PC 2017/03/20
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, March 20, 2017
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
Chairperson: Mitchell Caldwell
Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Paul Bostwick
Commissioners: Jess Carbajal, Bill Dalati, Grant Henninger,
Michelle Lieberman, John Seymour
Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
Pledge Of Allegiance
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Commission Updates
Discussion
Adjournment
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the
agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff
report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on
Thursday, March 16, 2017, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a
majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than
writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection
in the Planning and Building Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, California, during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
03-20-2017
Page 2 of 6
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional
Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and
Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely
appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk,
accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public
hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City
Clerk of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
03-20-2017
Page 3 of 6
Consent Calendar
There will be no separate discussion on the item prior to the time of the voting on the motion
unless members of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public request the item to be
discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
Reports and Recommendations
ITEM NO. 1A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879
VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
(DEV2016-00058)
Location: 1330 West Pearl Street
Request: For a six-month compliance review of a conditional
use permit and variance to permit a group care facility within an
existing apartment complex with less parking spaces than
required by the Zoning Code.
Motion
Project Planner:
Lindsay Ortega
lortega@anaheim.net
03-20-2017
Page 4 of 6
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05882
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2016-00130
(DEV2016-00073)
Location: 5759 East Santa Ana Canyon Road
Request: The applicant requests approval of the following
land use entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to permit
the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in
conjunction with an existing grocery store which is located
within a shopping center, and (ii) a Determination of Public
Convenience or Necessity to allow a new Type 20
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license for the off-sale
beer and wine sales (Mother’s Market).
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Lindsay Ortega
lortega@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05900
VARIANCE NO. 2017-05085
(DEV2016-00129)
Location: 2641 West La Palma Avenue
Request: The applicant requests approval of the following
land use entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to permit
and retain an existing broadcasting studio with a live
audience in conjunction with a community and religious
assembly use, and (ii) a variance to permit less parking
than required by the Zoning Code.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
This item was continued from the February 6, 2017 and
March 6, 2017 Planning Commission meetings.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Lindsay Ortega
lortega@anaheim.net
03-20-2017
Page 5 of 6
ITEM NO. 4
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00301
(DEV2016-00109)
Location: 729 North East Street
Request: A City-initiated request to reclassify the subject
property from the RM-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone
to the RS-2 (Single Family Residential) zone.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Wayne Carvalho
wcarvalho@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 5
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-00513
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2017-00651
(DEV2017-00007)
Location: Citywide
Request: The 2017 Bicycle Master Plan Project is a City-
initiated update to the City of Anaheim’s 2004 Bicycle
Master Plan. The project includes amendments to the
General Plan to provide consistency between the proposed
2017 Bicycle Master Plan and the General Plan.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will
consider if an Addendum to the previously-certified Program
Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (PEIR 330) and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report N. 346 (SEIR
346) is the appropriate environmental document for this
project and that none of the conditions set forth in sections
15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the
preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report or
a Supplement to PEIR 330 or SEIR 346 have occurred.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Christine Saunders
csaunders@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, April 3, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
03-20-2017
Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
6:15 p.m. March 15, 2017
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all
members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in
implementation thereof.
Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary
aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification,
accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department either in
person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139,
no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos
los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen
nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos
apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de
Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y
reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo.
Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios
auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha
modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad
ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714)
765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 1A
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 20, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
LOCATION: 1330 West Pearl Street (Anaheim Lighthouse)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Paul Chiavatti on behalf of
the Anaheim Lighthouse. The property owners are Avedis Jalakian and Shabnam
Jalakian.
REQUEST: The applicant requests a six-month compliance review of a conditional
use permit and variance to permit a group care facility within an existing apartment
complex with less parking spaces than required by Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by
motion, receive and file the six-month review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-
05879 and Variance No. 2016-05073.
BACKGROUND: The 0.2-acre property is developed with a 2-story, 4-unit
apartment building and is located in the “RM-4” Multiple Family Residential zone.
The General Plan designates this property for Medium Density Residential land uses.
The property is surrounded by apartment complexes on all four sides. There are four
existing group care facilities located adjacent to the project site. These facilities are
located at 1300, 1310, 1320, and 1340 West Pearl Street.
On September 7, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit
No. 2016-05879 and Variance No. 2016-05073, permitting a group care facility for
up to 20 persons and a variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by the
Zoning Code. Condition No. 1 requires six and twelve month reviews by the Planning
Commission as a “Reports and Recommendations” (R&R) item to determine if the
group care facility is operating without negatively impacting the adjacent properties.
The condition requires that surrounding properties be noticed in advance of these
scheduled reviews. The six month review is required primarily due to parking
concerns in the neighborhood. It was determined that the review would allow City
staff the opportunity to monitor parking impacts related to the group care facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 3
PROPOSAL: Pursuant to the conditions of approval for this conditional use permit, the
establishment of a group care facility is subject to a six-month review to ensure on-going
compliance with all conditions of approval and to ensure that the drug and alcohol rehabilitation
facility is being operated in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
In response to concerns expressed by neighboring residents at the original hearing, the applicant
implemented a parking management plan to ensure that employees only utilize on-site parking
and refrain from using on-street parking spaces. As part of this management plan, the applicant
has registered all staff vehicles, requiring each vehicle to display a parking sticker, and
implemented a policy that any employee found parking on the street would be subject to
disciplinary action. Additionally, the applicant has implemented a financial incentive program
to encourage all employees to carpool to work.
Staff conducted three site visits during the last two months, which consisted of two day visits
and one evening visit. The first site visit occurred on January 5, 2017 at 1:00 p.m.; staff
observed vehicles parked on the street, but there appeared to be spaces available in the
neighborhood. Staff did not observe any employees of the subject property approach the any of
the vehicles. On January 12, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., staff conducted a second site visit and observed
that most of the parking on the street was utilized. Staff observed one person that appeared to be
associated with the subject property walk toward a vehicle parked on the street. Lastly, on
March 2, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., staff conducted a final site visit. Parking was available along the
street and staff did not observe any persons associated with the group facility parked along the
street.
Staff met with the operator to discuss the policies established by the facility to address parking.
The operator submitted a log of daily parking compliance in which an employee of the facility
checks license plate numbers of the employees to those vehicles parked on the street. The log is
available for review as an attachment to this report (Attachment 6). The log indicates that 1-2
days a week, no more than two vehicles associated with the property have parked on the street.
Those vehicles were identified and cited by the facility operator for breaking policy and the
owners were asked to move their vehicles. The logs were taken at 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. daily;
however, staff has since requested that the logs be taken at 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, as
3:00 p.m. is when the most staff members are on-site and 6:00 p.m. is the time when residents in
the neighborhood would be utilizing street parking. The applicant began logging this timeframe
on March 7th and will continue to do so in preparation for the 12 month compliance review.
A review of Code Enforcement cases and discussion with Code Enforcement staff indicated that
no complaints have been received since the approval of the conditional use permit in September
2016. Public Notices were mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject
property to inform them of this 6 month compliance review. As of the writing of this report, staff
was contacted by two property owners in opposition to the project due to continued parking
issues. One of the residents noted that the garages are being utilized for meeting or recreation
uses; however, the applicant has indicated that the garages are only used as a meeting space
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 3
when not needed for parking as staffing levels vary throughout the day. Additionally, staff
contacted the resident that spoke at the original Planning Commission hearing and inquired as to
whether the issues brought up at the hearing had improved. The resident indicated that the
parking issue had seemed to improve for a short while and that she has not observed as many
vehicles associated with the property utilizing street parking, but that parking is still generally an
issue in the neighborhood. She attributed the most of the parking issues with the large apartment
complex located on Pearl Street west of the subject property. Staff also received one phone call
inquiring about the project for information purposes only.
Lastly, per an existing condition of approval, a 12 month compliance review will be presented to
the Planning Commission in September, 2017. Staff believes the 12 month review will better
identify whether neighborhood parking issues can be attributed to this use. If there is evidence
that the use is negatively impacting on-street parking in the area, staff will initiate actions,
including a possible amendment to the conditional use permit, to ensure such impacts are
effectively addressed.
CONCLUSION: The applicant has provided documentation demonstrating their pursuit to
comply with all conditions of approval. The applicant will continue to monitor their staff to
ensure that street parking is not utilized in order to minimize the impact on the already parking
impacted neighborhood and continues to demonstrate that the use does not adversely impact the
surrounding neighborhood. Staff has found the operation of the group care facility to be in
compliance with the conditions of approval and recommends the Planning Commission receive
and file this six month review.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Lindsay Ortega Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner Planning Services Manager
Lilley Planning Group
Attachments:
1. Original PC Staff Report
2. Original Resolution
3. Plans
4. Interior Site Photographs
5. Exterior Site Photographs
6. Lighthouse Parking Policy Log
7. 9am Street Photos
8. 3pm Street Photos
9. 6pm Street Photos
10. Public Correspondence
RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4APTS14 DU
RM-4APTS8DU
RM-3DUPLEX
RM-3S.F.R.
RM-4S.F.R.
RM-4APTS13 DU
RM-4APTS10 DU
C-GRESTAURANT
RM-3S.F.R.
C-GOFFICES
RM-3S.F.R.
RM-4DUPLEX
RM-4PARK WILSHIRE APTS77 DU
RM-4CONDOS163 DU
RM-3DUPLEX
RM-4APTS10 DU
RM-3S.F.R.
C-GVACANT
RM-3DUPLEX
RM-3TRIPLEX
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-3TRIPLEX
RM-4APARTMENTS
RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-3DUPLEX
RM-3DUPLEX RM-3DUPLEX
RM-3DUPLEX
RM-3S.F.R.
RS-1SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-1SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-1SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-1SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
5 FREEWAY
5 FREEWAY W L I N C O L N A V E
W PEAR L S T
N W I L S H I R E A V E
W D W Y E R D R
N P E A R
L S T
N C A R L E
T O
N A V E
W B E V E R L Y D R
W BIRCHMONT DR
N
D W Y
E
R
P L
N
D
W
Y
E
R
D
R
N
W
E
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. BROADWAY
N . E U C L I D
S T
S . E U C L I D S T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
N
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S .
W A L N U T
S T
N . L O A R A S T
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
1 3 30 West Pea rl Street
D E V No. 2016-00058
Subject Property APN: 255-022-42
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Jun e 2 01 5
5 FREEWAY
5 FREEWAY W L I N C O L N A V E
W PEAR L S T
N W I L S H I R E A V E
W D W Y E R D R
N P E A R
L S T
N C A R L E
T O
N A V E
W D I A M O ND ST
W B E V E R L Y D R
W BIRCHMONT DR
N
D W Y
E
R
P L
N
D
W
Y
E
R
D
R
N
W
E
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. BROADWAY
N . E U C L I D
S T
S . E U C L I D S T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
N
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S .
W A L N U T
S T
N . L O A R A S T
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
1 3 30 West Pea rl Street
D E V No. 2016-00058
Subject Property APN: 255-022-42
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Jun e 2 01 5
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
LOCATION: 1330 West Pearl Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Paul Chiavatti on behalf of
the Anaheim Lighthouse. The property owners are Avedis Jalakian and Shabnam
Jalakian.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish a
group care facility for up to 20 persons and a variance to permit fewer parking spaces
than required by the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is Categorically Exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05879 and
Variance No. 2016-05073.
BACKGROUND: The 0.2-acre property is developed with a 2-story, 4-unit
apartment building and is located in the “RM-4” Multiple Family Residential zone.
The General Plan designates this property for Medium Density Residential land uses.
The property is surrounded by apartment complexes on all four sides. There are four
existing group care facilities located adjacent to the project site. These facilities are
located at 1300, 1310, 1320, and 1340 West Pearl Street.
This item was heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2016. At the hearing,
neighbors in the area expressed concerns regarding parking deficiencies in the
neighborhood, delivery truck activity and trash containers left on the street on non-
trash pick-up days. In response, the Commission continued the item for four weeks to
allow the applicant time to address those concerns.
The project applicant currently operates the property as a sober living residential
facility, which is permitted by-right in the RM-4 Zone. The existing facility is
considered a by-right residential use because no counseling or treatment services are
being provided to the residents. In addition to operating the existing sober living
facility, Anaheim Lighthouse operates seven other residential facilities located in the
neighborhood; however, not all require a conditional use permit to operate.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 2 of 9
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish a group
care facility for up to 20 persons to be used as an “alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or
treatment facility.” Three of the four apartment units have two bedrooms and one unit has three
bedrooms. The facility would provide 24 hour non-medical care with 2 to 4 staff members on
site at all times. The facility would also provide on-site group and individual counseling and
each client would be assigned a credentialed therapist and a certified treatment counselor.
Clients would receive a treatment plan prepared by their counselor upon admission into the
program which they would be required to follow. The treatment component could range
between 7 to 90 days, and includes courses such as relapse prevention and socialization skills.
Counseling services would be provided only to tenants residing at the subject facility. Upon
completion of the program, the clients would be transitioned into a sober living care residence.
Clients are referred to the program by private insurance companies or certified/licensed treatment
professionals. The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) has sole authority to
license facilities providing 24-hour residential nonmedical services to eligible adults who are
recovering from problems related to alcohol or other drug misuse or abuse. Licensure is required
when at least one of the following services is provided: detoxification, group sessions, individual
sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.
Licensed facilities are reviewed every two years and subject to one announced site visit per year.
Supervision of the property would be provided 24 hours a day by a manager and assistant
manager. There are a total of 58 surveillance cameras on all five buildings owned by the
operator on this street, and these cameras are monitored off-site. The facility would also provide
full time cooking, maintenance, and housekeeping staff. Additionally, counselors and therapists
would visit the site daily to provide on-site group and individual counseling/therapy as a
component of a client’s treatment plan. As mentioned above, Anaheim Lighthouse operates four
other similar group homes at 1300-1340 West Pearl Street, as well as two facilities with fewer
than 6 people in each, and one sober living facility, resulting in a total of 8 facilities in the
neighborhood. The compatibility of the existing group homes on the surrounding neighborhood
is described later in this report.
There are eight on-site parking spaces proposed at the facility: a one-car and two-car garage
accessed off of Pearl Street, a three-car garage toward the center of the property, and two
uncovered spaces at the rear of the property. Residents would not be permitted to keep vehicles
on site. The on-site parking spaces would be used by management staff and counselors.
Maintenance, cooking, and cleaning staff would utilize the on-site parking; however, the full
time staff currently maintaining the operator’s other facilities would also maintain this location
and therefore would not generate additional demand for parking. Family members may visit
residents on Saturday’s after an initial seven day detoxification period. Residents are not
permitted to leave the site without being accompanied by staff or completing a request form
which can be denied if the counselor believes it could be detrimental to the resident’s treatment.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use
permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following
conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized
by this code;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 3 of 9
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular
area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
A conditional use permit is required for a group care facility in the RM-4 zone. The purpose of
the conditional use permit is to ensure that the facility would be compatible with surrounding
uses and not negatively impact the adjacent community. The Anaheim Lighthouse operates the
four other group care facilities located on this street. During the Planning Commission hearings
for these other facilities, concerns were raised by neighbors regarding insufficient parking in the
neighborhood, tenants congregating outside, and the proximity of the facilities to children. In
one case, a condition was added to require enhancements to the south portion of the property to
provide a location for the tenants to congregate onsite. A similar condition would not be
necessary for this application as the property contains a patio area within the property that is not
adjacent to the street.
The Anaheim Police Department has provided a police report with a summary of the calls for
service over the last 24 months (two years) at the 1300, 1310, 1320, 1330, and 1340 West Pearl
Street properties (Attachment No. 7). There have been a total of 83 calls for service at these five
locations over the two year period, with 58 calls coming from the 1320 West Pearl Street
property. The applicant has explained that the main manager’s office is located at the 1320 West
Pearl Street address, which is the reason why the majority of calls are attributed to that location.
The calls varied from suicide attempts, battery and assault, trespassing, tenant disturbance, 911
hang up, medical aid, and check the welfare. After further discussion with Police Department
staff, it was determined that most of the calls originated from the facilities, rather than a call
from a neighbor or person not associated with the facilities. Twenty-seven of the calls were
categorized as “advised incident” or “assist other department.” Police Department staff has
explained that such calls meant that the visit was initiated by the officer or that the officer was
assisting another agency, such as a probation office. With this information, staff calculated that
all five facilities together (4 group care, 1 sober living) average 28 calls for service and 13
“advised incidents” or “assist other department” calls per year. Police Department staff will be
present at the Planning Commission meeting to answer specific questions regarding these crime
statistics.
In the past five years, the five group care facilities on Pearl Street have been cited six times by
Code Enforcement. The citations include re-roofing without a building permit, using garages for
non-compliant uses (storage and common area functions), failure to obtain a business license,
bulk items left in the front yard and trash containers left outside. These violations have all been
resolved and the cases have been closed by Code Enforcement.
The police calls for service have originated from the facility operator, rather than from
surrounding neighbors, which suggests that the existing and proposed facility has not posed an
undue burden on the area. In addition, all code enforcement violations have been resolved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 4 of 9
Therefore, staff believes the proposed facility can be compatible with the surrounding land uses
and not negatively impact the neighborhood. Conditions of approval to ensure that the business
is operated in a responsible manner have been attached to the draft resolution, such conditions
include: no more than eight vehicles may be associated with the property at one time, all
recovery and counseling services shall be for current residents only, an on-site manager must be
present at all times, and visitors are only permitted on Saturdays.
Parking Variance: Before the Planning Commission may approve a parking variance, it must
make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and
reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use;
2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use;
3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use;
4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and
5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use.
The applicant requests approval to provide fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning
Code. Code requires group care facilities to provide 0.8 spaces per bed. The applicant is
requesting to permit a facility with up to 20 beds, which would require 16 spaces, and eight
spaces are proposed. The applicant has submitted a letter of operation stating that residents
would not be permitted to possess a vehicle on site. As a result, no parking spaces would be
needed for the residents. The provided parking spaces would be used by the on-site managers,
visitation by counselors, and other staff associated with the treatment program. Parking
variances were granted for the adjacent group care facilities as follows:
Approval Address Parking Required Parking Provided
CUP2003-04789 1300 W. Pearl St. 19* (based on
current Code
requirements)
8
CUP2004-04837 1310 W. Pearl St. 19* (based on
current Code
requirements)
11
CUP2007-05210 1320 W. Pearl St. 19 8
CUP2008-05294 1340 W. Pearl St. 19 9
* No parking requirement existed for group care facilities at the time they were approved and the
number of spaces provided was determined to be adequate.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 5 of 9
Updated Parking Analysis:
Based on public testimony at the last hearing and staff’s observation, on-street parking in the
neighborhood does appear to be heavily used. Staff received four letters from neighborhood
residents opposing the parking variance due to concerns regarding insufficient parking
(Attachment No. 8). Additionally, two residents from the neighborhood spoke at the last
hearing, stating concerns regarding Anaheim Light House staff utilizing street parking,
deliveries occurring on street sweeping days, delivery trucks preventing the streets from being
cleaned, and garbage dumpsters being left out after trash has been collected.
