programs” (USEPA, 2010). While the newly-elected Obama Administration has stated its support for cap and trade legislation, thus far no new federal legislation has been adopted. However, the USEPA has recently embarked upon a regulatory program through which that agency may begin to regulate nation-wide emissions of GHG’s in the future. In summary, despite the public policy direction of California as evidenced by AB 32 and the recent actions of CARB, there remains considerable debate among scientists on the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming, and (ii) even assuming human activities are the cause of climate change, whether assuming the State can even achieve AB 32’s goals, whether this will have any affect on global climate change trends. Methodology Calculation of GHG Emissions Construction and Operational GHG Emissions Long-term GHG emissions from mobile sources and area sources and short-term emissions from construction equipment were calculated by using URBEMIS Version 9.2.4. URBEMIS was also used to calculate construction GHG emissions. URBEMIS is a computer program accepted by the SCAQMD that can be used to estimate anticipated emissions associated with land development projects. The limitations of the URBEMIS model should be noted. The current version of the model was last updated in February 2008. Therefore, the emission factors do not reflect anticipated improvements in on-road or off-road vehicle emissions based on legislation enacted subsequent to the update. The model does not have detailed emissions reductions measures for the different versions of Title 24 building efficiency standards. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-7 July 19, 2010 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations USEPA Findings On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHG under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, as follows:  “Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases - CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 - in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.  “Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. “These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the [US]EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles” (USEPA, 2009). Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the US. The rule applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The rule requires these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 295 grams of CO2 per mile by 2012, decreasing to 250 gram per mile by 2016; the latter figure is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. The combined USEPA GHG standards and NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards resolve previously conflicting requirements under both federal programs and the standards of California and other states that have adopted California standards (USEPA, 2010). State Policies and Regulations CARB, a part of the California EPA, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs in California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets the CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and oversees local programs including those relative to climate change and global warming. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-8 July 19, 2010 There are numerous state plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHGs and global climate change. Following is a brief discussion of some of these plans, policies, and regulations. Assembly Bill 1493 – Clean Car Standards In 2002, AB 1493 (Pavley) required CARB to develop and adopt by January 1, 2005 regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light- duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state.” Implementation of AB 1493 was delayed for many years by prolonged litigation and USEPA actions. On May 19, 2009, challenging parties, automakers, the California, and the federal government reached an agreement on a series of actions that would resolve these current and potential future disputes over the standards through model year 2016. On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the AB 1493 regulations that reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments, approved by the Board, are part of California’s commitment toward a nation-wide program to reduce new passenger vehicle GHGs from 2012 through 2016. The amendments will cement California’s enforcement of AB 1493 starting in 2009 while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments will also prepare California to harmonize its rules with the federal rules for passenger vehicles (CARB, 2010). As described above, the USEPA/NHTSA rule to implement the GHG reduction standards was issued on April 1, 2010. Executive Order S-3-05 On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 The California Legislature adopted the public policy position that global warming is “a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California” (California Health and Safety Code, §38501). Further, the State Legislature has determined that the potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra Nevada snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious disease, asthma, and other human health-related problems. These public policy statements are contained within AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006. AB 32 is now codified as California Health and Safety Code Sections 38500–38599. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-9 July 19, 2010 Senate Bill 97 and Recent Amendments to CEQA Guidelines SB 97 directs the CNRA to adopt amendments to the CEQA Guidelines that require evaluation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions by January 1, 2010. These amendments, located in Section 15064.4 and titled Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions, provide that: The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use; and/or Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. The amendments add a new Section 15126.4(c), Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This new section includes the following: Lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include, among others: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-10 July 19, 2010 Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision; Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F; Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions; Measures that sequester greenhouse gases; In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by- project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions. Appendix F, Energy Conservation, in Section II, EIR Contents, includes the following: D. Mitigation Measures may include: 1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the Project and why other measures were dismissed. 2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid-waste. 3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand. 4. Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory On June 19, 2008, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a Technical Advisory on addressing climate change impacts of a proposed project under CEQA (OPR Climate Change Advisory) (OPR, 2008). The OPR Climate Change Advisory recommends that lead agencies quantify, determine the significance of, and (as needed) mitigate the cumulative climate change impacts of a proposed project. The OPR Climate Change Advisory identifies that each lead agency is required, under CEQA, to exercise its own discretion in choosing how to determine significance in the absence of adopted thresholds or significance guidelines from California, CARB, or the applicable local air district. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-11 July 19, 2010 CARB Scoping Plan In December 2007, CARB published California’s GHG inventory, which compiled statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions and sinks for the years 1990 through 2004. The total statewide greenhouse gas 1990 emissions level, and therefore the 2020 emissions target, is 427 MMTCO2e. Achieving this target requires a reduction of 169 MMTCO2e (approximately 30 percent) from the State’s projected 2020 emissions of 596 MMTCO2e (business-as-usual), and a reduction of 42 MMTCO2e (almost 10 percent) from the 2002 through 2004 average emissions. AB 32 requires CARB to develop a Scoping Plan to lower the State’s GHG emissions to meet the required decrease by 2020. The Scoping Plan was approved at the December 2008 board meeting and the measures in the Scoping Plan, listed in Table 3.12.-2, will be developed and in place by 2012. As shown in the table, statewide measures addressing vehicle emissions, energy efficiency, vehicle fuel, and power generation are planned to achieve the greater amounts of emissions reductions. However, reductions at all levels will be needed to reach the 2020 targets. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include expansion and strengthening of existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards; achievement of a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent; development of a California cap and trade program linked with other similar programs; establishment of targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuit of policies and incentives to achieve those targets; implementation of existing laws and standards such as California’s clean car standards identified in Table 3.12.-2 as Light Duty Vehicle GHG Standards and described above under the AB 1493 heading, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and issuing of targeted fees to fund the State’s long term commitment to AB 32 administration (CARB, 2008). On April 23, 2009, CARB approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which has a goal to reduce GHG emissions from California’s transportation fuels by 10 percent, equal to 16 MMTCO2e, by 2020. The regulation requires providers, refiners, importers, and blenders to ensure that the fuels they provide for the California market meet an average declining standard of “carbon intensity”. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-12 July 19, 2010 Table 3.12-2 AB 32 Scoping Plan Recommended Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMTCO 2e Percentage of Statewide Year 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 18.2% Energy Efficiency 26.3 15.1% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3 12.2% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 8.6% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targetsa 5 2.9% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 2.6% Goods Movement 3.7 2.1% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1.2% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 0.8% High Speed Rail 1.0 0.6% Industrial Measures 0.3 0.2% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 19.8% Total Estimated Reductions from Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures 146.7 84.3% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 11.6% Sustainable Forests 5 2.9% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 0.6% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 0.6% Total Estimated Reductions from Uncapped Sources/Sectors 27.3 15.7% Total Reductions Counted Towards 2020 Target 174.0b 100% Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted Towards 2020 Target Estimated Reductions MMTCO2e State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 Local Government Operations To Be Determined Green Buildings 26 Recycling and Waste 9 Water Sector Measures 4.8 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 a Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 Regional target. b The total reduction for the recommended measures exceeds the 169 MMTCO2e of reductions estimated in the Draft Scoping Plan. This is the net effect of adding several measures and adjusting the emission reduction estimates for some other measures. Source: CARB, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-13 July 19, 2010 Senate Bill 375 Signed September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including the SCAG to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy in their regional transportation plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. There are two mutually important facets to SB 375: reducing VMTs and encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient communities for the future. SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy is currently scheduled for adoption in April 2012. Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR 6) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Since that time, the energy efficiency standards have undergone several revisions. Effective January 1, 2010, the adopted 2008 Title 24 standards replaced the 2005 Title 24 standards. The CEC adopted the 2008 standards in order to “Provide California with an adequate, reasonably-priced, and environmentally-sound supply of energy” and “Respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020” (CEC, 2009). Title 24 Green Building Standards The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR 11) were adopted in June 2008. The purpose of the Green Building Standards is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts that have a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental air quality (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2008). Although the Green Building Standards became effective August 1, 2009, according to the cover date, effective dates for various elements are specified within the publication. Accordingly, the CBSC advises that this version of the standards is primarily a voluntary one. There are mandatory provisions within the Code, but these are items that are currently either required by State law or required by existing regulations. Most of the mandatory provisions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development have a delayed effective date until the 2010 State building codes are in effect (CBSC, 2008). The CBSC states that nothing within California Building Standards Law would preclude a local jurisdiction from adopting the current voluntary version of the Code prior to its effective date. Attorney General The California Attorney General (AG) has submitted numerous comment letters during public review processes setting forth the Office of the AG’s views as to how climate change should be analyzed in CEQA documents. As part of the AG’s efforts to work with agencies on addressing climate change in their CEQA documents, the AG publishes and updates The California ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-14 July 19, 2010 Environmental Quality Act, Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, which is a document with “information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts of a project” (California Department of Justice, 2010). The AG’s measures are discussed later in this section. Local Policies and Regulations South Coast Air Quality Management District Air quality in the County of Orange is regulated by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the SCAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. Beginning in April 2008, the SCAQMD convened a working group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. The Working Group meets approximately once per month. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted its staff proposal for an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD, 2008). The interim screening threshold for industrial projects is 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) based on stationary (and not mobile) emissions. The Working Group adopted a philosophy similar to recommendations made by other agencies in California to identify “Significance Screening Levels” (or thresholds) for GHG emissions. Projects with GHG emissions less than these levels or thresholds would be less than significant although the projects may be required to demonstrate energy efficiency greater than that required by the Title 24 standards and water use efficiency, such as recycled water use or the installation of “smart” controllers for landscape irrigation. Projects with GHG emissions greater than the Significance Screening Levels would be required to implement specific performance standards or purchase offsets to reduce the climate change impact(s) to less than significant levels. As of November 2009, the SCAQMD was continuing to consider screening levels under CEQA for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects; however, the working group has not met between November 2009 and May 2010. City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element 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. Goals and policies from the Green Element applicable to ARTIC are discussed in Section 3.3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-15 July 19, 2010 City of Anaheim Resolution 2006-187 Resolution 2006-187 (approved August 8, 2006) of the City Council authorizes and directs the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (PUD) to establish the Green Connection, a program that accommodates the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability. Resolution 2006-187 sets out a series of goals, including encouraging developers and builders in the City to receive LEEDTM registration and certification, reaching a 20 percent reduction in energy use and a 15 percent reduction in water use by 2015, and replacing 10 percent of the City’s light, non- emergency vehicles with low emission technologies. 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines, the thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are defined by: a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? SCAQMD Air Quality Thresholds On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD established an interim GHG Significance Threshold for projects in which it is the lead agency for CEQA. The threshold is 10,000 MT/yr of CO2e. The threshold is compared to the total increase in operational emissions and the construction activity averaged over 30 years. Although this threshold is used for comparison purposes in this project, the threshold is not intended to apply to CEQA projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. 3.12.4 Project Impacts a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) GHG emissions for ARTIC are the result of the use of electricity, natural gas combustion, and increased vehicles exhaust. URBEMIS and RCEM were used to quantify the GHG emissions from the operational on-site sources and mobile sources of ARTIC, including the Intermodal Terminal, the emergency generator, and the temporary construction emissions. CO2e was calculated based on the total operational emissions plus construction emissions amortized over 30 years (per SCAQMD guidance). The emissions shown in Table 3.12-3 demonstrate that ARTIC is below the GHG significance thresholds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-16 July 19, 2010 Table 3.12-3 ARTIC Project Operational Daily Emissions Operational Activity CO2 (lb/day) CO2e (MT/yr) Stationary Source (Electricity, Natural Gas Usage, Landscaping) 3,192.84 528.61 Emergency Backup Generator 1,624.00 38.30 Mobile Sources 10,273.10 1,700.83 Construction – 220.40 Total Proposed Project Operational 15,089.94 2,488.14 Existing Metrolink/Amtrak Station -7,543.58 -1,248.92 Difference in Emissions (Proposed Project – Existing Metro) 7,546.36 1,239.22 SCAQMD Significance Threshold – 10,000(1) Significant Impact – No Source: Appendix C The location of ARTIC relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle increases availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result will be reduced motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways, and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Since motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region, reduced traffic will result in lower GHG emissions regionally. GHG emissions from ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on the environment. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (No Impact) ARTIC will not conflict with an applicable plan to reduce emissions of GHG. The SCAQMD has released an interim significance threshold of 10,000 MT/yr, which was used as a point of comparison for ARTIC (see Table 3.12-3). Its location relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle increases availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The result is decreased regional motor vehicle traffic on local roadways and freeways, and a general reduction in motor vehicle travel throughout the region. Motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region. Plans to reduce traffic, which would result in reduced GHG emissions, are consistent with the intent of the AQMP. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts The City currently has no approved plan for the reduction of GHGs. The SCAQMD has released an interim significance threshold of 10,000 MT/yr, which was used as a point of comparison for ARTIC (See Appendix C for detailed information). Motor vehicle traffic is the primary source of air pollution in the region. ARTIC’s location relative to major event and destination centers within the Platinum Triangle increases availability of current and future mass transit systems to occupants and visitors. The GHG evaluation for ARTIC has determined that there will not be a cumulative impact. Potential GHG emissions are considered cumulatively less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-17 July 19, 2010 3.12.6 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  SCAQMD  AB 1493;  Executive Order S-3-05;  AB 32; and  SB 375. 