Based on the concerns expressed at the August 8, 2016 hearing, staff requested that the
applicant provide additional information regarding how they planned to address parking
concerns in the neighborhood, as well as staffing and operations for all of the facilities operating
in the neighborhood. The applicant disclosed that currently there are eight facilities in the
neighborhood, as follows:
No. of Facilities Type CUP Required Address
Four Drug and Alcohol
Rehabilitation Facilities (7
or more residents)
Yes (all four have
CUP’s)
1300, 1310,1320,
1340 W. Pearl St.
One Sober Living Residence (4-
plex)
No 220 N. Pearl St.
One Drug and Alcohol
Rehabilitation Facilities (6
or less residents)
No 1243 W. Pearl St.
One Currently vacant, plans to
operate as 6 or less
Drug/alcohol rehabilitation
facility.
No 1253 W. Pearl St
One Subject Property/Currently
Operating as Sober Living
No permit required
while sober living.
Requires permit to
operate as
Drug/Alcohol
Rehabilitation
group care
residence.
1330 W. Pearl St
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 6 of 9
In response to concerns expressed, the applicant is proposing to implement a parking
management plan to ensure that employees only utilize onsite parking and refrain from using on
street parking spaces. As part of this management plan, the applicant proposes to register all
staff vehicles, requiring each vehicle to display a parking sticker, and any employee found
parking on the street would be subject to disciplinary action. Additionally, the applicant has
begun a financial incentive program to encourage all employees to carpool to work.
Currently, the building is operating as a sober living facility in which residents are permitted to
keep vehicles on-site with limited ability by the City to regulate parking. If the proposed
treatment facility receives approval, future residents would not be permitted to possess a vehicle
and parking would only be utilized for management and counselors, thereby reducing parking
impacts in the neighborhood. Staff visited the site twice during the day (mid-morning and mid-
afternoon) and observed that all five properties were well-maintained, there were no residents
congregating outside, and street parking appeared to be available. Staff conducted an evening
site visit in which parking was observed to be scarce; however, staff was unable to determine
whether the street parking was being utilized by the Anaheim Light House facilities or the
surrounding multi-family residences.
Staff has determined that there are currently 44 code compliant spaces available across the
properties located at 1300-1340 W. Pearl St. The Anaheim Light House provided information
regarding the estimated number of vehicles on site per hour based on hourly staffing levels,
accounting for those that carpool or use other means of transportation. Based on the
information provided, the data indicates that peak vehicle levels occurred seven days a week
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 7 of 9
between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The highest number of vehicles generated by the five group
care facilities is estimated to be 46 to 49 and would occur at 3:00 pm daily. This would result in
an estimated deficit of 2 to 5 parking spaces for one hour during the day. The applicant
explained that a shift change occurs at this time, where there is some employee overlap. Staff
believes that the facilities would have sufficient space on-site to accommodate the deficit by
utilizing non-code compliant parking spaces on-site (stacked in the driveways) for the 1 hour
overlap and would therefore not need to utilize any off-site parking.
At 5:00 p.m., on-site vehicle are reduced nearly in half and decreased continuously to 11 to 24
vehicles between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. (averaging about 2 to 5 vehicles per facility), which
would result in a surplus of 20 to 33 on-site parking spaces. Based on this information, staff
believes that there is sufficient onsite parking to accommodate the facility needs, as staff
believes that each facility has sufficient space on site to accommodate the peak parking demand
without impacting the surrounding neighborhood.
Response to Other Community Concerns:
Another concern that was voiced at the hearing was the presence of delivery trucks on street
sweeping days. The applicant has coordinated with the weekly food delivery truck and has
arranged for the truck to park on-site when possible or curbside. In addition, deliveries will
only occur on non-street sweeping days, which occur on Thursday. Lastly, staff conducted a
site visit during the mid-afternoon on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, observing garbage dumpsters
along the northwest side of North Pearl Street that appeared to belong to the Wilshire Westmont
Condominiums, which have designated track pick-up days on Tuesday and Friday, based on
information provided by the City’s Streets and Sanitation Division.
Figure 1: Garbage Dumpsters along North Pearl Street (Tuesday)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 8 of 9
The Anaheim Light House facilities are located along the east and south sides of Pearl Street.
During the recent field visit on Tuesday, staff observed one garbage dumpster along North Pearl
Street and three garbage dumpsters located on the south side of West Pearl Street, which
appeared to belong to the Anaheim Light House facilities. However, based on information
provided by the Sanitation Department, trash pick-up is to occur on Monday, Wednesday,
Friday, and Saturday for the four group care facilities, which would confirm resident concerns.
Figure 2: Garbage Dumpsters along West Pearl St (Tuesday)
After bringing this to the attention of the applicant, he expressed that he had already
communicated to the facility operator that the trash dumpsters must be stored in their designated
locations by 5:00 p.m. on trash pick-up days. Staff conducted another site visit on Friday,
August 26, 2016 at 5:20 p.m. and found the trash dumpsters to be stored in their designated
locations.
A condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution requiring that all trash
containers be stored in their designated areas on trash pick-up days by 5:00 p.m.
As a result, based on the information provided by the applicant, staff observations, and the
programs proposed by the applicant, staff believes that the group care facility can operate
without creating an undue burden on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has included the
following conditions of approval in the draft resolution to ensure the group care facility operates
in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding area:
• The permit shall be subject to a minimum of two compliance reviews which are to
occur 6 months and one year from the date of this approval. The reviews will be
scheduled as a “Reports and Recommendations” item on the agenda item and
residents will be notified of these reviews in advance of their consideration. The
costs of scheduling these reviews will be borne by the facility operator. Additional
reviews could be scheduled if the applicant fails to comply with established
conditions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05879 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05073
September 7, 2016
Page 9 of 9
• Employees shall display parking stickers and shall park on-site at all times.
• All trash containers shall be removed from the street and stored at a designated on-
site location the same day trash pick-up has occurred and shall only be moved to the
street the morning of trash pick-up.
• Delivery trucks must park on-site or curbside and not within travel lanes or the center
of the street. Deliveries shall not occur on Thursdays or any day when parking is
restricted due to street sweeping.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the
effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: The proposed project would provide a supervised environment for drug
and alcohol rehabilitation. Staff believes that the applicant has made efforts to address the
resident concerns highlighted at the previous hearing by providing information regarding the
operations of all facilities in the neighborhood, implementing an off-site parking monitoring
system, offering incentives for carpooling to reduce vehicles traveling to the facilities, as well
as scheduling regular deliveries to occur on non-street sweeping days. Conditions of approval
pertaining to the resident concerns have been included to ensure the facility continues to
operate without detriment to the surrounding area.
Based upon staff’s research of the existing use of the property, the operational history of the
adjacent group care facilities, and the applicant’s proposal and letter of operation, staff
recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Lindsay Ortega Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner Planning Services Manager
Lilley Planning Group
Attachments:
1. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
2. Letter of Operation
3. Plans
4. Site Photographs (interior)
5. Site Photographs (exterior)
6. Police Report
7. Neighbor’s Correspondence
8. Letter of Support
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
NO
.
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
3
Interior Site Photographs
1330 West Pearl St
CUP2016-05879
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Bathroom
– Typical
Unit B, C,
D
Bathroom
– Typical
Unit B, C,
D
Bathroom
– Unit A
Bedroom –
Typical of
all units
Kitchen – Unit B,C, & D
Kitchen –
Unit A
Laundry
Room
Living & Dining Room
– Typical Unit B, C, D
Living & Dining Room
– Unit A
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
NO. 8
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
NO
.
9
1
Lindsay Ortega
From:Garrett Matsushita <gmatsushita11@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:36 AM
To:Lindsay Ortega
Subject:March 20.2017 Project 1330 West Pearl Street
Hello Ms. Ortega,
I have looked at the link for the website that was mailed with our notice. I am having difficulty finding
information on the neighborhood project at 1330 West Pearl Street. Is the business in this neighborhood asking
for the residence to get parking permits?
I would like to attend the meeting on March 20th, however, I don't believe I will be able to attend that night.
If the business is proposing these permits, I would have to oppose to their proposal. My girlfriend and I have
moved to Anaheim three years ago. Both of us are going to school, which means we have to attend night
classes. One of our cars needs to be parked in the street and both come home late from classes around
10pm. We have to park our car on West St near Anaheim High School. This is too far of a walk with bags of
work and school materials/equipment late at night. It is a safety issue for us. Also, it is an inconvenience to
have visitors due to parking.
Before this business expanded and remodeled their additional buildings, parking was not an issue. Their
business consists of garages which are suppose to be used for parking, however they are being used as
recreation rooms, conference rooms, supply storage rooms and their driveways are used as lounging areas and a
basketball courts. Having their cars parked in the street takes up a lot of space, especially when they have trash
day and use large trash bins that also occupy parking. We have also noticed the "red zones" have been extended
since their remodeling.
I personally feel having a business in a residential area has caused many inconveniences.
Thank you,
Garrett Matsushita
278 N Wilshire Ave
Anaheim, CA 92801
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
1
Lindsay Ortega
From:Deb Wils <deb8115@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:48 PM
To:Lindsay Ortega
Subject:COnd Use Permit 2016-05879 and Variance 2016-05073
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
First, I feel bad, I have never done this before. In regards to the parking mentioned in the notice of public hearing on
March 20th. I am opposed to it. I own the building located at 305 n Dwyer Pl, which is located next door to another
property they lease.
However, since they have established business in our neighborhood, our streets have been filled with cars, with no
parking available for the owners in this neighborhood until after hours. They hang out over my driveway, making it
difficult for me to turn into my own property. Some of the people throw their trash out onto my sidewalk or into my
yard. Its content, never ending. I thought about putting in a security system to catch whoever is doing that, but it
different cars everyday.
In addition, since they have taken the house next door, and turned the large rear yard into a parking lot, I am getting so
much dust and dirt into my house. The noise is also an annoyance. Primarily the parking. I have come home and had to
park around the corner and down the street because cars hung over both sides of the driveway. Even my daughters
small KIA could not get in.
If they wish to buy my house for $700,000 they can open up the entire back yard and have a huge parking lot, giving the
neighborhood a better look and us homeowners a chance to have guests who are able to park in front of out houses.
I am out of town on business on the 20th, otherwise I would attend the meeting and voice my opinion.
Seriously I am so annoyed if they want to buy my house, I’m ready. It would be doing the neighborhood a service!
Deborah Wilson
Owner
305 N Dwyer Pl
714‐342‐7628
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 20, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05882 AND
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2016-00130
LOCATION: 5759 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Mother’s Market & Kitchen)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Mother’s Market &
Kitchen, Inc., represented by Dan Kramer of Dan Kramer Law Group. The property
owner is Canyon Plaza, LLC.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the following land use
entitlements:
1) A conditional use permit to permit the sale of beer and wine for off-site
consumption in conjunction with a grocery store located within a multi-
tenant shopping center; and,
2) An associated Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit
the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption in conjunction with an
existing grocery store.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
1, Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05882 and
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2016-00130.
BACKGROUND: This 15-acre property is developed with a shopping center and is
located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone. The property is also located within
the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay zone. The General Plan designates this property
for Neighborhood Center land uses. Surrounding uses include a shopping center
across Imperial Highway to the west, single family homes to the east, Canyon High
School and an office complex across Santa Ana Canyon Road to the south, and the
SR-91 Freeway to the north.
Mother’s Market & Kitchen has been operating at this location for over seven years
and specializes in the sale of local and organic produce and groceries.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05882 AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2016-00130
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 3
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit that would
permit the operator to obtain a (Type 20) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to allow the
sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. The 9,850 square foot grocery store intends
to dedicate a limited amount of shelf space for the display of predominantly small-batch, organic
beer and specialty wines such as organic, sulfite-free, and biodynamic wines. According to the
applicant, the sale of beer and wine would amount to less than 3 percent of the total sales. The
beer and wine sales would enable Mother’s Market & Kitchen to compete with larger, national
retail chain stores, many of whom carry extensive selections of alcoholic beverages for off-
premises consumption. No changes are proposed to the operations of the market. The market
would continue to be open daily from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use
permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following
conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area
or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will
not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
The sale of alcoholic beverages in markets less than 10,000 square feet in size is permitted in the
C-G zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit to ensure compatibility with
surrounding land uses. The addition of beer and wine will not change the nature of the store nor
its customers, and it is anticipated that the people who currently shop at the store would continue
to shop there, with the added benefit of being able to purchase specialty products that are not
found at the typical grocery store or liquor store. Due to the limited, unique nature of the
proposed incidental retail sales of organic beer and wine, staff believes that the addition of beer
and wine sales at the store would not result in an increase in of noise, crime, traffic, or loitering
in the shopping center.
Staff also believes that the proposed sale of beer and wine at the specialty market would not
adversely affect the surrounding land uses if the business is operated in a responsible manner and
in compliance with the recommended conditions of approval. These recommended conditions
include requiring alcoholic beverage training for employees, prohibiting any exterior advertising
of alcoholic beverages, and employing other security measures. Based on these factors, staff
believes that the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area and recommends
approval of the conditional use permit.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05882 AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2016-00130
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity: State law limits the issuance of alcoholic
beverage licenses when a license is requested for a property located in a police reporting district
with a crime rate above the City average, or when there is an over-concentration in the number of
ABC licenses within a census tract. However, the law also states that such restrictions can be
waived if the local jurisdiction makes a determination that the proposed outlet would serve
"public convenience or necessity." A Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is
required in this instance because there would be an over-concentration of off-sale licenses in the
Census tract.
This property is located within Census Tract No. 219.05, which has a population of 5,485. Three
off-sale licenses are permitted based on this population, and currently there are three licenses in
the tract. The property is within Police Reporting District No. 1339, which has a crime rate that is
below the citywide average. There have been 9 calls for service to this location in the past year
and they consisted of: 2 panhandlings, 3 forgeries, 1 robbery call, 1 suspicious circumstance, 1
trespassing, and 1 disturbance. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this property is 8% below the
citywide average based upon calls for service. These calls consisted of 20 petty thefts, 6 simple
assaults, 4 forgeries, and 4 drug abuse violations.
Staff believes that the sale of beer and wine will be a minor portion of this established business.
The applicant has demonstrated a commitment to responsible business operations, and that, with
the recommended conditions of approval relating to security measures and the prohibition of
exterior displays of alcohol, that the sale of alcoholic beverages would be compatible with the
surrounding area.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the
effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: The proposed sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption is a
compatible use with the multi-tenant shopping center and the surrounding area. The recommended
conditions of approval would ensure that the off-sale beer and wine would not have an adverse
impact on the surrounding land uses. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Lindsay Ortega Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner, Lilley Planning Group Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft CUP and PCN Resolution
2. Applicant’s Request Letter
3. Applicant’s PCN Justification Letter
4. Police Department, VICE Memorandum
5. Plans
6. Photographs
C-G (SC)RETAIL
R S -3 (S C )
S .F .R .
C -G (S C )
O F F I C E S
C-G (SC)AUTODEALERSHIP
RS-3 (SC)S.F.R.
RS-3 (SC)S.F.R.C-G (SC)FAIRFIELD INNANAHEIM HILLS
T (SC)CANYON HIGHSCHOOL
RS-2 (SC)S.F.R.
9 1 F R E E W A Y
9 1 F R E E W A Y
N I M P E R I A L H W Y
E S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
E S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
N
V
I
A
C
O
R
T
E
Z
S
V
I
A
C
O
R
T
E
Z
E C A M I N O M A N Z A N O
N
R
O
S
E
B
L
O
S
S
O
M
L
N
E.NOH L R A N C H R D
E. LA PALMA AVE
E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
N . I M P E R I A L H W
Y
E .C A N Y O N RIM RD
S
.
R
O
Y
A
L
O
A
K
R
D
E .L A P A L M A A V E
5 7 5 9 Ea st Santa Ana Canyon Road
D E V N o. 2016-00073
Subject Property APN: 358-191-12
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Pho to:May 20 16
9 1 F R E E W A Y
9 1 F R E E W A Y
N I M P E R I A L H W Y
E S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
E S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
N
V
I
A
C
O
R
T
E
Z
S
V
I
A
C
O
R
T
E
Z
E C A M I N O M A N Z A N O
N
R
O
S
E
B
L
O
S
S
O
M
L
N
E.NOH L R A N C H R D
E. LA PALMA AVE
E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D
N . I M P E R I A L H W
Y
E .C A N Y O N RIM RD
S
.
R
O
Y
A
L
O
A
K
R
D
E .L A P A L M A A V E
5 7 5 9 Ea st Santa Ana Canyon Road
D E V N o. 2016-00073
Subject Property APN: 358-191-12
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Pho to:May 20 16
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2017-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2017-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2016-05882 AND DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO.
2016-00130 TO PERMIT A TYPE 20 (OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE) ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2016-00073)
(5759 EAST SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05882
to permit the sale of beer and wine with a Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) license issued by the
State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (herein referred to as "ABC") for
off-premises consumption in conjunction within an existing grocery store located at 5759 East
Santa Ana Canyon Road, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California. The
existing grocery store is located within a retail commercial center on real property generally
depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No.
2016-05882, the Planning Commission also received a verified petition for a determination of
public convenience or necessity, designated as Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2016-
00130, to permit the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises with a Type 20 (Off
Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license; and
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05882 and Public Convenience or
Necessity No. 2016-00130 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Property is part of a 15-acre (approximate) commercial retail shopping
center, which is located within the "C-NC" Neighborhood Center land use designation of the
Anaheim General Plan. The Property is located in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone and is
subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial
Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); provided, however, that the requirements
of the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, as set forth in Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC)
Overlay Zone) shall apply to the Property and supersede any inconsistent regulations of the "C-
G" General Commercial Zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional
Use Permit No. 2016-05882 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2016-
00130, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
- 2 - PC2017-***
WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those
generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the
repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities,
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and
is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05882, does find
and determine the following:
1. The proposed request to permit the sale of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption in conjunction with a grocery store in an existing commercial retail center is an
allowable use within the "C-G" General Commercial Zone under subsection .010 of Section
18.08.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Code, subject to a conditional use
permit and the zoning and development standards of the "C-G" General Commercial Zone.
2. The proposed request to permit the sale of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption in conjunction with a small specialty grocery store would not adversely affect the
surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located because the use of a portion of the Property as a specialty grocery store with incidential
beer and wine sales for off-site consumption is compatible with the existing uses within the
commercial center and uses in the surrounding area.
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and
general welfare of the public because the Property is currently improved with a commercial retail
center and no expansion to the building is proposed.
4. The traffic generated by permitting the sale of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption in conjunction with a specialty grocery store would not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
number of vehicles entering and exiting the Property would not increase within the existing
Property.
5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05882 under the conditions
imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
- 3 - PC2017-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
No. 2016-00130, does find and determine the following facts:
1. On July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing
procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the
determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" on those certain applications requiring that
such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the
Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC").
2. Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall
deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law
enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an "undue concentration" of
licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that "public convenience or necessity"
would be served by the issuance of a license. For purposes of Section 23958, "undue
concentration" means the case in which the premises are located in an area where any of the
following conditions exist:
(a) The Premises are located in a crime reporting district that is below the
city average in "reported crimes" (as defined in Section 23958.4) as
determined from all crime reporting districts within the City of
Anaheim.
(b) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the
Premises are located does not exceed the ratio of on-sale retail licenses
to population in the county.
(c) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the
Premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to
population in the county.
3. Notwithstanding the existence of the above-referenced conditions, ABC may issue a
license if the Planning Commission determines that the "public convenience or necessity" would
be served by the issuance.
4. Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make
recommendations related to "public convenience or necessity" determinations; and, when the
sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Code, said
recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the
determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not
adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area.
- 4 - PC2017-***
5. The Property is located within Census Tract 219.05 with a population of 5,485 that
allows for three off-sale licenses and three presently exist within the census tract. The Property
is located in Police Reporting District No. 1339, which has a crime rate that is below the City-
wide average. The Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rate within a
one-quarter mile radius of the premises for the subject site. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this
Property is 8% below the City-wide average based upon calls for service. Since the census tract
is over concentrated, a determination of "public convenience or necessity" is required to be made
for this request.
6. A determination of "public convenience or necessity" can be made based on the
finding that the requested license, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the
health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and that the sales of beer and wine at this
location would be a commodity provided to the community.
7. The sale of beer and wine would serve as an added convenience to residents and
visitors to the area who choose to shop at this establishment.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05882, contingent upon and subject to the conditions
of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the public convenience or necessity will be
served by the issuance of a license for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at
the Premises and, accordingly, the Planning Commission hereby approves Public Convenience
or Necessity No. 2015-00130, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth
in Exhibit B attached hereto.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B
attached hereto are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
Property under Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05882 and Public Convenience or Necessity
No. 2016-00130 in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the
City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted
in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of
approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i)
equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii)
the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
- 5 - PC2017-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of
this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval
of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting
of March 20, 2017. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be
replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2017-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on March 20, 2017, by the following vote of
the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of March,
2017.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 7 - PC2017-***
- 8 - PC2017-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05882 AND
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2016-00130
(DEV2016-00073)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1 The store shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Operation
submitted as part of the application. Any changes to the business
operation described in the Letter of Operation shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial
conformance with the Letter of Operation and to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding uses.
Planning and
Building Department
2 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a
building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building.
Police Department
3 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type,
including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting
or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays
of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior
shall constitute a violation of this condition.
Police Department
4 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the
total display area in a building.
Police Department
5 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the
customer is in the building.
Police Department
6 Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent
area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over
within 24 hours of being applied.
Police Department
7 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to
prevent the loitering of persons around the premises.
Police Department
8 There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool
tables maintained upon the premises at any time.
Police Department
9 Loitering is prohibited on or around these premises or this area under
the control of the licensee(s).
Police Department
- 9 - PC2017-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
10 Managers / Owners need to call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs
Program) Training for themselves and register employees. The contact
number is 714-558-4101.
Police Department
11 The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of
sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the
appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot.
Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal
privacy and use of any neighboring residences.
Police Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
12 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and
its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees
concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs,
liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with
such proceeding.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
13 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits
for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
14 The subject Property shall be developed, used and maintained
substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to
the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with
the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
Mother’s Market & Kitchen
Conditional Use Permit for the Sale of Beer and Wine
(5759 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd.)
Located in the Canyon Plaza shopping center, Mother’s Market & Kitchen (the “Store”) has
delivered the highest quality natural food products at the best possible prices in a friendly, warm
and inviting environment for over 7 years. The Store now desires to add a limited selection of
organic, craft beers and specialty wines for off-premises consumption under a Type 20 license.
Project Description
The Store intends to dedicate a limited amount of shelf space for the display of beer and
wine to be sold for off-premises consumption. The beer and wine on display will consist of
predominantly small-batch, organic beer and specialty wines such as organic, sulfite-free, and
biodynamic wines. It is anticipated that the sale of beer and wine will amount to less than 3% of
total sales. However, this offering is very important to the Store as it will enable Mother’s Market
& Kitchen to compete with larger, national chains – many of whom carry extensive selections of
alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption.
The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development
of the area.
The Store is located in an established shopping center designed to accommodate a wide
variety of commercial uses. The Store has been operating for over 7 years, and it attracts a health-
conscious clientele of all ages seeking top quality local and organic produce and the country’s
largest selection of nutritional supplements. The addition of beer and wine will not change the
nature of the Store nor its clientele, and it is anticipated that the people who currently shop at the
Store will continue to shop there - with the added benefit of being able to purchase products that are
not found at the typical grocery store or liquor store. Due to the limited, unique nature of the
proposed offering, coupled with the nature of the Store’s typical clientele, the addition of beer and
wine at the Store will have little, if any, negative impact on noise, crime, or loitering in the
shopping center or on the growth and development in the area.
The site proposed for the use is large enough to accommodate the use without causing a
detriment to the area or to health and safety.
The Store contains almost 6,400 square feet of retail space. Given the ancillary nature of the
proposed offering coupled with the specialized nature of the beer and wine selection (i.e. organic
beer and organic, sulfite-free, and biodynamic wines), Mother’s Market & Kitchen believes that the
offering will not materially increase traffic to the Store and that the existing Store is large enough to
accommodate whatever increase in traffic there is.
The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the roads in the
area.
Canyon Plaza is bordered by E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. and Imperial Hwy. These roads
have been designed to accommodate a high level of traffic. In addition, the mall has ample parking.
The proposed offering is unlikely to materially increase the foot or vehicular traffic within the mall,
and any such increase will not result in an undue burden upon the roads in the area.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the
City of Anaheim.
Mother’s Market & Kitchen is a socially conscious business that caters to a health-oriented
clientele seeking high-quality, organic products. The proposed beer and wine selection will be
consistent with the Store’s mission and the products it currently sells. Accordingly, approval of the
CUP will not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Mother’s Market & Kitchen
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
(5759 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Anaheim, CA 92807)
Mother’s Market & Kitchen (“Mother’s Market”) has applied for a license (the “License”) from the
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) to sell beer and wine for off-premises
consumption at its market located at 5759 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Anaheim, CA 92807 (the “Business”). The
Business is located in Canyon Plaza Shopping Center which contains other businesses that sell alcoholic
beverages. However, given that the nature of the Business is very different from these other retailers, Mother’s
Market hereby requests that the City Council make a determination that public convenience or necessity will be
served by the issuance of the License.
I. Primary Purpose of the Business
Mother’s Market is an organic market and deli with a focus on healthy and natural food products.
Mother’s Market caters to a health-conscious clientele of all ages seeking organic, preservative-free, vegetarian,
vegan and non-genetically modified food and produce at the lowest possible prices. Now, Mother’s Market
desires to offer a small selection of predominantly small-batch, organic beer and specialty wines such as organic,
sulfite-free, and biodynamic wines for off-premises consumption. The limited sale of beer and wine is essential to
the primary purpose of the Business because it will allow the Business to compete on a level playing field with
similar health-food stores that also offer a selection of alcoholic beverages to their customers.
II. Surrounding Similar Businesses
Although there are other licensed premises in the surrounding area, these other businesses have different
styles of operation and food than Mother’s Market. All dairy products sold at Mother’s Market come from
animals raised without hormones or anti-biotics, and all eggs come from “cage-free” hens. No beef or pork is
served or sold at Mother’s Market, but many soy-based and other meat substitutes are offered. Aloe Vera and
Wheatgrass shots are available from the juice bar, as well as a variety of smoothies, specialty ice cream shakes
and fresh squeezed juices. Mother’s Market also has one of the largest selections of vitamins, minerals, amino
acids, herbs, homeopathics, sports nutrition and condition-specific supplements in the country.
None of the surrounding businesses have the same focus on organic, preservative-free, vegetarian, and
vegan food options, nor do these businesses offer the type of specialized selection of beer and wines that Mother’s
Market proposes. Therefore, the issuance of an alcoholic beverage license to the Business would serve the public
convenience or necessity.
III. Adjacent Residential Neighborhoods or Schools
According to Google maps, the nearest residence is located approximately 300 feet from the entrance of
the Business and is separated by a number of other shops, N. Via Cortez Rd., and a wall. The nearest school to
Mother’s Market is Canyon High School, which is located approximately 1,800 feet from the entrance to the
Business and is separated by E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd. and a number of athletic fields. Given these separation
factors, coupled with the nature of Mother’s Market’s business and its typical clientele, the issuance of the
License will neither add to, nor create new problems for the ABC or local law enforcement. In addition, because
the Business closes each night at 10:00 p.m. and is located in a commercial shopping center designed to support
businesses of this nature, it will not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of neighboring residences or businesses.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
IV. Percentage of Alcohol Sales
Mother’s Market anticipates that the sale of alcoholic beverages will account for less than 2% of the
Business’s total sales.
V. Specific Need or Specialty
Mother’s Market caters to customers who seek organic, sustainable, and healthy food options that often
cannot be found at other restaurants or grocery stores. Many of these customers also desire a beer and wine
selection that focuses on organic, biodynamic, and other specialty beers and wines that typically cannot be found
at other grocery stores.
VI. Proposed Operational Measures
Mother’s Market will take the necessary operational measures to ensure that the sale of alcohol is
completed in a safe and responsible manner. All employees at the store will undergo training prior to alcoholic
beverages being stocked at the store. In addition, each cash register clerk/wait staff will be required to request
identification and proof of age for any customer attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages who appears to be
under the age of 40.
VII. Type of Alcoholic Beverage License
Mother’s Market has applied for a Type-20 beer and wine license from the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, which allows for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. In the
event the ABC requires any other licenses for these proposed operations, Mother’s Market will apply for such
licenses accordingly.
VIII. Conclusion
Mother’s Market has been serving the Anaheim Hills community for a number of years. Similar to its
current food and grocery selection, the proposed beer and wine selection will be very different to that found at the
typical grocery store or liquor store and will be consistent with Mother’s Market’s focus on natural and organic
products. As this proposed offering is unlike any other of the licensed businesses in the vicinity, Mother’s
Market respectfully requests that the City make a determination that public convenience or necessity will be
served by the issuance of the License.
City of Anaheim
INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
To: Lindsay Ortega/Planning Department
Case No.: DEV 2016-00073
Mother’s Market & Kitchen
5759 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
Date: September 1, 2016
From: Lieutenant Tim Miller
Anaheim Police Department
Vice, Narcotics and Criminal Intelligence Section Commander
Contact: Name: S.P.S.R. Michele Irwin
Phone: 714-765-1461
Email: mmirwin@anaheim.net
The Police Department has reviewed the above case. Please see the following comments and
conditions for more information:
COMMENTS: Public Convenience and Necessity Information:
The Police Department has received an I.D.C. Route Sheet for DEV 2016-00073. The
applicant is requesting to permit an off-sale beer and wine license for a market.
The location is in Census Tract Number 219.05 which has a population of 5,485. This
population allows for 6 on-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there are 8
licenses in the tract. It also allows for 3 off-sale licenses and there are 3 licenses in the
tract.
This location is within Reporting District 1339 which is below the city average in crime.
There have been 9 calls for service to this location in the last year and they consisted of:
2 panhandlings, 3 forgeries, 1 robbery alarm, 1 suspicious circumstance, 1 trespassing
and 1 disturbance.
The ¼ mile radius surrounding this location is 8% below the city average in crime.
The calls for service primarily consisted of: 20 petty thefts, 6 simple assaults, 4 forgeries
and 4 drug abuse violations.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The Police Department requests the following conditions be placed on the Conditional
Use Permit:
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
No. Timing Responsible
Department
1.
No display of alcoholic beverages shall be
located outside of a building or within five (5) feet
of any public entrance to the building.
Police Department
2.
There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of
any kind or type, including advertising directed
to the exterior from within, promoting or
indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages.
Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs
which are clearly visible to the exterior shall
constitute a violation of this condition.
Police Department
3.
The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not
exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department
4.
Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to
customers only when the customer is in the
building.
Police Department
5.
Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their
control in an effort to prevent the loitering of
persons around the premises.
Police Department
6.
There shall be no amusement machines, video
game devices, or pool tables maintained upon
the premises at any time.
Police Department
7.
Loitering is prohibited on or around these
premises or this area under the control of the
licensee(s).
Police Department
8.
The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped
with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and
make easily discernible the appearance and
conduct of all persons on or about the parking
lot. Additionally, the position of such lighting
shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of
any neighboring residences.
Police Department
9.
Managers / Owners need to call the Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD
(Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs
Program) Training for themselves and register
employees. The contact number is 714-558-4101.
Police Department
10.
Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises
or on any adjacent area under the control of the
licensee shall be removed or painted over within
24 hours of being applied.
Police Department
Concur:
Office of Chief of Police
f:\home\mmirwin\CUP\2016-00073 DEV 5759 E. Santa Ana Canyon-Mothers Market.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
6
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 20, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05900 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2017-05085
LOCATION: 2641 West La Palma Avenue (Korean Gospel Broadcasting)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The property owner and applicant is Korean
Gospel Broadcasting Company, represented by Duck S. Im, and the agent is Peter Choe
of the Korean Gospel Broadcasting Company, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit and
retain a broadcasting studio with a live audience in conjunction with a community and
religious assembly use. The applicant also requests approval of a variance to permit
less parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05900 and
Variance No. 2017-05085.
BACKGROUND: The 0.79-acre property is developed with an existing 12,500 square
foot, two-story office building. The property is located within the "C-G" General
Commercial zone. The General Plan designates the property for Office-Low land uses.
Surrounding land uses include Keno’s Restaurant to the west, a vocational school and
offices to the northwest, a banquet hall and medical offices to the northeast, a Jack in
the Box restaurant and service station to the east, and various commercial uses to the
south across La Palma Avenue.
In September 2016, following a routine annual fire inspection by the Fire Department,
the applicant was cited by Code Enforcement for the operation of religious gathering
services without a conditional use permit. At that time, the business owner was
informed of the need to apply for a conditional use permit and change in occupancy or
to modify the business practices and cease live audience religious broadcasting. The
Code Enforcement case remains active, pending a determination on this application.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05900 AND VARIANCE NO. 2017-05085
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 4
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to permit and retain a religious broadcasting facility with a
live audience and religious assembly for up to 95 persons. The regular business hours are 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No Sunday
services are proposed at this time. The primary business operation is religious radio broadcasting
to a worldwide Korean speaking audience. The applicant also hosts religious services for its
employees on Wednesday mornings from 9:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and Thursday mornings from
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The applicant proposes to host 1-2 large special events quarterly with up
to 100 attendees (including on-site staff). The 1,186 square foot assembly area located on the first
level would be used for press conferences, seminars, prayer meetings, regular employee religious
services, services with local and abroad missionaries, and large quarterly events. These events
may also be broadcasted live or recorded for future broadcasts. The second floor is primarily used
for office and studio broadcasting space. The office and studio space is used for daily religious
broadcasting and the facility has 12-14 employees on site daily.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use
permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following
conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area
or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will
not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Community & Religious Assembly uses, as well as Broadcasting Studios with a live audience, are
permitted in the C-G zone, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding area. There have been no complaints received from neighbors
regarding the religious services and studio broadcasting operations since it was established in
early 2016. The primary use of the property is for religious studio broadcasting with quarterly live
broadcasting and weekly religious services for on-site staff. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting to host 1-2 quarterly events with an expected attendance of up to 100 individuals
including on-site staff.
The uses operate in a manner compatible with adjacent office and commercial uses, and is not
anticipated to create any adverse impacts to the surrounding area. Conditions of approval to
ensure that the church/broadcasting studio continues to operate in a compatible manner have been
included in the draft resolution. These conditions would require that all parking shall occur on
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05900 AND VARIANCE NO. 2017-05085
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 4
site; meetings or events shall not occur during worship services; and a school use or daycare other
than Sunday Bible study shall not be permitted without prior approval of a conditional use permit.
Parking Variance: Before the Planning Commission may approve a parking variance, it must
make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-
street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such
spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the
normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use;
2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed use;
3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use;
4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and
5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use.
As described in the table below, the proposed use requires 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
broadcasting studio space, 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office area, and 29 spaces per
1,000 square feet of assembly area, for a total of 55 required parking spaces. The applicant is
proposing to provide 45 parking spaces, which is a deviation of 18% of the Code requirement.
Code
Requirement
(per 1,000 s.f.)
Floor
Area
(s.f.)
Spaces
Required
Spaces
Proposed
Community &
Religious
Assembly
29 1,186 34 -
Office 4 4,243 17 -
Studios–
Broadcasting
2.5 1,603 4 -
Total 55 45
The primary use of the subject property is a broadcasting studio; however, the applicant also
conducts religious services on-site for their employees, as well as 1-2 quarterly events that
could include live broadcasting, press conferences, and larger religious services. However,
the church and quarterly events would continue to be accessory to the religious studio and live
broadcasting use. The religious services and prayer meetings would be primarily attended by
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05900 AND VARIANCE NO. 2017-05085
March 20, 2017
Page 4 of 4
the employees and staff of the broadcasting studio which occurs during regular business
hours. The expected guest count for the proposed quarterly events would not exceed 100
attendees including employees. Staff conducted parking counts on a Thursday afternoon and
observed 10 occupied parking spaces. Staff conducted a second site visit on a Wednesday
during the time the applicant indicated church services would occur (10:00 a.m.) and observed
24 spaces that were occupied. Staff believes that based on the observed parking demand, as
well as the primary use being studio broadcasting, that there will be sufficient parking on-site
to accommodate the daily parking demand, as well as the demand for the proposed quarterly
events.