3.12.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on GHG. 3.12.8 Mitigation Measures ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on GHG. No mitigation measures are required for this issue area. 3.12.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ARTIC will have a less than significant impact on GHG. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ARTIC Draft EIR 3.12-18 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-1 July 19, 2010 4.0 ISSUE AREAS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The following is a discussion of the environmental effects that were determined not to be significant. 4.1 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on agricultural and forest resources if the project will convert existing farmland, timberland, or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, ARTIC and the surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (CDC, 2006). The site is currently developed with commercial and industrial structures and paved parking lots, and is classified by the City with an Institutional Land Use (City of Anaheim, 2009). There are two zoning designations within ARTIC: SP Zone (City and OCTA parcels) and PR Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone (the stadium and arena properties) (City of Anaheim, 2009). Land west and north of ARTIC is designated by the General Plan for mixed use and office development; land east of ARTIC and adjacent to the Santa Ana River is designated for open space. There are no properties designated for farmlands in the immediate vicinity of ARTIC and the City has not designated the surrounding area to be placed under Williamson Act contract lands (City of Anaheim, 2009). ARTIC and the surrounding area do not contain Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmlands. ARTIC will not convert these farmlands to non-agricultural use. There are no zoned forest lands, timberlands, or Timberland Production areas in the vicinity of ARTIC. ARTIC will not conflict with or cause the rezoning of such areas. No further discussion is warranted. 4.1.1 Cumulative Impacts The site is currently fully urbanized and project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.2 MINERAL RESOURCES Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on mineral resources if the project will cause the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. California designates ARTIC as an MRZ-2 area, which is an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. The source map does not include ARTIC as part of a regionally significant resource area (CGS, 1994). Though there were several active regionally significant sites for mineral resources in the City, ARTIC is not located within any of these areas. No further discussion is warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-2 July 19, 2010 4.2.1 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to mineral resources. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.3 RECREATION Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on recreation if the project will increase the use of parks or other recreational facilities, or require the expansion or construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. Angel Stadium and the Honda Center are recreational facilities located in the vicinity of ARTIC. Train and bus services currently provide transportation to Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. ARTIC will continue this service. The Santa Ana River Trail is also a recreational facility, maintained by Orange County Parks, located adjacent to the eastern boundary of ARTIC. The County of Orange lists the Santa Ana River Trail in the Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails. This plan contains specific goals and policies aimed at directing the development and operation of the county-wide trail system, including: providing efficient acquisition, development, operation, maintenance, and financing programs (Goal creating trail linkages between open space and recreation facilities (Goal and providing a useful, enjoyable, and safe public regional riding and hiking trail system (Goal Current access to the Trail will not be restricted during construction. Construction activities for ARTIC will remain within the site and will not utilize the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC will not create demand for trail use above current use generated by the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. ARTIC will provide current users of the Santa Ana River Trail with access to a variety of transportation modes. A trail easement envisioned to be located along the east side of the ARTIC site will provide access from the Santa Ana River Trail to ARTIC via Katella Avenue. No further discussion is warranted. 4.3.1 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to recreational resources. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.4 PUBLIC SERVICES Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on public services if the project will result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision or need of new or altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times. Public services include fire, police, schools, and parks. ARTIC is located in an urban area with little vegetation, and will not be affected by wildfires. Potential urban fires will be addressed through applicable buildings codes, a fire suppression, and alarm system that will notify local fire department of fires. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-3 July 19, 2010 Amtrak is policed by Amtrak, Metrolink is policed by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and OCTA is policed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. There are also currently 26 Sheriff’s personnel assigned to Transit Police Services who patrol the various transit centers throughout the county (Orange County Sheriff’s Department, 2010). The Orange County Sheriff’s Department under contract to OCTA will patrol the trains and ROW at ARTIC. The Anaheim Police Department will be responsible for the ARTIC station and surrounding area, aside from the ROW. ARTIC will replace the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station, which currently has police service by Anaheim Police Department, Amtrak, and Metrolink. Over time, there will be an increased demand for police services at ARTIC for emergency response. Emergency responders will be trained in accordance with emergency response plans jointly developed by the train operators and local jurisdictions. ARTIC is a transportation facility and does not include a residential component. ARTIC will not induce significant growth off-site and there will be no new student generation as a result of project implementation. Additional public facilities, such as schools and parks, will not be required to accommodate ARTIC. ARTIC will replace the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station located in the same service area and emergency response times are not anticipated to differ from current response times. ARTIC will not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision or need of new or altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times. No further discussion is warranted. 4.4.1 Cumulative Impacts ARTIC does not include residential components that will permanently increase human presence in the area. Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to public services. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. 4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project will have a significant impact on population and housing if the project will induce substantial population growth or displace populations or existing housing. ARTIC is expected to accommodate the transportation demand anticipated from the existing and projected population and employment from within the City and the County of Orange. It is not expected to directly or indirectly induce or alter population growth within these communities. ARTIC will not require the acquisition of properties currently used for residential purposes and will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, which would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the associated allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle for residential, commercial and office land uses were developed to accommodate housing and employment that would benefit from locating in close proximity to the existing train station and/or ARTIC. No further discussion is warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 4.0 Issue Areas Found Not to be Significant ARTIC Draft EIR 4-4 July 19, 2010 4.5.1 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of ARTIC will not result in an adverse impact to population and housing. No cumulative impacts are anticipated for this issue area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-1 July 19, 2010 5.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the Proposed Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (§15126.6(a) through are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR.  The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (15126.6(b)).  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” 15126.6(e)(1). “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (15126.6(e)(2)).  “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6(f)).  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6(f)(1)).  For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (15126.6(f)(2)(A)).  “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (15126.6(f)(3)). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-2 July 19, 2010 5.2 METHODOLOGY The alternative analysis defines, evaluates and compares the alternatives in a way that enables an equitable comparison of transportation benefits which will best suit the local area and needs. This analysis evaluates the Proposed Project, the Reduced Building Size alternative, and the No Project alternative. This analysis also considers three location alternatives that were considered but rejected. Each alternative was assessed for its impacts to each environmental issue area as compared to the Proposed Project and evaluated for its ability to meet the Statement of Objectives. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR. The feasibility of developing the Proposed Project on alternative sites was reviewed and rejected because no significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. 5.3.1 Alternative Sites Three alternative sites were evaluated as the potential locations for a transportation intermodal center. The alternative sites found to have impacts identical to or more severe than the Proposed Project, or that would not meet most of the project objectives, were considered, evaluated, and then dismissed from further consideration. The alternative sites included the development of a transportation intermodal center at the Fullerton Transportation Center, the Orange Metrolink Station, and the Irvine Station. These locations were considered based on the fact that they are existing transit centers that offer bus and rail transit options. Fullerton Transportation Center The Fullerton Transportation Center (FTC), located at 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue was considered as an alternate location for the Proposed Project. This transportation center is an active train station that currently services Amtrak, Metrolink, the OCTA bus system, taxis, bicycles, and pedestrians (OCTA, 2009). Plans to expand the station within the existing footprint are in preparation (City of Fullerton, 2010). This site is approximately 5.5 acres with limited room to expand. The surrounding area is developed, and residential zones are located 500 feet to the south, 700 feet to the northeast, and 1,000 feet to the north (City of Fullerton, 2005). The nearest freeways are one or more miles away from the FTC site. SR-91 is approximately one mile south, SR-57 is approximately 2.5 miles east, and I-5 is approximately 2.5 miles southwest. The closest freeway access would be SR-91 via Lemon Street, Harbor Boulevard or Euclid Street, which travels through a primarily residential area. The minimum land area needed to accommodate the parking, building, and other facilities for ARTIC is 19 acres, which is not available at the 5.5 acre FTC site. Displacement of people and businesses would be required to obtain the necessary land in order to provide adequate parking, building size, and internal circulation. In order to provide adequate parking for this site, a large parking structure would be required. The City of Fullerton is currently evaluating the feasibility of a parking structure to provide approximately 1,200 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-3 July 19, 2010 parking spaces across Harbor Boulevard from the station but does not have the available property (City of Fullerton, 2010). The disconnected parking structure would require travelers to cross Harbor Boulevard in order to enter the transit center. The transit center building (Intermodal Terminal) would obstruct views from residences and businesses. Due to this proximity, traffic, air quality, noise, aesthetics, and population and housing impacts would be potentially significant at the FTC. The CHSRA has identified FTC as an optional station on the first Southern California segment of its planned high speed train service. The CHSRA will evaluate the Fullerton Transportation Center for “skip-stop” service on the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim segment of the high speed rail project. A skip-stop reduces travel times and increases capacity by scheduling some trains to stop at the station while others continue through the station (City of Fullerton, 2010). Since the FTC will be evaluated as a “skip-stop” for CAHSR, it would not be able to function as a main terminus stop. The FTC cannot meet the Proposed Project objectives because it would not be able to accommodate the projected increases in mass transit ridership, provide a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes, provide improved access and availability of mass transit resources, or provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. The FTC alternative was rejected because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Orange Metrolink Station The Orange Metrolink Station, also known as the Orange Santa Fe Depot, was also considered as an alternate location for the Proposed Project. The approximately 2.3 acre site is located at 194 North Atchison Street (OCTA, 2009). Surrounding land uses include a Medium Density Residential area one block west and a Low Density Residential area 600 feet to the south (City of Orange, 2010). The Orange Metrolink Station site does not contain the minimum 19 acres needed and would not be able to accommodate the parking, building, and other facilities necessary to the operation of ARTIC. This alternate site has limited room to expand because the surrounding area is already highly developed and would require the displacement of people and businesses. The Orange Station current has 250 parking spaces. The station is approximately 0.75 miles from SR-22, 1.3 miles from SR-57, and 1.5 miles from SR-55. The most direct freeway access would SR-57 via West Chapman Avenue, which travels through a primarily residential and commercial area. The minimum land area needed to accommodate the parking, building, and other facilities for ARTIC is 19 acres, which is not available at the 2.3 acre Orange Station site. Displacement of people and businesses would be required to obtain the necessary land in order to provide adequate parking, building size, and internal circulation. In order to provide adequate parking for this site, a large parking structure would be required. The transit center building and parking structure would obstruct views and would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding development. Due to this proximity, traffic, air quality, noise, and aesthetic impacts would be potentially significant at the Orange Metrolink Station. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-4 July 19, 2010 The Orange Metrolink Station cannot meet the Proposed Project objectives because it would not be able to accommodate the projected increases in mass transit ridership, provide a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes, provide improved access and availability of mass transit resources, or provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. The Orange Metrolink Station alternative was rejected from further evaluation because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project Irvine Station The Irvine Station located at 15215 Barranca Parkway encompasses approximately 12 acres and currently offers Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA bus system, taxis, and shuttle services (OCTA, 2009). Land to the north and west of the Irvine Station is developed. Land to the south and southeast is zoned for Transit Oriented Development and is currently vacant (City of Irvine, 2006). There would be the potential for the station to expand to the minimum 19 acres required. Environmental impacts such as traffic, air quality, and noise would be similar to the Proposed Project impacts. Freeway access and proximity to entertainment destinations would be less convenient than the Proposed Project. The Irvine Station is approximately 0.5 miles from I-5 and 0.8 miles away from the I-5 and I-405 interchange and the nearest residential areas are 0.6 miles away (City of Irvine, 2006). The Irvine Station is at least ten miles away from many major entertainment destinations. The closest destinations are Wild Rivers Water Park and Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, which are approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest. The Irvine Station is adjacent to the planned Orange County Great Park (OCGP), which will be located at the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro base. The OCGP is currently planned but development has been suspended. The Irvine Station cannot meet the Proposed Project objectives because it would not be able to provide improved access to activity centers and destinations within the region. The Irvine Station alternative was rejected from further evaluation because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the potentially significant effects of the Proposed Project. 5.4 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives to the Proposed Project were based upon their ability to satisfy the Statement of Objectives (see Section 2.3.3). The alternatives include:  Reduced Building Size alternative;  No Project alternative; and  Proposed Project. Description Reduced Building Size Alternative The Reduced Building Size alternative assumes that an intermodal center would be developed at the Proposed Project site and would provide expanded capacity compared to the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. The Reduced Building Size alternative would include a ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-5 July 19, 2010 transit center that is approximately 66,000 gross square feet and a below-grade Bus Transit Center. The Reduced Building Size alternative would have the same amount of parking as the Proposed Project. It would also include the envisioned pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Katella Avenue and the trail easement adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail. The Reduced Building Size alternative would provide the same intermodal transit services as the proposed project. Passenger waiting areas, public space and other program space will be smaller for the Reduced Building Size alternative than the Proposed Project. Intermodal Terminal The Reduced Building Size alternative would include a 13,000 square-foot Intermodal Terminal building to allow for a Metrolink/Amtrak ticket and waiting area, a 30,000 square-foot civic space for passenger and community use, and 23,000 square feet of retail space. Bus Transit Center The Bus Transit Center would be located below the Intermodal Terminal. This Transit Center will include bus islands, waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, and driving ramps for surface street access. The Bus Transit Center will contain a bus facility located directly below the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will be an open air facility for ventilation. A waiting area will be provided on the bus islands. Tracks/Platforms The existing LOSSAN corridor mainline tracks would be realigned, the platforms relocated, and a new railroad bridge constructed. Realigning the tracks would require modifications to the existing crash wall to the support columns under SR-57. The new platforms would be 1,000 feet long with a total nominal width of 28 to 32 feet. Platform amenities would be consistent with the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, such as ticketing, communication systems, benches, canopies, and information kiosks. Douglass Road would be lowered to accommodate the new bridge. Surface Parking/Access Vehicular access to this alternative would be from Douglass Road with a potential access point on Katella Avenue. Approximately 960 parking spaces would be provided. Under the Reduced Building Size alternative, the tracks/platform components would be consistent with the Proposed Project but the terminal and supporting facilities would be smaller. No Project Alternative The No Project alternative assumes that the Proposed Project would not be constructed and that transportation services would be accommodated at the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station. Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.4 describe details of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station, transportation providers, parking, and pedestrian access. The envisioned pedestrian bridge and trail easement would not be constructed. Approximately 405 parking spaces would be ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-6 July 19, 2010 provided. The proposed site would continue to be used for the retail lumber business (City property) and the remaining portion (OCTA property) of the site would be used for the MSEP construction yard. When MSEP is complete, this site would be vacant. Proposed Project The Proposed Project is described in Section 2.2.5 through 2.2.8 and Section 2.4 through 2.6. Section 2.4 describes the Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-off Area, Stadium Pavilion, Tracks/Platforms, Road Improvements, Utilities, and Surface Parking/Access. Section 2.5 outlines the approach to construction and Section 2.6 details the operations and maintenance. Evaluation Reduced Building Size Alternative Construction-related impacts as a result of this alternative would be lessened due to the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation. This alternative would have similar operational impacts to environmental issue areas as the Proposed Project. The environmental issue areas are discussed below. Land Use and Planning This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA2010-00480), an amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2010-00437), and a CUP (CUP2010-05492). Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Transportation and Traffic This alternative would support similar transportation services as the Proposed Project and would generate a comparable amount of traffic. All planned improvement and additional mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still be applicable under this alternative in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Air Quality Operations for this alternative would not exceed significance thresholds or result in violations of ambient air quality standards with the use of BMPs. Construction activities for the Reduced Building Size alternative would yield criteria pollutant emissions that would be less than the significance thresholds, with the exception of NOx. NOx would require mitigation measures to reduce it to below the threshold level. Fewer construction related mitigation measures would be required for this alternative because of the shorter construction period and reduced grading and excavation activities. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Noise Operations for this alternative would not significantly impact noise-sensitive receivers. Noise from construction activities could intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-7 July 19, 2010 area of construction. Noise from project construction will be regulated through the Anaheim Municipal Code. Construction activities at night would require mitigation measures. Mitigation measures similar to the Proposed Project would be implemented under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Geology and Soils The project area would remain the same and impacts associated with geology and soils would be equivalent to those identified for the Proposed Project. This alternative would have equivalent impacts as the Proposed Project and the same existing regulations and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable to this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would be smaller than the Proposed Project and consumption of utilities would be reduced. This reduction in utilities consumption would be minimal. This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not significantly impact utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Hydrology and Water Quality The project area and the amount of impervious surfaces would be comparable to the Proposed Project. The project area is primarily developed, project implementation would not result in substantial increases in the amount of impervious surface, and water quality impacts would not increase. Runoff volumes would be generally the same as compared to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Aesthetics The project area would remain the same under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources The project area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to cultural resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-8 July 19, 2010 Biological Resources The project area would remain the same under this alternative and potential impacts to biological resources would be equivalent to those associated with the Proposed Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable under this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Public Services This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project in that it would not include a residential component. The demand for public services would be similar to the Proposed Project and as such, would not result in an adverse impact to public services. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not significantly impact GHG and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts from the Reduced Building Size alternative would be comparable or less than the Proposed Project during construction. Agriculture The site is currently fully urbanized and project implementation will not impact any agricultural resource. The project area would remain the same under this alternative and impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Mineral Resources This alternative would not impact mineral resources and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Recreation This alternative would not impact recreation and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Population and Housing This alternative would not impact population and housing and impacts to this issue area are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Conclusion This alternative would have fewer construction impacts due to the shorter construction schedule and reduced grading and excavation activities. Operational impacts as a result of the Reduced ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-9 July 19, 2010 Building Size alternative would be comparable to the Proposed Project. This alternative would meet all objectives. No Project Alternative This alternative would have fewer construction impacts to environmental issue areas in comparison with the Proposed Project but would have more operational impacts. The environmental issue areas are discussed below: Land Use and Planning This alternative already exists and is compatible with zoning designations. No impacts would occur. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Transportation and Traffic No construction impacts to transportation and traffic would occur as a result of this alternative. This alternative would have operational impacts to traffic due to reduced parking and the existing and growing demand for intermodal services. Impacts would be the same for construction but greater for operations than the Proposed Project. Air Quality The No Project alternative would have fewer construction impacts than the Proposed Project. The No Project alternative would not accommodate projected increases in traffic congestion. Air quality impacts would be more significant than the Proposed Project. Noise Noise from nighttime construction would not occur as a result of this alternative, in contrast to the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Geology and Soils No impacts associated with geology and soils would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Utilities and Service Systems No impacts to utilities and service systems would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials No impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-10 July 19, 2010 Hydrology and Water Quality No impacts to hydrology and water quality would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Aesthetics No impacts to aesthetics would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources No impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Biological Resources No impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Public Services No impacts to public services would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be less than the Proposed Project. Greenhouse Gases This alternative would not accommodate projected increases in transit demand. Fewer vehicles would be removed from the roadway network. GHG impacts would be greater than the Proposed Project. Agriculture No impacts to agriculture would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Mineral Resources No impacts to mineral resources would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Recreation No impacts to recreation would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-11 July 19, 2010 Population and Housing No impacts to population and housing would occur as a result of this alternative. Impacts would be comparable to the Proposed Project. Conclusion Though most No Project alternative impacts on environmental issue areas would be less than the Proposed Project for construction, mitigation measures for the Proposed Project construction and operations would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Construction impacts associated with the No Project alternative would not be substantially lower than the Proposed Project impacts or the Reduced Building Size alternative with mitigation. With respect to operations, the No Project alternative would have greater impacts to air quality, GHG and transportation and traffic. This alternative would not meet several ARTIC objectives, including:  Providing a regional intermodal center that can combine multiple transportation modes at a central location;  Accommodating projected increases in mass transit ridership;  Providing a transit oriented building that can accommodate future transportation modes;  Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access to multimodal transit options;  Providing improved access and availability of mass transit resources; and  Encouraging the reduction of vehicle miles traveled on freeways and local arterial streets. The No Project alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Project or the Reduced Building Size alternative. Proposed Project As discussed in Chapter 3.0, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts with application of appropriate mitigation measures and all of the ARTIC objectives would be met. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-12 July 19, 2010 5.5 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY COMPARISON Table 5.5-1 presents a comparison between the Reduced Building Size alternative, the No Project alternative, and the Proposed Project alternative. Table 5.5-1 Comparison of Alternatives Environmental Issue Areas Reduced Building Size Alternative No Project Alternative Proposed Project Meets Identified Project Objectives? SomeYes No Yes Land Use and Planning No impact No impact No impact Transportation and Traffic Less than significant with mitigation Potential impacts with reduced parking and fewer patrons changing from cars to transit. Less than significant with mitigation Air Quality Less than significant with mitigation for construction and no operational impacts. Potentially significant operational impacts due to congestion around the station. No construction impacts. Less than significant with mitigation for construction and no operational impacts. Noise Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Geology and Soils Less than significant No impact Less than significant Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant No impact Less than significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Hydrology/Water Quality Less than significant No impact Less than significant Aesthetics Less than significant No impact Less than significant Recreation No impact No impact No impact Cultural Resources Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Biological Resources Less than significant with mitigation No impact Less than significant with mitigation Public Services No impact No impact No impact Population and Housing No impact No impact No impact Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than significant Potentially significant operational impact due to less patrons using transit Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-13 July 19, 2010 5.6 CONCLUSION The Proposed Project and the Reduced Building Size alternative would have similar operational environmental impacts and no impacts are significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. The Proposed Project meets all the project objectives whereand the Reduced Building Size alternative meets some of the objectives andmeet all the project objectives. the The No Project alternative does not meet the objectives. The No Project alternative has potentially significant air quality, traffic and transportation, and GHG environmental impacts for operations as the demand for parking exceeds the supply. 5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The environmentally superior alternative is the Reduced Building Size alternative. Operational environmental impacts as a result of the Reduced Building Size alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project. Construction impacts would be reduced due to the shorter construction schedule. With mitigation both alternatives are would have similar impacts. The Reduced Building Sized alternative would cost less to build and maintain but does not meet all the project objectives. The quality of the current transit service under the No Project alternative will deteriorate because the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak Station is operating near capacity and cannot accommodate the anticipated increased transportation demand. The parking spaces are generally utilized to full capacity (95 percent or more) daily. Assuming that no additional parking will be made available, passengers estimated under the future growth would have to park off-site and use alternate modes of transportation to the site. Pedestrian circulation would not be improved. This alternative does not meet the Proposed Project objectives. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 5.0 Project Alternatives ARTIC Draft EIR 5-14 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-1 July 19, 2010 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR must “discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Growth can be induced by several means, including, but not limited to, eliminating obstacles to growth and encouraging economic activity within the area. According to CEQA Guidelines, growth is not necessarily considered to be beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. ARTIC will be located in an area that is experiencing growth in numerous ways, including housing, employment, and transportation needs. OCTA and the City have compiled several plans to address this anticipated growth, especially as it relates to transportation. ARTIC plays an integral role in these planning efforts. Three of these plans are the City’s Go Local Program, OCTA’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, and the Anaheim Transit Master Plan. A component of the MSEP was to extend commuter rail service by allowing cities to develop extensions that would connect the Metrolink corridor to major destinations or activity centers. In February 2006, the OCTA Board approved the Go Local Program, a four-step process for city- initiated rapid transit planning. The City’s Go Local study was initiated in January 2007. The results of this study determined that utilizing ARTIC would meet the screening threshold for the Go Local Program. OCTA’s Long-Range Transportation Plan projects that population in the County of Orange will grow by 24 percent over the next 30 years, and that approximately three million additional person trips per year will be added to the transportation system by 2030. The Long-Range Transportation Plan determined that expanding transit centers that serve multiple modes of transportation would be necessary to accommodate this growth. The Anaheim Transit Master Plan recommends a transit system to extend the reach of what will soon be a frequent, all-day Metrolink train service throughout the County of Orange. It recommends that ARTIC serve as the primary hub in the City and a key regional hub. ARTIC is a key transportation component in facilitating multimodal transit services in the City, the County of Orange, and southern California. ARTIC is a growth accommodating facility for southern California. To address potential growth-inducing impacts as a result of ARTIC and how ARTIC will integrate into the existing transportation network, the following questions will be analyzed: 1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project Area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? 2. Would this project require the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-2 July 19, 2010 3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? 4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? This issue area is analyzed to provide additional information on ways in which ARTIC could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the environmental impacts discussed in the preceding sections of this EIR. 1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project Area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? ARTIC is located within the Platinum Triangle, which currently has infrastructure facilities that are readily available throughout the area. Though ARTIC will require relocating existing utilities and constructing new utilities as discussed in Section 3.6, no major new infrastructure facilities will be required. Development of ARTIC is allowed by the existing General Plan and Zoning Designations for the site. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element encourages the development of a regional intermodal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim (City of Anaheim, 2009). Additionally, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan provides opportunities for “transit oriented development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities . . . [including] the proposed ARTIC stations” (City of Anaheim, 2009). Since ARTIC will not require changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development, this project will not remove obstacles of growth. 2. Would this project require the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? The nature of ARTIC is to improve local and regional transportation services. In addition, implementation of ARTIC is consistent with City of Anaheim’s General Plan and supports local and regional development projections. ARTIC will not significantly impact existing public services. ARTIC will not have significant growth-inducing consequences in regards to this issue area. 3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? ARTIC is intended to improve access and mobility of various modes of transportation, as well as continue to serve the surrounding existing recreational, industrial, and commercial land uses. ARTIC will accommodate a portion of existing transportation demand in the County of Orange. Construction activities expected to last approximately 26 to 36 months will generate a stimulus for the local economy due to construction-period expenditures for equipment, materials, supplies, and employment of workers by contractors. Indirect economic benefits will also occur due to the ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-3 July 19, 2010 multiplier effect as construction-generated revenues are re-spent by suppliers and workers. However, these effects are considered to be temporary effects that will occur during the construction period. Operations and maintenance of ARTIC will create new job opportunities. Growth is anticipated in the existing City of Anaheim General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (City of Anaheim 2009; City of Anaheim 2008). 