The City Council adopted a Zoning Code Amendment at its March 7, 2017 meeting that
modifies the parking requirements for this type of use. This amendment will go into effect on
April 7, 2017. The new code requirement eliminates the 29 parking spaces per 1,000 square
foot requirement for the assembly area and instead would establish the parking requirement
for this type of use based on a parking study or letter that takes into account the unique
operations of churches on a case by case basis.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the
effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the existing broadcasting studio with accessory church
services and live broadcasting would be compatible with the surrounding commercial land
uses. The proposed number of parking spaces would be adequate to serve the facility based
on the parking demand observed for the business. Based upon these reasons, staff
recommends approval of this request, subject to the recommended conditions of approval to
ensure the applicant continues to operate in a compatible manner and that sufficient parking
will be provided.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Lindsay Ortega Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner, Lilley Planning Group Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2. Letter of Request
3. Plans
4. Photos
C-GOFFICES
C-GRESTAURANT
CONDOMINIUMS40 DU
ISERVICESTATION
IRETAIL
C-GIMPERIALTHEATER
C-GRESTAURANT
C-GRESTAURANT
C-GRESTAURANT
C-GOFFICES
IOFFICES
IMEDICALOFFICE
RM-4MAGNOLIAAPARTMENTS100 DU
C-GSERVICESTATION
C-GOFFICES C-GOFFICES
C-GRETAIL
C-GSERVICESTATION
C-GRETAIL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IOFFICES
W LA PALMA AVE N M A G N O L I A A V E
W WOODLAND DR
N KNOLLWOOD CIR
W FELICIDAD CIR
W O O D L A N D D R
W VIA PALMA
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. CRESCENT AVE
N . M A G N O L I A A V E
N . B R O O K H U R S T S T
. CRESCENT AVE
N . D A L E A V E
2641 West La Palma Avenue
DEV No. 2016-00129
Subject Property APN: 070-762-13
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:June 2015
W LA PALMA AVE N M A G N O L I A A V E
W WOODLAND DR
N KNOLLWOOD CIR
W FELICIDAD CIR
W O O D L A N D D R
W VIA PALMA
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. CRESCENT AVE
N . M A G N O L I A A V E
N . B R O O K H U R S T S T
. CRESCENT AVE
N . D A L E A V E
2641 West La Palma Avenue
DEV No. 2016-00129
Subject Property APN: 070-762-13
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:June 2015
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2017-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2017-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05900
AND VARIANCE NO. 2017-05085 AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2016-00129)
(2641 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-
05900 to permit and retain a broadcasting studio with a live audience in conjunction with a
community and religious assembly use, and (ii) Variance No. 2017-05055 to allow fewer parking
spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") for the aforementioned use
(collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at that certain real
property at 2641 West La Palma Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.79-acres in size and is currently
developed with a 12,500 square foot, two-story building. The Anaheim General Plan designates
the Property for Office-Low land uses. The Property is located in the “C-G” General
Commercial Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter
18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning
Commission at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. to hear
and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the
Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 –
Existing Facilities) which consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,
licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical
equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment
and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
- 2 - PC2017-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05900, does find
and determine the following:
1. The request for a conditional use permit to permit and retain the Proposed
Project is an allowable use authorized by Subsection .030 and .050 Subsection Section 18.36.040
(Community & Religious Assembly and Broadcasting Studio) of the Code, subject to a
conditional use permit and the zoning and development standards of the "C-G" General
Commercial Zone pursuant to subsection .010 (Primary Uses) of Section 18.08.030 (Uses) of
Chapter 18.08 of the Code.
2. The conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not adversely
affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area because the
Property is developed with a commercial office building and there are a sufficient amount of
spaces in the off-site parking lot to accommodate the parking demand for the church, subject to
approval of Variance No. 2017-05085.
3. The size and shape of the Property is adequate to allow the full operation of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and
general welfare because the facility is located within an existing commercially-zoned property
that provides a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces and adequate vehicle circulation.
4. The traffic generated by the use would not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the number
of vehicles entering and exiting the site will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the
surrounding streets and adequate parking and circulation will be provided to accommodate the
use.
5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05900 under the conditions
imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim
and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, based upon information contained in the letter of operation prepared by
the applicant, as well as City staff observations at the site, the Planning Commission does further
find and determine that the request for Variance No. 2017-05085 to permit less parking spaces
than required by the Code should be approved for the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces.
(55 spaces required; 45 on-site spaces proposed)
1. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the all uses on the Property than the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such uses under the normal and reasonably
foreseeable conditions of operation of such uses. Through observations by staff, it is determined
that the proposed parking will be adequate to serve the needs of the proposed religious
broadcasting use with quarterly events and live broadcasting use.
- 3 - PC2017-***
2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property
because the proposed number of on-site parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the needs of
the facility, which, through observation by staff, is determined to be adequate to serve the needs
of the proposed automotive repair use;
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use because the proposed number of parking spaces on-site will be sufficient to
accommodate the parking demands during the daily and quarterly events proposed;
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because
adequate ingress and egress points are provided at the front and rear of the Property; and
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress
to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use because the proposed use can accommodate all parking demands on site with the
available parking; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05900 and Variance No. 2017-05085, and further
contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property under Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05900 and Variance
No. 2016-05085 in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the
City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted
in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of
approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i)
equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii)
the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of
this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
- 4 - PC2017-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval
of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of March 20, 2017. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and
may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2017-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on March 20, 2017 by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of March, 2017.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2017-***
- 7 - PC2017-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05900 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2017-05085
(DEV2016-00129)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
1 The facility shall comply with the occupancy requirements in
accordance with the California Building and Fire Codes. A Building
Permit shall be obtained within 90 days of the date of this resolution.
Any required building permits may require restriping of the parking
lot in compliance with City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail
470.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2 All parking shall occur on-site. Should the parking demand exceed
the amount of on-site parking provided, the applicant shall submit a
request to modify the Conditional Use Permit and Variance, subject
to the approval of the Planning Commission.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
3 No additional meetings or events shall occur during worship
services.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
4 The only accessory school activity in connection with this church
shall be religious or bible study. This facility shall not be used as a
private daycare, nursery, elementary, junior and/or senior high
school.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
5 The facility shall operate in accordance with the Letter of Operation
submitted as part of the application. Any changes to the facility’s
operation described in the Letter of Operation shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Director to determine
substantial conformance with said letter and to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding uses.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
6 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent
area under the control of the property owner shall be removed or
painted over within 24 hours of being applied.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
- 8 - PC2017-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
7 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred
to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the
Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts
or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection
with such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
8 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building
permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all
charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or
may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
9 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by
the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
1
Lindsay Ortega
From:Peter Choe <peterchoe@kgbc.com>
Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 11:33 AM
To:Lindsay Ortega
Subject:Re: Korean Gospel Broadcasting - CUP2016-05900/DEV2016-00129
How many employees are on site?
On usual basis, about 12‐14 during regular business hours.
When will broadcasting with a live audience occur?
We do not have regularly scheduled programs that has a live audience element. There maybe events, however,
that maybe broadcast on air live from the auditorium that may have live audience.
When will religious/church services occur?
We will have a regularly scheduled service/meeting for all employees on Wednesday mornings from 9:15‐
10:00.
Please provide a schedule of anticipated weekly events (prayer sessions, religious services, group
counseling, etc), as well as how often you anticipate large special events (conferences, large meetings, seminars)
to occur? How many attendees would be expected?
Employee Service: Wednesdays 9:15‐10:00
Prayer session: Thursdays 10:00‐12:00
Large special events (up to 100 attendees, including on site staff): 1 ‐ 2 every quarter basis. Currently we have
no large scale special event planned on site for upcoming quarter.
What is the total square footage of the building (both floors)?
1st floor: 5500 approximate
2nd floor: 6600 approximate
Another question: How is the classroom and library proposed to be used?
Classroom maybe used for prayer sessions or other small group gatherings.
Library is used as green room for our guests, as there are no separate green room on the 2nd floor.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Peter Choe <peterchoe@kgbc.com> wrote:
Emails were well received. I will endeavor to have the answers for you as soon as I can get them.
Happy 2017.
Peter Choe
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Lindsay Ortega <LOrtega@anaheim.net> wrote:
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 20, 2017
SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00301
LOCATION: 729 North East Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: This is a City-initiated application. The
property owner is Samuel Martinez.
REQUEST: This is a City-initiated request to reclassify, or rezone, an approximately
8,500 square foot property from the “RM-3” Multiple Family Residential zone to the
“RS-2” Single Family Residential zone.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing
Facilities) and approving Reclassification No. 2016-00301.
BACKGROUND: The subject 8,500 square foot lot is located in the “RM-3” Multiple
Family Residential zone and currently occupied with a single family home. The General
Plan designates the property for Low Density Residential land uses. The property is the
only remaining RM-3 zoned lot in the vicinity and is surrounded by single family homes
in the RS-2 zone.
A proposal to reclassify the abutting property directly south at 719 North East Street was
recently approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction with a
two lot subdivision. The subject lot at 729 North East Street was originally included in
the prior reclassification request; however, the Planning Commission voted to exclude
the lot since there was no response or representation at the meeting from that property
owner. Staff has since reached out to the property owner by visiting the site on a few
occasions and sending a certified letter describing the circumstances and requesting a
response. A signed signature card from the property owner was received in response to
the certified mailing. After receiving the public notice, the owner’s wife called staff on
March 7, 2017 inquiring about the application. She indicated that she understood the
request and did not object to the request with the understanding that there was no
proposal for physical development or a requirement to modify existing site conditions.
She further indicated that she would either forward written support or attend the hearing.
To date, no written communication from the property owner has been received.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00301
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 3
PROPOSAL: The City-initiated request is to rezone the property from the RM-3 zone to the
RS-2 zone. The rezoning would bring the property into conformity with its Low Density
Residential General Plan land use designation and eliminate the possibility of a futue multi-
family residential development occurring in an area surrounded by single-family residences.
The Zoning Code provides for City-initiated Reclassification requests.
EXISTING ZONING
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00301
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 3
ANALYSIS:
The subject property is the only lot in the immediate area within the “RM-3” zone. A
reclassification, or rezoning, to the “RS-2” Single Family Residential zone will result in
consistency between the zoning and General Plan designations. The RS-2 zoning requires a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The existing lot is
8,500 square feet in size with a 65-foot width; therefore, the lot would maintain a legal
nonconforming lot width as a result of this reclassification. The property would comply with all
other RS-2 zoning standards.
The intent of the RS-2 zone is to promote the development of attractive, safe and healthy
residential uses, and to promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to
surrounding land uses. The existing use will remain consistent with the City’s General Plan land
use designation of Low Density Residential and will remain compatible with other single family
residences in the area. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the reclassification
request.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the
effects of the proposed reclassification is typical of projects generated within Class 1 – Existing
Facilities, as there are no physical improvements proposed as part of the reclassification, and
therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, will not
cause a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions of
CEQA.
CONCLUSION: The proposed reclassification of the property from the “RM-3” Multiple
Family Residential Zone to "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone is consistent with the Low
Density Residential Land use designation in the General Plan and would prevent any potential
incompatible multiple family use in the future. No physical change or new development is
proposed as part of this rezoning. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the reclassification.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Wayne Carvalho Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Reclassification Resolution
2. Certified Letter sent to Applicant
3. Aerial Map and Street View Photos
C -GSERV I C E
S T A T I O N
R M -4APTS9 D U
R S -2SINGL E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R S -2RETA I L
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
R M -4
A P A R T M E N T S
4 8 D U
R M -3S.F .R .
R S -2SING LFAMIL Y
R E S I D E N C E
R S -2S.F .R .R M -2
A P A R T M E N T S
1 8 D U
R M -3
F O U R P L E X
R M -4
P A R K S I D E L A P A L M A
A P T S74 D U R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E
R S -2S.F .R .
R S -2S.F .R .
R S -2S.F .R .
R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E
R S -2SINGL E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E R S -2SING L E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R M -4
A P A R T M E N T S
1 8 D U
R S -2SINGL E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R S -2SINGL E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R S -2
S I N G L E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R S -2SING L E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R S -2SINGL E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
TRAYMONDRETARDINGBASIN
N
E
A
S
T
S
T
E LA PALMA AVE
N
B
U
S
H
S
T
N
R
O
S
E
S
T
N
V
I
N
E
S
T
E N O R T H S T
E W I L H E L M I N A S T
E E A S T W O O D D R
N
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
P
L
N
E
L
M
W
O
O
D
S
T
N L A R K S T
E W I L H E L M I N A S T
N V I N E S T
E W I L H E L M I N A S T
E. LA PALMA AVE
E .L I N C O L N AV E
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
N . A C A C I A S T
W.L IN C O L N A V E E. B R O A D W A Y
W.LAPALMA AVE
N .P L A C E N T I A A V E
E. B R O A D W A Y
729 North East Street
DEV No. 2016-00109
Subject Property APN: 035-203-29
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2016
N
E
A
S
T
S
T
E LA PALMA AVE
N
B
U
S
H
S
T
N
R
O
S
E
S
T
N
V
I
N
E
S
T
E N O R T H S T
E W I L H E L M I N A S T
E E A S T W O O D D R
N
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
P
L
N
E
L
M
W
O
O
D
S
T
N L A R K S T
E W I L H E L M I N A S T
N V I N E S T
E W I L H E L M I N A S T
E. LA PALMA AVE
E .L I N C O L N AV E
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
N . A C A C I A S T
W.L IN C O L N A V E E. B R O A D W A Y
W.LAPALMA AVE
N .P L A C E N T I A A V E
E. B R O A D W A Y
729 North East Street
DEV No. 2016-00109
Subject Property APN: 035-203-29
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2016
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2017-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2017-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00301
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2016-00109)
(729 NORTH EAST STREET)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director under
Section 18.76.030 (Initiation) of Chapter 18.76 (Zoning Amendments) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (the "Code"), the Planning Director has initiated the reclassification of that
certain real property located at 729 North East Street in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,
State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference (collectively referred to herein as the "Property") from the
"RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone to the “RS-2” Single-Family Residential Zone, which
reclassification is designated as Reclassification No. 2016-00301; and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 8,500 square feet in size and is
currently developed with a single-family residence located in the "RM-3" Multiple-Family
Residential Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Properties for Low Density
Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director requests to rezone or reclassify the Property
from the "RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone to the "RS-2" Single Family Residential
Zone; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project, including Reclassification No. 2016-00301;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed
Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the
repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities,
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), to hear and consider evidence for
- 2 - PC2017-***
and against proposed Reclassification No. 2016-00301 and to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. Reclassification of the Property from the "RM-3" Multiple-Family
Residential Zone to the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone is consistent with the Property’s
existing Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
2. The proposed reclassification of the Property is necessary and/or desirable
for the orderly and proper development of the community and is compatible with the adjacent
properties to the north, south, east and west which are designated for Low Density Residential
land uses and are developed with single family homes.
3. The proposed reclassification of the Property does properly relate to the zone
and its permitted uses locally established in close proximity to the Property and to the zones and
their permitted uses generally established throughout the community in that surrounding
properties include single family residential uses within the “RS-2” Single-Family Residential
Zone.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings,
this Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2016-00301 to authorize an
amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the
Property into the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone and recommends that the City Council
adopt an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2016-
00301.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not constitute a
rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the Property; any such rezoning shall require
an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or
denied by the City Council at its sole discretion.
- 3 - PC2017-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of March 20, 2017.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on March 20, 2017, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of March, 2017.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2017-***
City of Anaheim
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
January 9, 2017 via Certified Mail Samuel Martinez 729 North East Street Anaheim, CA 92805-2134
RE: RECLASSIFICATION (ZONE CHANGE) OF PROPERTY AT 729 NORTH EAST STREET Dear Mr. Martinez, The City of Anaheim Planning Commission recently approved a two lot subdivision on the property at 719 North East Street, located directly south of your property. As part of that action, a Reclassification was also approved to rezone the property from the RM-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to the RS-2 (Single Family Residential) zone. Planning staff originally included your 8,496 square foot property with the Reclassification application; however, we subsequently deleted your property from this request to ensure that you received the proper notification and opportunity to comment on this request. The purpose of the Reclassification is to bring consistency between the Low Density Residential General Plan designation and the existing RM-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning on the property. Attached are maps of both the General Plan and Zoning on the properties in question. As you can see, after the zoning map is revised to reflect the City’s action on the adjacent property, the zoning on your property would be the only remaining RM-3 zoned lot in the vicinity. This letter is to inform you that the Planning and Building Department proposes to initiate the Reclassification of your property at no cost to you. If you would like further information as to the implications of the Reclassification of your property, or if you have any questions on the process, please contact me at 714-765-4949 or wcarvalho@anaheim.net. I would be happy to discuss them with you.
Si necesita un traductor para discutir este asunto, por favor comuníquese con Gustavo
González al 714-765-4671. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Sincerely,
Wayne Carvalho Contract Planner City of Anaheim Attachments
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 -
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
- 2 -
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 20, 2017
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-00513
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2017-00651
LOCATION: Citywide
REQUEST: The 2017 Bicycle Master Plan Project is a City-initiated update to the
City of Anaheim’s 2004 Bicycle Master Plan. The project includes amendments to
the General Plan to provide consistency between the proposed 2017 Bicycle Master
Plan and the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the attached resolution determining that an Addendum to the Program Environmental
Impact Report No. 330 (EIR 330) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
No. 346 (EIR 346) is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request
and recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2017-
00513 and Miscellaneous Case No. 2017-00651 (2017 Bicycle Master Plan).
BACKGROUND: The City’s Bicycle Master Plan (the “2004 Plan”) was adopted in
2004, as part of a citywide, comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan and
Zoning Code. The 2004 Plan was subsequently readopted by City Council in 2009
and 2011, in conjunction with State grant funding requests. In April 2013, the City
Council initiated an update to the 2004 Plan, with its approval of the Anaheim
Outdoors Connectivity Plan. The Connectivity Plan is intended to identify
opportunities to create at least 100 acres of new public green space and reduce Green
House Gas (GHG) emissions by promoting active transportation. In July 2013, the
City was awarded a $200,000 grant from the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Sustainability Program to prepare the update.
Staff kicked off the update with an extensive public outreach effort that began in
January 2014 by providing general information about the project at Neighborhood
Council meetings, followed with more detailed presentations in August 2014. An
open house event was held at the Muzeo in October 2014, to solicit public input on
the City’s existing and proposed bicycle network. An online survey was distributed
in Fall 2014, which received over 200 responses. The survey provided insight into
participants’ behavior and attitudes towards bicycling. Over the course of the
project, staff sought input from local bicycling stakeholders and interest groups,
employers that provide incentives for bicycling, and organizations that promote
active transportation.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 5
The Draft Bicycle Master Plan (the “Draft Plan”) was released for public review and comment on
the City’s website (www.anaheim.net/bike) in August 2016. The community was made aware of the
upcoming release of the Draft Plan at the July 2016 Neighborhood District meetings. Staff held a
public workshop with the Planning Commission on August 8, 2016, at which staff received input
from the Planning Commission and the public on the Draft Plan. Input was also gathered from
website feedback and at community events, including the National Night Out, held at Twila Reid
Park in August 2016. In addition, a fact sheet about the Draft Plan was posted at all local libraries,
community centers, and City facilities, and distributed by various e-blasts to the bicycling
community.
The proposed 2017 Bicycle Master Plan (the “2017 Plan”) was prepared in response to the
comments received on the Draft Plan. Descriptive text was added throughout the 2017 Plan to
further discuss points of concern expressed by the Planning Commission and public, such as
addressing gaps in the existing system, Levels of Traffic Stress for the range of rider types on
bicycle facilities, and access to flood control channels. The 2017 Plan includes an implementation
toolbox, with strategies that may include roadway retrofits, intersection treatments, on-street
parking configurations, signage, and pavement markings.
The 2017 Plan was posted on the City’s website in February, along with environmental analysis of
the anticipated impact of adopting the 2017 Plan (the “Addendum”). A notice regarding the release
of the 2017 Plan and the Addendum, and the associated Planning Commission public hearing, was
published in the Anaheim Bulletin on February 16, 2017 and mailed to responsible agencies and
interested parties. Staff also recently presented highlights of the 2017 Plan at each of the six
February Neighborhood District meetings.
PROPOSAL: The 2017 Plan is a City-initiated update of the 2004 Plan and will replace it in its
entirety. The proposed project includes amendments to the General Plan to provide consistency
between the 2017 Plan and the General Plan. The goal of the 2017 Plan is to improve bicycling
safety, comfort, and accessibility. The 2017 Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed
bicycle facilities that are expected to improve connectivity and increase bicycling as a mode of
transportation, especially for short trips. The existing and proposed bicycle facilities include a
system of on-street bike lanes and routes and off-street bike paths to connect residents, visitors, and
workers to their destinations. Per City Council input, the 2017 Plan does not propose to remove any
vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle lanes. The 2017 Plan is organized into six chapters and seven
appendices described as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction - Explains the setting and purpose of the 2017 Plan.
Chapter 2: Anaheim General Plan Goals and Policies - Describes the City’s General Plan goals
and policies related to bicycle facilities. Proposed amendments to these goals and policies are
provided Appendix B of the 2017 Plan.
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions – Describes the existing land uses, bicycle facility types, existing
bikeway network including bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities, education, awareness and
enforcement programs, identifies constraints and opportunities of the bikeway network, and
describes coordination with other related plans and programs.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 5
Chapter 4: Needs Analysis – Includes the population and employment patterns that influence
bicycle facility location, a profile of the types of bicyclists and their comfort level on various
types of bikeways, and a summary of the public outreach efforts for the 2017 Plan.
Chapter 5: Bikeway Network Recommendations – Identifies the proposed bikeways, parking and
end-of-trip facilities, multi-modal connections, education, awareness and enforcement
programs, and refers to an Implementation Toolbox, which is provided in Appendix G of the
2017 Plan.
Chapter 6: Implementation and Funding: Organizes the proposed bikeways into a priority
ranking for implementation according to criteria of demand, utility, connectivity, and readiness,
provides estimates for bicycle ridership and reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT),
description of past expenditures on the bikeway network and the estimated cost of building out
the proposed network, and describes implementation and funding opportunities.
Appendix A: Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist – Provides a checklist of
plan elements required by Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code.
Appendix B: General Plan Amendments – Itemizes the specific routes to change, add, or delete
from the General Plan. These routes are shown on Figure C-5 of the Circulation Element and
Figure G-1of the Green Element. Appendix B also includes text changes, to the Circulation
Element, Green Element, Community Design Element, and Economic Development Element.
Appendix C: Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network – Itemizes the existing and proposed
Class I, II, and III bikeways in Anaheim, with their route, limits, and length. The following
table presents a summary of this information:
Summary of Bikeway Network Mileage
Class Centerline Miles
Existing Proposed Total
Class I: Bike Path 14.78 30.05 44.83
Class II: Bike Lane 43.80 71.13 114.93
Class III: Bike Route 1.28 19.13 20.41
Class IV: Cycle Track 0 0 0
Total 59.86 120.31 180.17
Appendix D: Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results – Summarizes the
responses to the 2014 survey.
Appendix E: Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet – Provides the fact sheet that was
distributed in August 2016.
Appendix F: Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores – Prioritizes all of the
bikeways, generally organized into corridors, according to the rating criteria of demand, utility,
connectivity, and readiness.
Appendix G: Implementation Toolbox – Provides a menu of implementation strategies that may
be used in appropriate situations, including roadway retrofits, intersection treatments, on-street
parking configurations, signage, and pavement markings.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
March 20, 2017
Page 4 of 5
Areas for Future Study: Subsequent amendments to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan, will be necessary in order to bring these documents into consistency with the General
Plan, as they relate to bicycle facilities, including the development of typical street cross-sections.
Per City Council input, the scope of the 2017 Plan was limited to updating and proposing bikeways
that do not require the removal of vehicle travel lanes. Staff has identified areas for future study that
focus on specific geographic areas or types of bikeways facilities that may have additional impacts
to the Planned Roadway Network in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These areas for
future study include The Anaheim Resort and Platinum Triangle, road diets, Class III Bicycle
Boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, off-road/unpaved riding and hiking trails, and a comprehensive
Active Transportation Plan that includes pedestrian facilities.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendations for each
requested Planning Commission Action:
Bicycle Master Plan: There are no specific findings required for the approval of a Bicycle Master
Plan. However, a primary function of the Bicycle Master Plan is to meet the requirements of
regional, state and federal grant programs that provide funding for bicycle projects. To be eligible
for most grant programs, the Bicycle Master Plan must address the requirements of Streets and
Highways Code Section 891.2. A summary of how the 2017 Plan meets these requirements is
provided in Appendix A of the 2017 Plan. In addition to meeting State requirements, the 2017 Plan
sets the vision for the City’s bikeways network to be funded as part of park and roadway projects,
and through competitive grants. The Plan will guide the tripling of the 60 miles of existing
bikeways to connect neighborhoods, employment centers, and transportation hubs. Implementation
of the network will help to improve quality of life by lowering emissions, reducing congestion, and
promoting active transportation for the range of bicyclists and types of trips. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the 2017 Plan.
General Plan Amendment: A General Plan Amendment is proposed to: replace the 2004 Plan
(Appendix B of the General Plan) in its entirety with the 2017 Plan; amend Figure C-5 of the
Circulation Element and Figure G-1of the Green Element to reflect the existing and planned bicycle
facilities in the 2017 Plan; and, make text changes to the Circulation Element, Green Element,
Community Design Element, and Economic Development Element, as described in Appendix B of
the 2017 Plan.
Before the Planning Commission may recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, it must
make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) The proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan;
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City;
3) The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and
4) If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is physically
suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access,
physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding
land uses.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
March 20, 2017
Page 5 of 5
The proposed changes to the General Plan were prepared to provide internal consistency within the
General Plan as it relates to bicycling; and therefore, do not create internal inconsistencies. The
modifications further emphasize the integration of bicycling into applicable goals and policies. The
revisions reflect the proposed build-out of the bikeways network. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the requested General Plan Amendment.
Environmental Impact Analysis: An Addendum to EIR 330 and EIR 346 has been prepared to
analyze the environmental impacts associated with approval of the 2017 Plan. EIR 330 was
prepared and certified for the 2004 General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included the
adoption of the 2004 Plan. EIR 346 was prepared as a supplemental EIR to EIR 330 and was
certified in conjunction with the Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project. The Addendum
analyzed whether the environmental effects from the 2017 Plan would be any different from those
disclosed by EIR 330 and 346. The Addendum concluded that the proposed project would not result
in any environmental impacts beyond those that are analyzed and addressed in EIR 330 and 346.
Applicable mitigation measures from EIR 330 and EIR 346 are included as conditions of approval
within the attached resolution. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution determining that an Addendum to EIR 330 and EIR 346 is the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council
approval of the 2017 Plan and associated General Plan Amendment. The 2017 Plan effectively
analyzes and addresses the City’s bikeways network. The policies contained within the document
reflect the City’s continued commitment towards promoting the development of a bikeways
network to meet the needs of all types of bicyclists and outlines a strategy for implementing
bikeways as part of park and roadway projects, and through competitive grants.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Christine Saunders Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
a. 2017 Bicycle Master Plan
b. General Plan Map Amendments
c. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 343
2. Addendum
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
-1- PC2017-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2017-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TO UPDATE THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-00513
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2017-00651
(DEV2017-00007)
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2004-94 adopted on May 25, 2004, the City Council of
the City of Anaheim (“City Council”) certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330
("FEIR No. 330"), adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection
therewith, and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 112, which collectively constituted
the environmental documentation under and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended (“CEQA”) and the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines”) relating to a comprehensive
update of the General Plan for the City of Anaheim (“2004 General Plan Update”), including the
adoption of the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan (“2004 Plan”) as Appendix B; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2009-171 adopted on November 17, 2009 and Resolution
No. 2011-025 adopted on March 8, 2011, the City Council readopted the 2004 Plan in
connection with the submittal of applications for California Department of Transportation
funding of projects under the Bicycle Transportation Account; and,
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2013-064, the City Council approved and adopted the
Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan on April 30, 2013, and directed staff to initiate
amendments to the General Plan and other related policy documents that would need to be
amended to implement the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan including, but not limited to,
the City’s Bicycle Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, in July 2014, the City was awarded a $200,000 grant from the Southern
California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) Sustainable Program funds to update the
City’s Bicycle Master Plan, consistent with the California Streets and Highways Code Section
891.2, to incorporate all of the recommendations from the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan
and reflect changes that have occurred since the Bicycle Master Plan was last comprehensively
updated in 2004; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2013-150, adopted on September 24, 2013, the City
Council certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 346 (“SEIR No. 346”),
adopted a Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith, and
Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122A; relating to the Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites
Rezoning Project; and
-2- PC2017-***
WHEREAS, in 2014, the City commenced an extensive public outreach effort to update
the 2004 Plan, including presentations at several Neighborhood Council meetings in 2014 and
2016; an open house; an online survey; and, engagement with local bicycling stakeholders and
interest groups, employers with commuter reduction programs and incentives for bicycling, and
organizations that promote active transportation to obtain their input on the update of the 2004
Plan; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2016, the City released the Public Review Draft of the update
of the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan (“Draft Plan”). The community was invited to review and
comment on the Draft Plan. The Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet was posted at all local
libraries, community centers, and City facilities, and distributed by various e-blasts to the
bicycling community; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public workshop on the
Draft Plan at which time staff received input from the Planning Commission and the public. As a
result, the Draft Plan was revised to include Appendix G – Implementation Toolbox, and
descriptive text was added throughout the Plan to further discuss points of concern expressed by
the Planning Commission and public; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2017, the City mailed and published in The Anaheim
Bulletin a notice for the March 20, 2017 Planning Commission public hearing for Addendum No.
1 (“Addendum”) to FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346, Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 343, the
2017 Bicycle Master Plan (“2017 Plan”), and General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513. The
Addendum and the 2017 Plan were posted on the City’s website for public review and comment.
Staff presented highlights of the Plan at each of the six Neighborhood District meetings in
February, 2017.
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony
concerning the contents and sufficiency of the Addendum and for and against the 2017 Plan and
General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 and to investigate and make findings in connection
therewith; and
WHEREAS, based on a thorough review of the 2017 Plan, General Plan Amendment No.
2017-00513, and the Addendum, FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346, and the comments received
to date, and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission has found and determined and has
recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That the Addendum, together with FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346,
collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to
CEQA relating to the Proposed Project; and
2. That the Addendum has been prepared in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate
to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Project;
and
-3- PC2017-***
WHEREAS, the 2017 Plan, as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, would replace the 2004 Plan in its entirety; and,
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission, after due consideration, has found and
determined that the 2017 Plan has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 891.2 of
the State and Highways Code, which requires the following elements in a bicycle transportation
plan, as further described in Appendix A: Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist
of the 2017 Plan:
1. The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated
increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan.
2. A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which
shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers.
3. A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways.
4. A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities.
These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
5. A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities
for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and
landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on
transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
6. A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing
clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
7. A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included
within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code
pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists.
8. A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the
plan, including, but not limited to, letters of support.
9. A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is
consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle
commuting.
10. A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for
implementation.
11. A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for
projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
-4- PC2017-***
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 proposes to amend the Anaheim
General Plan as follows:
1. Bicycle Master Plan: Replace “Appendix B – Bicycle Master Plan” of the General Plan
with the 2017 Plan as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
2. Circulation Element Figure: Replace “Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle
Facilities” of the Circulation Element of the General Plan with the new Figure C-5 to
reflect the bikeways network as shown on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
3. Green Element Figure: Replace “Figure G-1: Green Plan” of the Green Element of the
General Plan with the new Figure G-1 to reflect the bikeways network as shown on
Exhibit B-2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Text: Amend the text in the Circulation Element, Green Element, Community Design
Element, and Economic Development Element to reflect the changes as shown in
Appendix B: General Plan Amendments of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation
and study made by itself, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said
hearing, does hereby find and determine and recommends that the City Council so find and
determine as follows:
1. That proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 maintains
internal consistency with the General Plan. The proposed modifications to the
Bicycle Master Plan in Appendix B, the figures in the Circulation Element and
Green Element of the General Plan, and the text in the Circulation Element, Green
Element, Community Design Element, and Economic Development Element of
the General Plan are consistent with General Plan Goals to improve bicycling
safety, comfort, and accessibility for the benefit of Anaheim residents, employees
and visitors;
2. That proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 would not be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the
City because the existing and proposed bicycle facilities that are expected to
improve connectivity and bicycling as a mode of transportation, especially for
short trips, is consistent with the goals and policies of the Circulation Element of
the General Plan encouraging bicycle travel;
3. That proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 continues to
be consistent with the intent of the General Plan and would maintain the balance
of land uses within the City; and
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 is physically
suitable to accommodate the proposed modifications, including but not limited to,
access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility
with surrounding land uses.
-5- PC2017-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and
determinations and based upon a thorough review of the 2017 Plan, General Plan Amendment
2017-00513, the Addendum, FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346, and the evidence received to
date, does hereby approve and recommends that the City Council approve the 2017 Plan and
General Plan Amendment 2017-00513, as shown on Exhibits A and B attached to this
Resolution, contingent upon and subject to (1) the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 343, as shown in Exhibit C attached to this Resolution.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2017.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-6- PC2017-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on March 20, 2017, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of March, 2017.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
118532
-7- PC2017-***
EXHIBIT "A"
Bicycle Master Plan
Draft
February 16, 2017
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 3
Bicycle Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Setting ................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan .................................................................................................... 9
Eligibility for Funding ............................................................................................................................ 9
Identify Priority Projects ........................................................................................................................ 9
Close Gaps in the Existing Network ....................................................................................................... 9
Improve Safety and Comfort for All Cyclists .......................................................................................... 9
Improve Public Health ........................................................................................................................... 9
2. Anaheim General Plan Goals and Policies ....................................................................................... 10
3. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Existing Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Bicycle Facility Types ........................................................................................................................ 23
Class I Bikeway: Bike Paths ................................................................................................................. 24
Class II Bikeway: Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................ 26
Class III Bikeways: Bike Routes ............................................................................................................ 28
Class IV: Cycle Track ............................................................................................................................ 29 3.3 Existing Bikeways .............................................................................................................................. 35
Class I Bike Paths ................................................................................................................................. 41
Class II Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................ 42
Class III Bike Routes ............................................................................................................................. 42 3.4 Bicycle Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities ......................................................................................... 43 3.5 Multi-Modal Connections ................................................................................................................. 49 3.6 Education, Awareness and Enforcement Programs ......................................................................... 53
Employer Based Programs .................................................................................................................. 53
Anaheim Fire & Rescue ....................................................................................................................... 54
Anaheim Police Department ............................................................................................................... 55
Safe Routes to Schools ........................................................................................................................ 57 3.7 Constraints and Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 59
Topography ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Freeways ............................................................................................................................................. 59
Santa Ana River Trail ........................................................................................................................... 59
Grid Street System in the West/Central Areas .................................................................................... 60
Funding Availability ............................................................................................................................. 60
Street Improvement Projects and Roadway Maintenance ................................................................. 60
Vehicle Travel Lanes ............................................................................................................................ 61
Vehicle Parking .................................................................................................................................... 61
Areas for Future Study ........................................................................................................................ 62
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 4
Bicycle Master Plan
3.8 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs .................................................................................. 63
2004 Bicycle Master Plan .................................................................................................................... 63
Green Element ..................................................................................................................................... 63
2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan ................................................................................. 63
Neighboring Local Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................... 63
OCTA Bikeways Strategies .................................................................................................................. 66
Orange County Loop ........................................................................................................................... 66
OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan ........................................................................ 66
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy ................................ 66
State Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 67
4. Needs Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 71 4.1 Population and Employment Profile ................................................................................................ 71 4.2 Types of Bicyclists ............................................................................................................................. 71 4.3 Cyclist Comfort Level ........................................................................................................................ 73 4.4 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................ 74
5. Bikeway Network Recommendations ............................................................................................. 77 5.1 Proposed Bikeways ........................................................................................................................... 77 5.2 Proposed Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities ..................................................................................... 89 5.3 Proposed Multi-Modal Connections ................................................................................................ 89 5.4 Proposed Education, Awareness, and Enforcement Programs ........................................................ 89 5.5 Bicycle Signal Detection .................................................................................................................... 89 5.6 Implementation Toolbox .................................................................................................................. 89
6. Implementation and Funding ......................................................................................................... 90 6.1 Project Prioritization ......................................................................................................................... 90
Demand Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 90
Utility Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 90
Connectivity Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 90
Readiness Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 90 6.2 Bicycle Ridership Estimates and Forecasts ..................................................................................... 101 6.3 Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network .................................................................................. 105 6.4 Proposed Bikeway Network Cost Estimates ................................................................................... 109 6.5 Implementation and Funding Opportunities .................................................................................. 110
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 5
Bicycle Master Plan
FIGURES Figure 1 – Regional Setting ........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 – Existing Land Use (West) ............................................................................................................ 15 Figure 3 – Existing Land Use (East).............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use Designations (West) .............................................................................. 19 Figure 5 – General Plan Land Use Designations (East) ................................................................................ 21 Figure 6 – Bikeway Network (West)............................................................................................................ 31 Figure 7 – Bikeway Network (East) ............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 8 – Existing Bikeways (West) ............................................................................................................ 37 Figure 9 – Existing Bikeways (East) ............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 10 – Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End-Of-Trip Facilities ......................................... 47 Figure 11 – Multi-Modal Connections ........................................................................................................ 51 Figure 12 – Four Types of Bicyclists ............................................................................................................ 71 Figure 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network (West) ......................................................................................... 85 Figure 14 – Proposed Bikeway Network (East) ........................................................................................... 87 Figure 15 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West) .............................................................................. 97 Figure 16 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East) ................................................................................. 99
TABLES Table 1 – Summary of Bikeway Network Mileage ..................................................................................... 23 Table 2 – Reported Bicycle Thefts in Anaheim ........................................................................................... 56 Table 3 – Bicycle Related Vehicle Code Sections ....................................................................................... 56 Table 4 – Collisions and Citations Issued in Anaheim ................................................................................. 56 Table 5 – Bikeway Connections with Neighboring Jurisdictions ................................................................. 69 Table 6 – Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic ........................................................................................ 73 Table 7 – Proposed Bikeways ...................................................................................................................... 79 Table 8 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 1 .................................................................... 91 Table 9 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 2 .................................................................... 93 Table 10 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 3 .................................................................. 95 Table 11 – Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates ................................................... 102 Table 12 – Bikeway Network Expenditures Since 2004 ............................................................................ 105 Table 13 – Safe Routes to Schools Grant Awards ..................................................................................... 106 Table 14 – Active Transportation Program Awards .................................................................................. 107 Table 15 – Proposed Bikeway Network Estimated Cost ........................................................................... 109 Table 16 – Recently Funded Bikeways Project ......................................................................................... 110
APPENDICES Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist........................................................ Appendix A General Plan Amendments................................................................................................. Appendix B Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network...................................................................... Appendix C Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results.......................................... Appendix D Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet............................................................................... Appendix E Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores............................................................ Appendix F Implementation Toolbox.................................................................................................... Appendix G
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 6
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 7
Bicycle Master Plan
1. Introduction The 2017 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan (the Proposed Project/the Plan) is a policy document that will guide the City of Anaheim in its implementation of citywide bicycle facilities. The Plan supersedes the 2004 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan and is intended to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility. The Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed bicycle facilities that will improve multi-modal connectivity and increase bicycle mode share, especially for short trips. This is achieved through a system of on-street bike lanes and routes and off-street bike paths to connect residents, visitors, and workers to their destinations. The Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle lanes. The Plan has been prepared to meet the California State requirements for a Bicycle Transportation Plan per Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Codes.