4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? ARTIC is consistent with the overall vision for the surrounding area, as described in the City of Anaheim General Plan and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. No changes to the City of Anaheim building safety standards building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement ARTIC, and project implementation will comply with applicable City plans, policies, ordinances, and regulations. ARTIC will accommodate projected increases in mass transit ridership, provide improved access and availability of existing mass transit resources, and encourage the reduction of current vehicle miles traveled on freeways and local arterial streets. Future transportation projects that may utilize ARTIC are already in various stages of development and will complete individual environmental assessments. ARTIC will not involve a precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 6.0 Growth Inducing Impact ARTIC Draft EIR 6-4 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 7.0 Organizations and Agencies Consulted ARTIC Draft EIR 7-1 July 19, 2010 7.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED AMTRAK California Department of Transportation, District 12 California High-Speed Rail City of Anaheim City of Orange Native American Heritage Commission Orange County Flood Control District Orange County Sanitation District Orange County Transportation Authority Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Southern California Railroad Authority South Coast Air Quality Management District United States Army Corps of Engineers ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 7.0 Organizations and Agencies Consulted ARTIC Draft EIR 7-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 8.0 List of Preparers ARTIC Draft EIR 8-1 July 19, 2010 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency City of Anaheim Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 City of Anaheim Project Manager: Jamie Lai, P.E. Project Manager Department of Public Works Transit Planning Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Program Manager: Anthony Venturato, P.E. STV Incorporated 100 Pacifica, Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92618 Environmental Program Manager: Andy Minor Chambers Group Inc 302 Brookside Avenue Redlands, California 92373 Report Preparers: Kleinfelder 2 Ada, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92618 Project Staff: Robert Motschall, Ph.D. (Project Manager) Michael Johnson, J.D. Chuck Cleeves Michael Counte Jim Dill, P.E Russ Erbes, CCM Lauren Ferrell, EIT Blair Baker Elyssa Figari Jeremy Janusziewicz Alexis McCollom Melissa Sherman Janet Patay Megan Kelly Kathleen McCracken Traffic Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Keil Maberry, P.E. Zawwar Saiyed, P.E. Noise Entech Consulting Group 43410 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Michelle Jones, P.E. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 8.0 List of Preparers ARTIC Draft EIR 8-2 July 19, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-1 July 19, 2010 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY/LITERATURE CITED Albert A. Webb Associates, 2007. Towne Center Traffic Impact Study. Anaheim Public Utilities. 2010. Renewable Energy. Anaheim, CA. http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/adv_svc_prog/renew_energy/info.html Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) 2010. Anaheim Resort Transit. http://www.rideart.org/index.php?loc=1 BBC, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6717671.stm Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, 42p. (interim revision 2007). Buro Happold, 2010: Electrical Loads Calculations, February, 2010. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2009. 1999-08-12 California Air Toxics Program Background. http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/background.htm California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007. EMFAC 2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 2006. CARB, 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. Sacramento, CA. CARB, 2009. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Reviewed November 24, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm CARB, 2010. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Sacramento, CA. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm#rule California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2008. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code. Sacramento, CA. CBSC, 2008. Building Standards Bulletin 08-02. Sacramento, CA. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/cd_qustns/documents/BSB_08-02.pdf California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387, 2007. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. Amended July 27, 2007. CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, §§15000-15387. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Statutes and Guidelines. Amended July, 2007. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines California Department of Conservation (CDC), 2006. California Farmland Conversion Report, The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-2 July 19, 2010 California Department of Education (CDE) 2009. California Education Code http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=17001- 18000&file=17210-17224 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2000. Orange County, Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map). California Department of Justice. 2010. Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Project Level, Sacramento, CA. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf. California Department of Justice, 2010. Comment Letters filed under the California Environmental Quality Act. Sacramento, CA. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa/comments.php. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/ALUPHComplete-7- 02rev.pdf Caltrans, 2007. California Public Utilities Code, State Aeronautics Act. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents2/puc051107.pdf Caltrans, 2007. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways, Orange County. Caltrans, 2009. Scenic Highway Guidelines. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/guidelines/scenic_hwy_guidelines.pdf California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998. Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Anaheim 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24,000, released April 25, 1998. California Energy Commission (CEC), 2009. 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Sacramento, CA. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/ CEC, 2000. California Energy Demand 2000-2010. Staff Report. Technical Report to California Energy Outlook 2000. Docket #99-CEO-1. June, 2000. CEC, 2003. Buying a Photovoltaic Solar Electric System. A Consumer Guide. Handbook. 2003 Edition. March, 2003. CEC, 2006. California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEC-400-2006-005, prepared by Itron, Inc.). Sacramento, CA: CEC. CEC, 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California (CEC-500-2006-118, prepared by Navigant Consulting). Sacramento, CA: CEC. CEC, 2007. Integrated Energy Policy Report. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-3 July 19, 2010 California EPA, 2010. “Green House Gas Inventory 2020 Forecast”. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm California EPA, 2010. “Staff Report, California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit, November 16, 2007”. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm California Government Code (CGC) §§8877.1-8877.6, Chapter 12.4. 1986. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 1994. Orange County Mineral Resource Publications, OFR 94-15, Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California, Part III: Orange County. CGS, 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/Docume nts/note_36.pdf CGS, 2003. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment - Peak Ground Acceleration. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pga.htm CGS, 2007. California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazard Zonation Program: California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Sacramento, CA. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf. California Public Utilities Code (PUC), §21675: Airport Environs Land Use Plan Requirements. California Stormwater Quality Association. 1993. Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks, Access at: http//www.cabmphandbooks.com/ Canada, 2010. Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/ Center for Demographic Research, 2009. Orange County Facts and Figures. Cal State Fullerton, June 2009. City of Anaheim, 2005. City of Anaheim 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Anaheim, 2005. The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Number 332. City of Anaheim, 2005. Updated and Modified Mitigated Monitoring Program No. 106A for The Platinum Triangle (includes Environmental Impact Report Nos. 321, 330, and 332. City of Anaheim, 2008. Initial Study for Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Associated Actions. Prepared December 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-4 July 19, 2010 City of Anaheim, 2008. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. October 14, 2008. City of Anaheim, 2009. Anaheim Municipal Code. City of Anaheim, 2009. Anaheim Public Utilities: Water Rules, Rates, And Regulations, Rule 15D - Main Extensions. City of Anaheim, 2009. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) – Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339). City of Anaheim, 2009. General Plan, Revised August 11, 2009. City of Anaheim, 2009. The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment Amendment 2009. City of Anaheim, 2010. A Gateway to the Future: The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center. Power Point Presentation, January 27, 2010. City of Anaheim, 2010. City of Anaheim Fire Department, Certified Unified Program Agency Factsheet. City of Anaheim, 2010. Green Connection. Website accessed May 7, 2010. http://www.anaheim.net/section.asp?id=162 City of Anaheim, 2010. Meetings and Conversations with David Kennedy, City of Anaheim Traffic Engineer. April, 2010. City of Fullerton, 2005. General Plan, Revised October 5, 2004. City of Fullerton, 2010. City of Fullerton Transportation Center. Website accessed on April 29, 2010. http://www.ci.fullerton.ca.us/visitors/downtown_fullerton/transportation_center.asp City of Irvine, 2006. General Plan, Supplemented August 2006. City of Orange, 2009. General Plan EIR, Updated January 2009. City of Orange, 2010. General Plan, Updated March 9, 2010. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40: Protection of the Environment, May 19, 1980. CFR, Title 40, Part 51, subpart A: Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, Updated December 17, 2008. CFR, Title 40, Parts 239-258, Subtitle D: Requirements for Solid Waste Disposal Sites. CFR, Title 40, Parts 260-279, Subtitle C: Hazardous Waste Generation, Handling, Transportation, Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-5 July 19, 2010 CFR, Title 40, Parts 280-282, Subtitle I: Underground Storage Tank Regulations. Cordoba Corporation, 2009. Needs Assessment Update and Validation. August 11, 2009. County of Orange, 2002. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Update. County of Orange, 2005. General Plan. http://www.ocparks.com/strategicplan/OCGeneralPlan.pdf County of Orange, 2005. Scenic Highway Plan. http://www.ocplanning.net/Documents/pdf/GeneralPlan2005/Chapter_IV_Scenic_Highway_ Plan.pdf County of Orange, 2007. Regional Landfill Options for Orange Co., Strategic Plan Update. County of Orange, 2010, OC Planning Code and Regulations, 2010, available at: http://www.ocplanning.net/CodesRegulations.aspx County of Orange, 2010. OC Waste & Recycling website. http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Info%20OC/Departments%20&%20Agencies/OC%20Waste %20&%20Recycling/Landfill%20Information Davis, Daniel and Julie Davis, 2006. Hazardous Material Reference Book: Cross-Index. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2009. California Hazardous Waste Classification. http://ccelearn.csus.edu/wasteclass/intro/intro_01.html Dolan, J.F., Gath, E.M., Grant, L.B., Legg, Lindvall, Mueller, Oskin, Ponti, D.F., Rubin, C.M., Rockwell, T.K., Shaw, J.H., Treiman, J.A., Walls, and Yeats, R.S. (compilers), 2001. Active Faults in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region: SCEC Special Publication Series No. 001, Southern California Earthquake Center, 47p. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Disaster Information: Flood. http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm FEMA, 2009. Floodplain Management Requirements. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/fm_sg.shtm FEMA, 2009. The National Flood Insurance Program. http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm FEMA, 2010. FEMA FIRM Map ID 06059C0142J, 2009, available at: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/MapSearchResult?storeId=10001&catalogI d=10001&langId=- 1&userType=G&panelIDs=06059C0142J&Type=pbp&nonprinted=&unmapped= ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-6 July 19, 2010 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Office of Planning and Environment, May 2006. Fennie, 2005. The Space Place, Space Planning: Seismic Retrofit Requirements and Their Triggers. http://www.thespaceplace.net/articles/fennie200501b.php General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR), 2005. 6.0 Movement of Trains and Engines, April 3, 2005. Greenwood, R.B. and Pridmore, C.L, 2001. Liquefaction zones in the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California, in Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-minute quadrangles, Orange County, California: California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03, pp. 5-18; Plates 1.1 and 1.2. International Energy Agency, 2010. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/ Integrated Waste Management Department, 2001. Regional Landfill Options for Orange County, Strategic Plan. Integrated Waste Management Department, 2007. Regional Landfill Options for Orange County, Strategic Plan Update 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Boulder, CO: IPCC, Working Group I. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997. Handbook to the 1997 Uniform Building Codes. Kleinfelder, 2009, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed ARTIC Phase I Project, Anaheim, California, October 23, 2009. Kleinfelder, 2009. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center. July 17, 2009 Kleinfelder, 2009. Limited Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. December 23, 2009 LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. State Route 57 Northbound Widening Project Between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue; Initial Study with Negative Declaration. Prepared for Caltrans. November 2009. LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. State Route 57 Northbound Widening Project Between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue; Noise Study Report. Prepared for Caltrans. January 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-7 July 19, 2010 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2007. Chapter IV – Groundwater Basin Reports, Orange County Basins, in A Status Report on the use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report No. 1308, pp. IV-10-1 – IV-10-26. www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/GWAS.html Morton, D.M., K.R. Bovard and R.M. Alvarez, 2004. Preliminary digital geologic map of the Santa Ana 30’x60’ quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1983. National Engineering Handbook. National Public Radio (NPR), 2010. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=%[PHONE REDACTED] Orange County Department of Public Works Flood Control Division 2010. http://www.ocflood.com/ Orange County Sheriff’s Department, 2010. Mass Transit Bureau. Website accessed May 17, 2010 http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Sheriff- Coroner/Divisions/Homeland%20Security/Mass%20Transit%20Bureau Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), 2006. New Directions: Chartering the course for Orange County’s future transportation system. 2006 Long-Range Transportation Plan, July 24, 2006. Orange County Water District, 2004, Groundwater Management Plan, dated March 2004, available at: http://www.ocwd.com. OCTA, 2006. Final EIR for the Long Range Transportation Plan. July 2006. OCTA, 2009. Fullerton Metrolink Station Fast Facts. July 16, 2009. OCTA, 2009. Irvine Metrolink Station Fast Facts. July 13, 2009. OCTA, 2009. Orange Metrolink Station Fast Facts. July 28, 2009. Orange County Water District (OCWD), 2004. Groundwater Management Plan, dated March 2004, available at: http://www.ocwd.com. Psomas, 2009. Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment. Santa Ana, CA. Psomas, 2009. The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment. Prepared for the City of Anaheim, September 2009. Roberts, Neil, 1998. The Holocene: An Environmental History (2nd Ed.). Blackwell Publishers, Inc.; Malden, MA. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-8 July 19, 2010 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2009. Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), Version 6.3.2, July 2009. Santa Ana River Water Quality Control Board 2008. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Updated February, 2008. 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency, Santa Ana Region. Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G, Yerkes, R.F., and Kinney, D.M., 1981. Geology of the northern Santa Ana Mountains, California: US Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-D, 109p. Shaw, J.H., Plesch, Dolan, J.F., Pratt, T.L., and Fiore, 2002. Puente hills blind-thrust system, Los Angeles, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 92, No. 8, pp. 2946–2960. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. SCAQMD, 2007. Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, November 2006. SCAQMD, 2007. Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) Computer Model, version 9.2, June 2007. SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA. SCAQMD, 2010. Rules and Regulations, March 2010. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2010. Regional Comprehensive Plan, 2008, available at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/index.htm. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 1994. Anaheim to Santa Ana, Second Main Track Addition, Bridge 170.8-Douglass Road Underpass, Log of Test Borings, Sheet No. 62, dated February 15, 1994. State Water Resources Control Board 2009. Construction Stormwater Permit. 2009. Basin Plan. Updated February, 2008. 2009. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Amended January 1, 2009. Streets and Highways Code, §260 et seq. Caltrans, California Scenic Highways Program, Updated 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-9 July 19, 2010 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), 1999. Compliance with Railroad Operating Rules and Corporate Culture Influence. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord9909.pdf USDOT, 2000. 23 USC 162, National Scenic Byways Program. USDOT, 2009. National Scenic Byways Online. http://www.byways.org/ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2000. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Superfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health and the Environment http://epa.gov/superfund/20years/index.htm USEPA, 2010. EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks, EPA-420-F-10-014, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.htm USEPA, 2004. CAL3QHC Computer Model, MCB#6, September 2004. USEPA, 2009. Climate Change – Regulatory Initiatives: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. USEPA, 2009. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/lawsregs/hmtaover.htm USEPA, 2009. History of the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwahistory.html USEPA, 2009. Introduction to the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ USEPA, 2009. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program_id=45 USEPA, 2009. Office of Waste Management. http://www.epa.gov/owm/ USEPA, 2009. Wastes - Non-Hazardous Waste. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/index.htm USEPA, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html United States Code (USC), Title 33, §1251-1376: Federal Water Pollution Control Act. USC, Title 42, §§4321-4370: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Updated January 19, 2004. USC, Title 42, §5101-5127: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975. USC, Title 42, Chapter 103: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft EIR 9.0 Bibliography/Literature Cited ARTIC Draft EIR 9-10 July 19, 2010 USC, Title 42, Chapter 116: Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know-Act of 1986. USC, Title 42, Chapter 321: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. United State Geological Survey (USGS), 1981. Anaheim, California 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle. Western Regional Climate Center, 2009. Period of Climate Summary, Anaheim, California, available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0192 World Resources Institute (WRI), 2009. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) version 7.0. Washington, D.C. http://cait.wri.org/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices A-I (See attached CD)