1.1 Setting
Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center The City of Anaheim, founded in 1857, is one of the nation’s premier municipalities and is one of California’s most populous cities (Figure 1, Regional Setting). Anaheim covers over 50 square miles with more than 358,000 residents, 124,000 private sector workers, and more than 3,000 City employees. The City provides public safety through the Anaheim Police Department and Anaheim Fire & Rescue, water and power service through Anaheim Public Utilities, parks, community centers, family services and
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 8
Bicycle Master Plan
libraries through Anaheim Community Services, neighborhood improvements through Anaheim Public Works, and assistance for entrepreneurs, businesses and homeowners through the Anaheim Planning Department. The municipal corporation’s annual budget is $1.7 billion. Successful sports franchises call Anaheim home, including the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Baseball, Anaheim Ducks, and the U.S. Men’s and Women’s National Volleyball Teams. Anaheim also boasts world-class meeting and entertainment venues with the Anaheim Convention Center (LEED-Certified and the largest on the West Coast), Disneyland Resort, Anaheim GardenWalk, Honda Center, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the City National Grove of Anaheim. In addition, Anaheim embraces its vibrant cultural arts community, including the world-renowned Anaheim Ballet. Annually, Anaheim welcomes 25 million visitors, making it a place where the world comes to live, work, and play.
Figure 1 – Regional Setting
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 9
Bicycle Master Plan
1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan The Bicycle Master Plan provides the vision for building out the bikeway network in the City of Anaheim over the next 20 years. The Plan identifies opportunities to close gaps in the existing network, connect to regional routes, parks, employment centers, and multi-modal transportation hubs, and to maximize the implementation of bike lanes within the planned roadway network without removing existing or planned vehicle travel lanes. The Plan is important for many reasons:
Eligibility for Funding: A primary function of the Bicycle Master Plan is to meet the requirements of regional, state and federal grant programs that provide funding for bicycle projects. To be eligible for most grant programs, the Bicycle Master Plan must address the requirements of Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. A summary of how the Plan meets these requirements is provided in Appendix A,
Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist. Once the Plan is approved by the City Council and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), projects identified in the Plan will be eligible to compete for grant funding. The Plan is current for five years from City Council approval.
Identify Priority Projects: The proposed bikeway network was evaluated on factors in the categories of demand, utility, connectivity, and readiness. Three scoring tiers were identified for high, medium, and low priority for implementation. Projects may be implemented out of scoring order as opportunities such as grant funding, development projects, capital improvement projects, or roadway resurfacing projects arise.
Close Gaps in the Existing Network: The Plan identifies several routes that will serve to close gaps in the existing network to overcome physical barriers to cycling, such as crossing Interstate 5 and State Route (SR) 91, and connectivity to the regional bikeways network. Gap closures are considered in the project prioritization scoring and are reflected in their priority ranking.
Improve Safety and Comfort for All Cyclists: The Plan proposes bikeways both on and off street to provide dedicated facilities for bicyclists to increase separation from motor vehicles. Additionally, the Plan identifies bicycle safety education programs provided by the City that are implemented through schools and community groups.
Improve Public Health: Bicycling is an active transportation mode that provides health benefits to riders, as well as public health benefits such as reduced emissions, traffic congestion, and energy consumption. Providing a comprehensive bikeway network increases accessibility to key destinations and can help to reduce vehicle miles traveled as more commuters and recreational cyclists can reach their desired destinations by bicycle.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 10
Bicycle Master Plan
2. Anaheim General Plan Goals and Policies State law requires every city and county in California to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan. The General Plan represents the community’s view of its future; it is a blueprint for a city’s or county’s growth and development. City councils, boards of supervisors, and planning commissions use the goals and policies of the General Plan as a basis on which to make their land use decisions. The General Plan is considered “comprehensive” since it covers the territory within the boundaries of the adopting jurisdiction and any areas outside of its boundaries that are within a jurisdiction’s sphere-of- influence. It is also comprehensive in that it addresses a wide variety of issues that characterize a city or county. These issues range from the physical development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure, to social concerns such as those identified in the Housing Element of a General Plan. The General Plan is considered “long-term” since it looks 20 years or further into the future. Individual jurisdictions determine a time horizon that serves their individual needs. The General Plan projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining long-term objectives and policies for day-to-day decision making. Throughout this horizon period, new information often becomes available and the needs and values of a community may change. To adjust to these dynamics, General Plans are reviewed and revised periodically. The City of Anaheim General Plan1 contains goals and policies related to bicycle facilities. These goals and policies include modifications that were proposed in conjunction with the Plan. Redlines of these amended sections and maps showing the amendments to the bikeways network are provided in Appendix B - General Plan Amendment.
1 http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 11
Bicycle Master Plan
3. Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Land Use
The City of Anaheim is geographically diverse, with the western and central portions of the City characterized by relatively flat ground that slopes gently to the southwest. This portion of the City is also characterized by a mix of suburban and urban development and is relatively built out. West Anaheim is undergoing a Specific Plan effort that is focusing on improving the Beach Boulevard corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. Central Anaheim is home to Downtown Anaheim (CtrCity) and the Anaheim Colony Historic District. The existing land use patterns in the City is included as Figure 2 – Existing Land
Use (West) and Figure 3 - Existing Land Use (East).
Anaheim Central Library The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle are located south of the downtown area, in the southern portion of the City on either side of Interstate 5 (I-5). The Anaheim Resort, generally located west of I-5, includes the Disneyland Resort, the Anaheim Convention Center and a mix of hotels, restaurants and visitor-serving uses. The Platinum Triangle, located east of I-5, is a former industrial area surrounding Angel Stadium that is transitioning into a vibrant mixed-use area. In addition to higher density residential, commercial and office development, the Platinum Triangle also includes Honda Center, City National Grove of Anaheim and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The Platinum Triangle is bound on the east by the Santa Ana River Trail, which directly connects cyclists to ARTIC and extends from the mountains to the beach.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 12
Bicycle Master Plan
Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station Anaheim Canyon is a regional employment center consisting of office, industrial and commercial uses that generally span the north side of the SR-91 between the Orange (SR-57) Freeway and Imperial Highway. The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan was adopted in January 2016, and envisions transforming Anaheim Canyon into the leading center of the emerging Innovation Economy in Southern California. It also establishes a safe and accessible multimodal transportation network that accommodates vehicles, trucks, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists to provide greater options and healthier living for area residents and workers. The area is served by the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 13
Bicycle Master Plan
The eastern portion of the City extends generally east along either side of the Santa Ana River to the Riverside County line. This part of the City includes primarily hillside terrain. Residential development in the eastern portion of Anaheim largely consists of the various hillside communities on the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) that extend to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241). Other relatively flat residential neighborhoods are located north of the Santa Ana River and east of Imperial Highway, and generally south of the Santa Ana River at the intersection of the SR-91 and Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeways.
East Anaheim Branch Library and Police Department The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element includes a Land Use Plan with land use designations for properties throughout the City. These designations indicate the City’s preferred future land use for these properties. General Plan land use designations for the City are shown in Figure 4 – General Plan
Land Use Designations (West) and Figure 5 –General Plan Land Use Designations (East).
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 14
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 15
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 2 – Existing Land Use (West)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 16
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 17
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 3 – Existing Land Use (East)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 18
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 19
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use Designations (West)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 20
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 21
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 5 – General Plan Land Use Designations (East)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 22
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 23
Bicycle Master Plan
3.2 Bicycle Facility Types
The Plan refers to the four classes of bikeways as defined in Streets and Highways Code 890.4: Classes I, II, III and IV. Until 2014, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) used three categories for bikeways. Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 1193, The Protected Bikeways Act of 20142, which recognized cycle tracks as a fourth bikeway classification to promote active transportation and provide a right-of-way adjacent to, and protected from, vehicular traffic. Due to the potential right-of-way impacts for implementation, the City does not have and does not propose any Class IV cycle tracks at this time. The bikeways described below will be implemented according to the latest design guidelines in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 3 as further described in Appendix C, Implementation Toolbox.
Table 1 provides a summary of the centerline miles of bikeways in the network. A complete inventory of existing bikeways is included in Appendix D – Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network and is shown in Figure 6 –Bikeway Network (West) and Figure 7 – Bikeway Network (East).
Table 1 – Summary of Bikeway Network Mileage
Class Centerline Miles
Existing Proposed Total Class I: Bike Path 14.78 30.05 44.83 Class II: Bike Lane 43.80 71.13 114.93 Class III: Bike Route 1.28 19.13 20.41 Class IV: Cycle Track 0 0 0
Total 59.86 120.31 180.17
2 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1193 3 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 24
Bicycle Master Plan
Class I Bikeway: Bike Paths
Anaheim Coves Bike Path (Bike ID 1) 890.4 (a): Class I bike paths, also referred to as “Class I Bikeways”, or shared use paths, provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. Class I bike paths provide critical connections to destinations not served by roadways for recreation and as direct high-speed commute routes. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right-of-ways, abandoned railroad right-of-ways, or within and between parks. A common application of a Class I bike path is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by freeways or natural barriers such as a river.4 The City is coordinating with the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to allow the City to access maintenance roads for OCFCD facilities for utilization as Class I bike paths. This agreement would be the first step in the process to implement these proposed Class I bike paths through the life of the Plan. Certain facilities exist in usable condition as a Class I bike path, such as the south side of the Santa Ana River Trail east of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 177), and simply require access agreements to open them. Other OCFCD facilities, such as those on the Carbon Creek Channel (Bike IDs 6, 7, 8, and 165),
4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 25
Bicycle Master Plan
would require improvements to make them usable as a Class I bike path. The City will conduct additional outreach to the local communities neighboring these facilities prior to implementing each proposed Bike ID in order to address any safety or access concerns of the local residents and potential bicycle facility users. Bike paths can also serve as parallel routes to roadways with high vehicle volume and speed that also have high potential bicycle demand. For example, La Palma Avenue from Blue Gum Street to Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 19) was proposed as a Class II bike lane in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed route was extended eastward to e/o Brasher Street in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. However, as part of that analysis, this route has been changed in the Plan to reflect a Class I bike path on both sides of the street to serve bicyclists and pedestrians with origins and/or destinations on La Palma Avenue. The prevailing speed of 45-50 mph and relatively high traffic volume of over 35,000 ADT could deter the potentially high bicycle travel demand, even with a Class II bike lane. A shared use Class I Bike Path is proposed, however, with further study, Bike ID 19 could be implemented with a Class IV Cycle Track if sufficient space is available within the public right-of-way. There are 14.78 miles of existing Class I bike paths in the City and 30.05 new miles are proposed as part of the Plan.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 26
Bicycle Master Plan
Class II Bikeway: Bike Lanes
Canyon Rim Road (Bike ID 52B) 890.4(b) Class II bike lanes, also referred to as “Class II bikeways”, provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Bike lanes are a space on the road for bicyclists adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flow in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic, and are designated with pavement markings and signage. Bike lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists.
Buffered Bike Lane: Class II bike lanes that provide a painted buffer for lateral separation between motor vehicle travel and/or parking lanes and bicycles are designed to visually reinforce Section 21760 of the California Vehicle Code that requires Three Feet for Safety when vehicles pass bicyclists. 74% of survey respondents polled for the 2017 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan preferred buffered bike lanes. This treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speed, adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Typically, this treatment can be implemented where there are wide curb lanes or bike lanes. Areas that could be considered for future study include Brookhurst Street (Bike IDs 48 and 49), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121), and Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 133).
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 27
Bicycle Master Plan
Lane Reconfiguration: Often referred to as a “Road Diet”, lane reconfiguration is the removal of one or more vehicle travel lanes to provide sufficient right-of-way for Class II Bike Lanes. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for this type of retrofit project, and under these conditions, the right-of-way for the excess vehicle capacity could be reallocated to bike lanes. Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations exist. For instance, a four-lane street (with a center line and two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. Miller Street, from La Palma Avenue to Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 95), was recently implemented as a road diet in the Anaheim Canyon. Miller Street was a four lane, undivided arterial with a forecasted ADT of less than 15,000. As part of the traffic analysis for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Miller Street was analyzed for the conversion to a two lane divided street to ensure that the reduction in vehicle travel lanes would not cause a significant adverse impact to adjacent streets and intersections. The findings were favorable, and the proposed reduction in vehicle travel lanes required a General Plan Amendment to reclassify the street in the Circulation Element, as well as an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), which is administered by OCTA. The approval of the reclassification by OCTA finalized the change in the General Plan Circulation Element, which allowed for the road diet to be implemented without conditions. Similarly proposed Class II Bike Lanes identified in the Plan that meet the criteria for a road diet may be implemented as such upon the completion of additional, site specific traffic analysis to identify overall transportation impacts, including analysis of peak hour volumes. Studies from around the country indicate that streets with high-end traffic volumes ranging from 22,000 – 30,000 ADT are candidates for a road diet. In several locations, Class II Bike Lanes do not continue through intersections, which reflect the engineering standard details for the design of roadways in the City. All intersections shall be designed to City Standards with the engineering design details addressing MUTCD and Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards for bikeways through intersections. Examples of intersection treatments are included in Appendix C - Implementation Toolbox. There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes, and 71.13 new miles are proposed in the Plan.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 28
Bicycle Master Plan
Class III Bikeways: Bike Routes 890.4(c) Class III bike routes, also referred to as “Class III bikeways”, provide a right-of-way on-street or off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. Class III bike routes provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic in the same travel lane.
Sharrows: Class III bike routes can be enhanced with signage and on-street pavement markings which help reinforce that the travel lane is shared with motor vehicles and bicycles.
Bicycle Boulevard: Class III bike routes on local roads or residential streets designed to facilitate safe and convenient bicycle travel are called bicycle boulevards. Treatments area intended to increase motorists’ awareness of bicycle activity through the use of traffic calming devices such as signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures. The City may implement proposed Class III bikeways as either a Sharrow or a Bicycle Boulevard, which will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Design guidelines for sharrows and bicycle boulevards are further described in Appendix C. There are 1.28 miles of existing and 19.13 miles of planned Class III bike routes in the City.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 29
Bicycle Master Plan
Class IV: Cycle Track
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/two-way-cycle-tracks/ 890.4(d) Class IV Cycle tracks or separated bikeways, also referred to as “Class IV bikeways”, promote active transportation and provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are separated from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. In situations where on-street parking is allowed, cycle tracks are located to the curb-side of the parking.5 A two-way cycle track may be configured as a protected cycle track at street level with a parking lane or other barrier between the cycle track and the motor vehicle travel lane and/or as a raised cycle track to provide vertical separation from the adjacent motor vehicle lane. Due to potential right-of-way impacts, the City is not proposing Class IV Cycle Tracks as part of this Plan. However, Cycle Tracks are not precluded and may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
5 http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 30
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 31
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 6 – Bikeway Network (West)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 32
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 33
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 7 – Bikeway Network (East)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 34
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 35
Bicycle Master Plan
3.3 Existing Bikeways The City of Anaheim has approximately 59.86 miles of existing bikeways in the City. The bikeways network was inventoried with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software, and an interactive map is available at www.anaheim.net/bikemap. 31.92 miles have been added to the City’s network in the last 12 years as part of street rehabilitation, private development, and/or park and recreation facility projects and are detailed in Appendix B. The existing bikeways network is shown in Figure 8 – Existing Bikeways (West) and Figure 9 – Existing Bikeways (East).
It is important to note that bicycles are permitted on all roads in the State of California and in Anaheim (with the exception of access-controlled freeways). As such, Anaheim’s entire street network is effectively the city’s bikeway network, regardless of whether or not a bikeway stripe, stencil, or sign is present on a given street. The designation of certain roads as Class II or III bicycle facilities is not intended to imply that these are the only roadways intended for bicycle use, or that bicyclists should not be riding on other streets. Rather, the designation of a network of Class II and III on-street bikeways recognizes that certain roadways are optimal bicycle routes, for reasons such as directness or access to significant destinations, and allows the City of Anaheim to then focus resources on building out this primary network. Additionally, existing bikeways built to their bikeway classification can be improved or upgraded. Existing Class II bicycle lanes can be upgraded to buffered bike lanes where there is sufficient room. Existing Class III bike routes could be upgraded to Class II bike lanes if needed. Also, Class II bike lanes could be rebuilt as Class IV cycle tracks where there is sufficient room and adequate spacing between driveways. Existing facilities should be reviewed as maintenance activities are performed or street improvement projects are planned and implemented.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 36
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 37
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 8 – Existing Bikeways (West)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 38
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 39
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 9 – Existing Bikeways (East)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 40
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 41
Bicycle Master Plan
Santa Ana River Trail at ARTIC (Bike ID 27C)
Class I Bike Paths: The regional backbone of the bikeway network is the Class I Santa Ana River Trail (SART), which extends along the Santa Ana River from the ocean to the mountains in the Inland Empire. 8.79 miles of the SART are located in the City of Anaheim along the SR-91, from east of Yorba Linda Boulevard in the east to just west of Tustin Avenue in the west (Bike IDs 27A, 28, and 177). The trail crosses the City boundary into Orange and re-enters Anaheim near Katella Avenue (Bike ID 27C), where it connects to ARTIC, and then crosses back into the City of Orange. The Class I side path on Fairmont Boulevard between La Palma Avenue and the Yorba Linda city limit (Bike ID 17) serves as a Class I connection to the OC Loop, a 66-mile continuous facility for bicycles and pedestrians that will link important existing regional facilities throughout the west and north portion of Orange County. The Anaheim Coves Trail (Bike ID 1) was completed in 2011 as part of a 14 acre nature park on the west side of the Santa Ana River between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road. Portions of the Carbon Creek Bike Path exist in the vicinity of Schweitzer Park (Bike ID 164) and Dad Miller Golf Course (Bike ID 5) in west Anaheim, as well as on the SoCal Edison ROW west of Magnolia Street (Bike ID 22). The Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Bike ID 176) is surrounded by a Class I bike path that serves as a recreational facility in the Anaheim Hills.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 42
Bicycle Master Plan
Class II Bike Lanes: There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes in the City along segments of major and primary arterials such as Anaheim Boulevard (Bike IDs 34 and 36), Ball Road (Bike ID 42A and 42C), Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48), Euclid Street (Bike ID 65), Imperial Highway (Bike ID 76), Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 155), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121). 27.54 of these miles were implemented since 2004 as part of planned road widening and maintenance projects, which are detailed in Appendix B. Class II bike lanes may also be implemented as buffered bike lanes with a painted separation between vehicle and bicycle traffic, as right-of-way allows, as was done on Santa Ana Canyon Road between Festival Drive and Eucalyptus Drive (Bike ID 121A).
Santa Ana Canyon Road Buffered Bike Lane (Bike ID 121A)
Class III Bike Routes: There are two Class III bike routes in the City, which are located on Dutch and Park Vista Avenues from Rio Vista Street to Frontera Street (Bike ID 146) and a segment of Ball Road (Bike ID 42B). Bike ID 146 connects the Class II bike lanes on Rio Vista Street and Frontera Street, and serves Rio Vista Park and Elementary School, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Bike ID 42B is a Class III route that connects Class II Bike Lanes on Ball Road at either end. This route is proposed to be upgraded to a Class II bike lane to close this gap on Ball Road.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 43
Bicycle Master Plan
3.4 Bicycle Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities Secure bicycle parking is a key factor in encouraging bicycle use for both long and short trips. Various forms of bicycle parking serve different users and types of trips. Bicycle parking is commonly located in visible and convenient areas at key destinations such as schools, commercial centers, parks, libraries, shopping centers, government buildings, office parks, tourist destinations, and multi-family housing. Bicycle racks best serve destinations where users are expected to park for less than two hours, such as at retail centers and activity centers like parks, libraries, and other civic locations. Bike racks are typically installed in highly visible areas where users can use their own lock to secure the frame of the bicycle at two points to the rack. The City standard is a loop rack, however, bicycle racks can artistically reflect a design element of its location, such as the dog-shaped rack installation at the Olive Hills Dog Park.
Standard Bicycle Racks at the Festival
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 44
Bicycle Master Plan
Artistic Bicycle Racks at Olive Hills Dog Park Bicycle lockers serve users who are expected to park at a destination for more than two hours, such as transit centers, office parks and other employment centers, schools, and multi-family housing. Lockers should provide secure and weather protected storage for bicycles and their accessories. Bicycle lockers are provided at the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station, ARTIC, Anaheim City Hall, and Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Many employees prefer to park their bicycles inside the building, such as in their office or a nearby storage room, if space is available. Similarly, residents of multi-family housing may prefer to park in their units or garage/storage space.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 45
Bicycle Master Plan
Bicycle Lockers at ARTIC The City does not have a complete inventory of bicycle parking currently in the City. However, bicycle parking is a mitigation measure for new development projects in the Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim Resort, and is required for new non-residential developments and schools subject to the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). On December 12, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of a comprehensive municipal code amendment for vehicle parking, which also addresses the provision of bicycle parking, especially for projects that cannot provide the required vehicle parking on-site. The code amendment includes an incentive program that allows developers to provide bicycle parking and other amenities in lieu of a vehicle parking space(s). The parking code amendment is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in March, 2017. In addition to secure bicycle parking, amenities at a bicycle rider’s destination, such as shower and locker facilities, contribute to the viability of bicycling as a commute option for local employees. There are locker facilities at ARTIC and Anaheim City Hall West Tower that are available for use by City of Anaheim employees. Several large employers in the City also provide shower and locker facilities for use by their employees who bicycle to work. Employees desiring to bicycle to work should check with their employer for facilities that may be available to them. Figure 10 - Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End-Of-Trip Facilities, shows the destinations most likely to provide bicycle parking, as well as proposed projects in the City that would be required to install bicycle parking as a required by the City.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 46
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 47
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 10 – Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End-Of-Trip Facilities
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 48
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 49
Bicycle Master Plan
3.5 Multi-Modal Connections Improving the bicycle-transit link to provide the “first mile/last mile” connection is an important part of making bicycling a part of daily life in Anaheim. Linking bicycles with mass transit (bus and commuter rail) overcomes such barriers as lengthy trips, personal security concerns, and riding at night, in poor weather, or up hills. Park-and-ride locations provide for intermodal travel by bicyclists to carpools and vanpools. Bicycle parking facilities at these locations facilitate links to ride-sharing activities. Additionally, by bicycling to transit instead of driving, communities benefit from reduced air pollution, greenhouse gases, demand for park-and-ride land, energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and traffic congestion. The inter-modal network for bicycles is shown in Figure 11 – Multi-Modal
Connections.
Metrolink Bicycle Car at Anaheim Canyon Station The Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station is located near the intersection of Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue, just north of the SR-91. The Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station serves commuter destinations in the Anaheim Canyon, which is an area of concentrated employment in the City. Bicycles are allowed on all Metrolink trains, on a space available basis, for up to three bicycles per car. Special bike cars are available on select trains, and have space to accommodate up to 18 bicycles on the lower level.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 50
Bicycle Master Plan
The ARTIC is located on Katella Avenue in the Platinum Triangle, and is near popular destinations such as Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, the Disneyland Resort, and the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC is served by the SR-57 freeway, Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA buses, Anaheim Resort Transit, Greyhound and other private bus operators, taxis, and short and long term parking for transit users. ARTIC has bicycle lockers and racks on-site to serve bicycle commuters connecting to the various modes serving ARTIC. Recreational riders have direct access to the Santa Ana River Trail. For example, organized groups of cyclists take rides to distant destinations, such as San Diego, and return to ARTIC on the Amtrak while their bicycles are driven back in a cargo truck.
Multi-Modal Connections at ARTIC OCTA operates bus service in Anaheim and throughout Orange County with connections to neighboring counties. All buses are equipped with bicycle racks that can accommodate up to two bicycles on the front of the bus. Additional information about how to extend a bicycle trip by bus is available at www.octa.net. A High Quality Transit Corridor (HQTC) is an existing corridor with fixed bus service at intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. The current HQTCs in Anaheim are on Beach Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim Boulevard, State College Boulevard, and La Palma Avenue between the west city limits and Tustin Avenue. Typically, HQTCs serve areas with high pedestrian and bicycle demand. The Beach Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and State College Boulevard corridors also carry high volumes of vehicle traffic. For longer distance riders, parallel routes on slower streets are an alternative, however they are not feasible for short distance trips or to serve origins and destinations on the corridor. Therefore, HQTC transit service should be promoted as a link between bicycle facilities that connect to HQTC streets.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 51
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 11 – Multi-Modal Connections
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 52
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 53
Bicycle Master Plan
3.6 Education, Awareness and Enforcement Programs Bicycle education and awareness programs in the City include employer-based programs through the Anaheim Transportation Network, as well as those implemented by Anaheim Police and Anaheim Fire & Rescue through schools and various community events. Enforcement of bicycle related vehicle codes is provided by the Anaheim Police Department.
Employer Based Programs: Large employers (over 250 employees) in the City of Anaheim are subject to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)6 Chapter 14.60 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 22027 On-Road Motor
Vehicle Mitigation Options. Employers subject to these regulations have a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, designed to comply with federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act. As of April, 2016, there are 28 large employers in the City subject to Rule 2202 and the TDM Ordinance, and nine of them participate in the Employee Commute Reduction Program (ECRP). The Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)8 was created in 1995 as a local non-profit Transportation Management Association. ATN offers rideshare services to all employers and employees in Anaheim, including those subject to Rule 2202 and the TDM Ordinance. Employers in the City pay an annual fee to participate in ATN, which includes access to professional staff to help write and implement annual rideshare plans. About half of participating employers fully embrace bicycling and incorporate it into their programs, which include the annual Bike Week in May with community events featuring music, snacks, prizes, and raffles. ATN partners with the Orange County Bicycle Coalition to provide educational sessions to employers. ATN occasionally has resources to provide safety items to employees it serves, such as helmets and lights, or security items such as locks. Many employees prefer to keep their bicycles in their offices if space is available.
6 http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:anaheim_ca$anc= 7 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business-detail?title=rule-2202-on-road-motor-vehicle-mitigation-options 8 http://rideart.org/rideshare/
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 54
Bicycle Master Plan
Anaheim Fire & Rescue: The Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department’s “Wear Your Helmet Like A Pro” program9 is part of their mission to "ensure the safety and welfare of the public we serve”. Similar to wearing a seat belt when driving in an automobile, wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, scooter or skateboard is critical for one’s safety and to help prevent a traumatic brain injury in the event of a collision. The program focuses on helmet safety education for children ages five to 14, working closely with the seven school districts and non-profit organizations serving Anaheim. As of June 2016, the agency has provided approximately 4,500 safety helmets to Anaheim youth. Helmets are also available at each of the City’s 11 fire stations.
Anaheim Fire and Rescue – Wear Your Helmet Like A Pro Poster
9 http://www.anaheim.net/1924/Wear-Your-Helmet-Like-A-Pro
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 55
Bicycle Master Plan
Anaheim Police Department: The Anaheim Police Department Traffic Bureau - Traffic Safety Program conducts an educational program in partnership with the City’s Community Services and Public Works Divisions, and in cooperation with seven school districts and a non-profit partner Coast to Coast. The goal of the Traffic Safety Program is to reduce serious injury and fatal traffic collisions through traffic safety and awareness. The program emphasizes bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile safety to help members of the community of all ages to safely navigate throughout the City. The educational program is presented in five basic traffic safety modules with age appropriate curriculum for the following audiences: Kindergarten-6th Grade, Junior High School, High School, Adults and Seniors, and Homeless Outreach. The Traffic Safety Program is often presented at schools, neighborhood or community events, Coffee with a Cop, and PTA meetings. The Traffic Safety Program was launched in January, 2015 and has been presented at 76 locations and reached 28,745 students and 1,853 adults in its first two years. The program is partially funded through a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety.
Anaheim Police Department – Traffic Safety Program In August, 2016, the Anaheim Police Department launched a voluntary bicycle registration program as part of National Night Out. The goal of the program is to help the citizens of Anaheim record their bicycle information so that it is easily available in the event of a bicycle theft and a police report is generated. There is no cost to the bicycle owner to register their bicycle, which can be done at any local police station. Since its inception, 32 bicycles have been voluntarily registered in the City. Table 2 below presents a summary of bicycle thefts reported since 2013.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 56
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 2 – Reported Bicycle Thefts in Anaheim
Year Number of Thefts Reported 2013 438 2014 339 2015 456 2016 387 In 2016, the City Council approved the State of California - Office of Traffic Safety S.T.E.P. Grant that includes $86,260 to purchase bicycle helmets. The Anaheim Police Department has partnered with the Anaheim Fire Department’s Wear a Helmet Like a Pro campaign, described above, to also distribute helmets at traffic safety presentations. In addition to providing educational and safety resources to Anaheim residents, the Anaheim Police Department enforces the California Vehicle Code, including violations involving bicyclists. Common bicycle related violations and their corresponding fines and violations issued in the City are included in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Bicycle Related Vehicle Code Sections
Vehicle Code Section Description Fine 21208(a) Riding outside of a bicycle lane $197 21650.1 Bicycle riding the wrong way $197 21760(b) Passing a bicycle less than 3 feet away $238
21200.5 Riding a bicycle under the influence of alcohol or drugs $690
21201(d) Safety equipment while riding in the dark $197
21212(a) Helmets required for persons under 18 years of age $197
The Anaheim Police Department and the Anaheim Fire & Rescue respond to collisions involving bicyclists. The Anaheim Police Department has reported the following data for collisions and citations issued, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Collisions and Citations Issued in Anaheim
Year # of Collisions with Bicyclists # Citations Issued 2013 224 85 2014 220 180 2015 181 150 2016 168 123 The City has experienced a trend of a reduced number of collisions involving bicyclists annually in the last four years reported. Citations more than doubled from 2013-2014, indicating an increased level of enforcement of bicycle violations. Additionally, both collisions and citations decreased when Traffic Safety Program was introduced in 2015.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 57
Bicycle Master Plan
Safe Routes to Schools: The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a national and international movement to engage community members to improve the walkability and bike-ability to and from schools for children. SRTS involves parents, teachers, students, local agencies, public health agencies, law enforcement, engineering professionals, and the public to reach a comprehensive and integrated solution for improved street safety. Prior to 2013, State and Federal funding grants were available to implement infrastructure projects to improve routes to schools. After the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, SRTS projects were eligible for grant applications through various sources at the Federal level, and through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) at the State level. A list of projects implemented in the City of Anaheim through these programs is provided in Section 6.3 (Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network). Community engagement for programs like the SRTS Program has also been conducted in Anaheim. In 2015, the Orange County Health Care Agency SRTS Program worked with students at Anaheim High School and Benjamin Franklin Elementary School to conduct walkability audits and collect data on the accessibility and safety of routes to school. As part of the program, the students reviewed their findings to identity areas that could be improved and suggested potential solutions. The students also organized an interactive presentation with the City, giving the students an opportunity to engage directly with representatives from the City’s Public Works Department and Code Enforcement staff and the respective School Boards, to understand the opportunities and constraints for making changes. As a result of this effort, changes were implemented to improve the safety of routes to school as follows:
• Anaheim High School – Student surveys and the Walkability Audit conducted in April 2015 identified a number of observations including the condition of sidewalks, speed of traffic and that it was not always easy to cross streets on the route to school. Students advocated for a crosswalk and stop sign installation at North Citron Street and West Cypress Street to slow traffic and improve safety. The City subsequently conducted a traffic study and installed a crosswalk and stop sign at that intersection.
• Benjamin Franklin Elementary School – Student surveys and the Walkability Audit conducted in November 2015 identified a number of observations including the condition of sidewalks, areas where it was not easy to cross streets and speed of traffic on the route to school. The City subsequently prepared a signage and striping plan and implemented improvements to slow traffic around the school.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 58
Bicycle Master Plan
Changes made surrounding Anaheim High School – Safe Routes to School Anaheim High Report. In addition, in 2016, the Alliance for a Healthy Orange County (AHOC) launched an Active Transportation Leadership Program that was funded through grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the California Endowment. The purpose of this program was to engage students at Anaheim High School on a better understanding of the local, regional, and statewide active transportation policies. A series of workshops were held to educate how students could get involved in their community from the Active Transportation standpoint.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 59
Bicycle Master Plan
3.7 Constraints and Opportunities There are several factors that present both constraints and opportunities that influence the implementation of bicycle facilities in the City, including topography, freeways, the Santa Ana River Trail, condition of the circulation network, funding availability, and competition between street uses (vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and parking).
Topography: The City’s topography presents both constraints and opportunities for bicyclists. The majority of the City west of the Santa Ana River, and east of the SR-57 freeway and north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, is relatively flat, which is ideal for cyclists of all levels. In the Anaheim Hills area south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of the SR-55 freeway, the topography is hilly, which can be a hindrance to commuting and recreational cyclists, but a welcomed challenge for enthusiasts.
Freeways: Anaheim is intersected by several freeways. The limited crossing points and increased traffic at freeway interchanges serve as major constraints. I-5 and SR-57 have several crossings without interchanges that are opportunities to cross the freeways, such as at Santa Ana Street, Broadway, Crescent Avenue, and La Palma Avenue on the I-5, and Cerritos Avenue, Wagner Avenue, South Street, and La Palma Avenue on the SR-57. To the west of the SR-55, there are limited areas to cross the SR-91 freeway without also traversing an interchange on a major arterial. Four opportunities have been identified in coordination with the City of Fullerton, two of which traverse interchanges: Brookhurst Street, Lemon Street, Acacia Avenue, and Sunkist Street. To the east of the SR-55, bikeways not only need to cross the SR-91, but also the Santa Ana River. There are several proposed projects that will help to serve this north/south connection, such as the options to connect the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station with the Santa Ana River Trail (Bike IDs 20, 31, and /or 75), and proposed crossings at Tustin Avenue (Bike IDs 12 and 133A), the Santa Ana River west of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 29), Peralta Canyon Park (Bike ID 178), and at Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 15).
Santa Ana River Trail: The Santa Ana River Trail is a regional asset for recreational and commuter bicyclists in the City, as one can ride the trail from the mountains to the ocean. The trail also directly connects to the ARTIC, which provides intermodal connections to destinations in Anaheim, across the state of California, and beyond. While the trail along the river is an opportunity, accessing the river trail from adjacent neighborhoods and crossing the river are both constraints. There are several proposed projects that will address this issue, such as proposed crossings at Tustin Avenue (Bike IDs 133 and 12), west of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 29), and at Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 15). There are also several jurisdictions that must coordinate on projects along the Santa Ana River Trail, such as the cities of Yorba Linda and Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, Orange County Water District, and the County of Orange. The proposed connection to Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station across the SR-91/SR-55 and Santa Ana River that will serve different types of users (i.e. recreational, commuter to the train, commuter on the bike system) is very complex and costly. The City is pursuing grant funding to implement the most feasible of the options in this area (Bike IDs 20, 31, and /or 75).
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 60
Bicycle Master Plan
Grid Street System in the West/Central Areas: The existing grid system prevalent in central and west Anaheim present opportunities to expand the current bikeway system. Some areas of the city have several bikeway facilities and others have very few. Generally, older sections of the city have less bikeway infrastructure than newer areas. One reason for the lack of facilities in older areas of the city is the narrow curb-to-curb street widths that would require re-engineering to include bike lanes or to provide adequate room for bicycles in a wide curb lane. There are several existing bikeways where a travel lane was removed to provide bicycle facilities on low volume streets, such as on Gilbert Street (Bike ID 72). The Plan does not recommend the removal of travel lanes, but individual corridors can be evaluated for specific scenarios on a case-by-case basis as discussed below in the Vehicle Travel Lanes section. Many streets in these areas have on-street parking, which can be an obstacle to the implementation of bikeways, as discussed in the Vehicle Parking section below. The proposed on-street bikeway network is constrained to the General Plan build-out of the City’s circulation network.
State College Boulevard: Between La Palma Avenue to the north and Ball Road to the south, the grid street system shifts directions at State College Boulevard between the original Anaheim Colony area and the neighborhoods to the east. Therefore, east/west streets are staggered as they cross State College Boulevard, making direct connections on these streets difficult. Proposed east/west connections across State College Boulevard exist at Sycamore Street (Bike IDs 170 and 30), South Street (Bike IDs 160 and 126) and Vermont Avenue (Bike ID 134) and Wagner Avenue (Bike ID 136) via a Class I connection through Boysen Park (Bike ID 4). Segments on Broadway Avenue (Bike ID 47) and Santa Ana Street (Bike ID 159) both end at State College Boulevard because direct east/west connections would require the use of privately owned property. State College Boulevard itself is a heavily utilized north/south vehicle route as an alternative to the SR-57 during heavy congestion. As a High Quality Transit Corridor, extended north/south trips could be encouraged to use transit or use lower volume parallel routes like Sunkist Street (Bike IDs 128 and 130) or East Street (Bike ID 64).
Funding Availability: Limited financial resources to implement the proposed bikeway network is a universal challenge. By adopting the Plan, the City will be eligible to compete for various regional, state, and federal grant funds with which to implement proposed bikeways. While the Plan identifies a priority ranking for the proposed projects, they may be implemented in any order as the parameters for certain grants are usually specific and only apply to a handful of projects. Additionally, while the priority ranking combines several segments into a corridor, any segment within that corridor can be implemented independently of the others. Funding for an entire corridor doesn’t need to be secured in order to implement any part of the corridor.
Street Improvement Projects and Roadway Maintenance: By identifying the proposed bikeway network, especially Class II bike lanes, the City can more readily coordinate the implementation or improvement of bike lanes in conjunction with routine street and/or underground utility maintenance. Improvement of bike lanes includes widening of bike lanes and/or buffered bike lanes. Many of the bikeways that have been implemented in the City since 2004 were done as part of pavement projects, which result in a relatively low implementation cost. Additionally, some bikeways may be implemented or improved as part of private development projects that may require improvements to adjacent streets.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 61
Bicycle Master Plan
Vehicle Travel Lanes: The Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle lanes. However, lane reconfiguration, also referred to as a “road diet”10 may be an option in specific locations in which the street is carrying less volume than for which it was designed. Examples of successful implementation of a “road diet” in the City are on Broadway from East Street to State College Boulevard (Bike ID 47) and on Miller Street between La Palma Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 95). Any project for which a vehicle lane would be removed will be subject to further feasibility studies, traffic impact analysis, public outreach, and environmental review, and are not included in the scope of the Plan. Such a study was done for the road diet that was implemented on Miller Street (Bike ID 95), as discussed on page 27. The width of the median and/or vehicle travel lanes could also be reduced in order to allow for bike lanes within existing right of way. Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to provide the needed space for bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that are wider than those prescribed in City standards. For most streets, City standards allow for the use of 11 foot lanes. Industry standards allow for the use of 10 foot lanes as needed. Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before 10 foot wide travel lanes are installed to create space for bike lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for bike lanes.
Vehicle Parking: There are several areas in the City that have limited on-street parking capacity in relation to surrounding land uses. There are many residential permit parking areas in the City. The removal of on-street parking in favor of bicycle lanes could negatively impact permit parking neighborhoods immediately adjacent to proposed bike lanes. This was a factor in the prioritization process, with segments that required the removal of on-street parking scoring lower than those that do not. Any bikeways that would require the removal of on-street parking would require further outreach to the surrounding community. When developments are not able to accommodate their code required vehicle parking on-site, they may request a variance from the Planning Commission. On December 12, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of a comprehensive municipal code amendment for vehicle parking, which also addresses the provision of bicycle parking, especially for projects that cannot provide the required vehicle parking on-site. The code amendment includes an incentive program that allows developers to provide bicycle parking and other amenities in lieu of a vehicle parking space(s). The parking code amendment is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in March, 2017.
10 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 62
Bicycle Master Plan
Areas for Future Study: The scope of the Plan is limited to updating the existing condition and proposing bikeways that do not require the removal of vehicle travel lanes. Staff has identified areas for future study that focus on specific geographic areas or types of bikeways facilities that may have additional impacts to the Planned Roadway Network in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These areas for future study include The Anaheim Resort and Platinum Triangle, road diets, Class III Bicycle Boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, off-road/unpaved riding and hiking trails, and a comprehensive Active Transportation Plan that includes pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment to reflect the Plan will require amendments to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Platinum Triangle Specific Plan, and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan in order to bring them into consistency with the General Plan, including the development of street typical cross-sections, as required by State law. These amendments will follow the adoption of the Plan. Most areas of the city could benefit from an increase in bikeway mileage, and there are numerous gaps in the existing system. Although there are significant amounts of bicycle facilities in Anaheim, more is needed in underserved areas and where there are obvious gaps in the network. Recommendations in this Plan address bicycle facility gap issues.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 63
Bicycle Master Plan
3.8 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs The Plan was prepared in coordination with several other local and regional bikeways planning efforts. The project team researched other planning documents to determine what bikeways have been planned that will link to Anaheim. Where overlapping plans exist, the most recent documents were used where there were inconsistencies in planned facilities. The Plan was developed in coordination with the following plans and programs:
2004 Bicycle Master Plan The Plan supersedes the 2004 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan. Amendments to the Anaheim General Plan Circulation, Economic Development, Community Design, and Green Elements will be reviewed for approval by City Council concurrent with is review of the Plan, as described in detail in Appendix B.
Green Element The Plan incorporates Goals and Policies of the Green Element of the City’s General Plan to protect and enhance natural and recreational resources. For example, the Plan proposes connections to enhance access to the Santa Ana River Trail as called for in the Green Element. It also utilizes other rights-of-way to create new trails. The Green Element strives to reduce commute trips in single-occupant vehicles. Implementation of the Plan will provide options for more people to commute by bicycle. It will also enhance recreational opportunities will more attractive options for bicycling as well as expand access to parks. Lastly, the Plan will increase the number of trails and access to existing trails. The Plan also proposes General Plan Amendments that reinforce the integration of bicycle facilities into development in the City.
2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan The 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP)11 is a compilation of bikeway projects planned by Orange County Cities and the County of Orange. OCTA plans to update the CBSP beginning in early 2017. Assuming the Plan is adopted by the City Council before OCTA completes the update to the CBSP, bikeways identified in the Plan will be incorporated into the OCTA updated CBSP for Anaheim.
Neighboring Local Jurisdictions Neighboring Local Jurisdictions were researched regarding the status of their bike master plans and routes on connecting streets. In the event a City does not have a specific Bicycle Master Plan, its General Plan Circulation Element will reflect its bikeway network. A city without a Bicycle Master Plan may use the OCTA CBSP to apply for funding for bicycle facilities. Table 5 - Bikeway Connections with Neighboring Jurisdictions summarizes bikeway connections between Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions.
Buena Park – The City of Buena Park does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. Segments connecting to Anaheim were identified as part of the Fourth District Bikeways Strategy12, such as the extension of the Class 1 bike path on the SoCal Edison ROW (Bike ID 23), and connections across Buena Park between Cypress and Anaheim on Orange Avenue (Bike ID 107), Ball Road (Bike ID 41), and the Carbon Creek Channel (Bike ID 6).
11 http://www.octa.net/pdf/bikeways09.pdf 12 http://octa.net/pdf/4thDistrictBikewaysReport.pdf
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 64
Bicycle Master Plan
Cypress – The City of Cypress does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. A Class II bike lane (Bike ID 53) exists on Cerritos Avenue, where the boundary of Anaheim and Cypress is in the center of the street. However, the City of Anaheim maintains both sides of the street. The bike lane continues west into Cypress past the City limit, which is maintained by Cypress.
Fullerton – The City of Fullerton completed its Bicycle Master Plan in 2011, which was adopted as part of its General Plan update. Connections are made on Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 49), Lemon Street (Bike ID 38), Acacia Avenue (Bike ID 33), and Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike IDs 26 and 108). These segments are bicycle connections that are also identified in the Fourth District Bikeways Strategy.
Garden Grove – The City of Garden Grove released their Active Streets Master Plan in June 2016. The cities of Anaheim and Garden Grove have a reciprocal agreement for Anaheim to maintain the bikeway on both sides of Chapman Avenue (Bike ID 56). Connections exist on Ninth Street (Bike ID 98), Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48), Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street (Bike ID 37), and Euclid Street (Bike ID 66). A segment of Orangewood Avenue is within Garden Grove and connects to Bike ID 111B in the west and Bike ID 112 to the east.
Orange – The City of Orange most recently updated their Bicycle Master Plan in 2001. There are several existing and proposed bikeway connections with Anaheim, including all crossings of the Santa Ana River: East-West SoCal Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (Bike ID 14B); Ball Road (Bike ID 44); Lincoln Avenue (Bike ID 91); Glassell Street (Bike ID 73); and the Metrolink Side Trail (Bike ID 20). Street connections include Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 132), Orangewood Avenue (Bike ID 114); Lewis Street (Bike ID 88), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121A), Serrano Avenue (Bike ID 123), and Imperial Highway/Cannon Street (Bike ID 76).
Placentia – The City of Placentia does not have a Bicycle Master Plan, but does have a bikeways path map. The City is in the process of updating their General Plan, which will address the bikeways network. Connections are made on Lakeview Avenue (Bike ID 85), Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike IDs 108, 110, and 155), Blue Gum Street (Bike ID 45), Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 133), Van Buren Street (Bike ID 162), and Richfield Road (Bike ID 116). Several of these segments are shared jurisdiction where the cities coordinate on street maintenance.
Stanton – The City of Stanton does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. Anaheim coordinated with Stanton to complete the Anaheim portion of the SoCal Edison ROW (Bike ID 22). Existing and proposed Class II bike lanes connections to Stanton include: Cerritos Avenue (Bike ID 54); Magnolia Street (Bike ID 93); Dale Street (Bike ID 62); Western Avenue (Bike ID 163); and Knott Avenue (Bike ID 79). Anaheim will also coordinate with Stanton on the implementation of the proposed Class I bike path on the Union Pacific Railroad ROW (Bike ID 32).
Yorba Linda – The City of Yorba Linda does not have a Bicycle Master Plan, but does have a bikeways map. Connections are made on Lakeview Avenue (Bike ID 85), Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 109), Kellogg Drive (Bike ID 78), Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 17), Gypsum Canyon Road (Bike ID 75), and the Santa Ana River Trail (Bike ID 28).
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 65
Bicycle Master Plan
County of Orange – The County of Orange uses the Major Riding and Hiking Trails and Off-Road Paved Bikeways to guide the development of trails and bikeways in the County. The County maintains the Santa Ana River Trail, of which over 10 miles are located in Anaheim. Anaheim regularly coordinates with the County in relation to the Santa Ana Regional Bike Trail, including the proposed project to improve the trail through Yorba Linda to the Riverside County Line13 and with proposed projects connecting to the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station and Anaheim Coves. The City also coordinates with the County regarding bicycle facilities in the unincorporated areas in West Anaheim, such as the recently constructed Class II bikeway on Gilbert Street from the south city limits to Ball Road (Bike ID 72), and sections of the Class II bikeways on Ball Road (Bike ID 42), and Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48C).
Orange County Water District – Anaheim regularly coordinates with the Orange County Water District regarding bikeways that affect their jurisdiction along the Santa Ana River Trail.
Anaheim Coves and North Extension – In an effort to expand the City of Anaheim’s natural, transportation and recreational resources for the community, the City has been working to enter into a partnership with three public agencies that own the land north of Lincoln Avenue for the purpose of extending Anaheim Coves. This project was identified as a key opportunity in the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. The project scope of work includes developing 14 acres of native landscape and constructing a 0.9 miles of a Class I, 10-foot-wide paved bicycle trail by using a porous asphalt paving, constructing a sub-base aggregate and concrete curb at porous asphalt; two-way striping; installing a bike rack; distance markers; benches; trash receptacles; recycle containers; pet waste dispensers; appropriate safety signage; two-cable guardrail at Carbon Canyon Channel; and a drinking fountain at Frontera Street. The project will span from Lincoln Avenue to Frontera Street along the west side of the Santa Ana River. Based on the sense of shared support for the project by the parties, the City has received authorization from the Orange County Water District (OCWD), Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and Southern California Edison (SCE) to move forward with design and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council approved the Anaheim Coves North Extension project at its meeting on February 7, 2017.
Orange County Flood Control District – The City’s General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan and Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan identify the potential use of Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance roads by bicyclists and pedestrians. The multi-use of these maintenance roads has been identified in an effort to expand the City of Anaheim’s transportation and recreational resources. The City of Anaheim and OCFCD plan to enter into an operation and maintenance agreement that identifies existing OCFCD maintenance roads that could be converted into future bikeways and trails and identifies the City’s role in improving and maintaining these facilities. The improvements needed to expand the bike and pedestrian network include bridges, gates, fences, and the resurfacing of the existing OCFCD maintenance roads. In some cases, the improvements are as simple as adding signage and striping, and opening the gates for public use. Many of these segments represent important links between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and libraries.
13 http://ocplanning.net/planning/projects/santa_ana_river_parkway_extension_project
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 66
Bicycle Master Plan
OCTA Bikeways Strategies OCTA Bikeways Strategies14 were commissioned by the Orange County Council of Governments and OCTA to expand upon the 2009 CBSP. The Bikeways Strategies were organized by County supervisorial districts, and areas of Anaheim are located in or adjacent to Districts 3 and 4. The OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy was most recently completed in 2016, and the Plan reflects coordination between the agencies involved in the development of each strategy.
Orange County Loop OC Loop15 is a vision for 66 miles of seamless connections and an opportunity for people to bike, walk, and connect to some of California’s most scenic beaches and inland reaches. About 70% of the OC Loop is existing, and the County of Orange prepared a gap feasibility study to better position cities to pursue grant funding to implement the missing OC Loop segments. Segment H of the OC Loop is located within the City of Anaheim and would connect between the Santa Ana River and Fairlynn Boulevard and the El Cajon Trail in Yorba Linda.
OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan The OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan16 includes the multi-modal projects and programs that are the basis for the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The LRTP provides a visionary blueprint for transportation improvements for Orange County and input into the development of the RTP. The general goals of the LRTP are to assess the performance of the transportation system over a 20+ year horizon, and to identify the projects that best address the needs of the system based on expected population, housing and employment growth, while taking forecast financial assumptions into account at the same time. The LRTP will provide both a financially constrained plan, which takes into account funding limitations, and an unconstrained plan, which contains a vast array of potential improvements should additional funding sources become available. The focus of the LRTP, which looks out to the year 2035, will be on sustainability, specifically addressing the reduction of greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. Sustainability is related to the quality of life in a community -- whether the economic, social and environmental systems that make up the community are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents.
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)17 has the goal of maintaining regional mobility, while committing to reducing emissions from transportation sources to comply with California Senate Bill (SB) 375 and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards from the U.S. Clean Air Act. SB 375 calls for regional plans to meet reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Active Transportation portion of the RTP/SCS represents how the region plans to use active transportation to help meet its transportation challenges over the next 25 years, including longer-trip strategies for commuters and active recreation, integrating active transportation with transit, short-trip strategies for utilitarian trips (shopping, school, local retail),
14 http://octa.net/Bike/Bikeways-Planning/ 15 http://octa.net/Bike/The-OC-Loop/ 16 http://www.octa.net/Projects-and-Programs/Plans-and-Studies/Long-Range-Transportation-Plan/ 17 http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/default.aspx
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 67
Bicycle Master Plan
and safety/encouragement. The bike strategies and facilities in the RTP/SCS are derived in part from the plans that OCTA and local cities submitted.
State Implementation Plan The SCAQMD prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to comply with the California Clean Air Act and SB 375. The California Clean Air Act establishes requirements for local/regional air districts to meet state mandates. This filters through the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB is responsible for compiling district plans to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act. SCAQMD coordinates efforts with SCAG to comply with transportation requirements through the RTP/SCS. The SCAQMD also coordinates compliance with Rule 2202, which was discussed in section 3.6 above.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 68
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 69
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 5 – Bikeway Connections with Neighboring Jurisdictions
Neighboring
Jurisdiction Bike ID Street/Path Name Bikeway
Class Existing Proposed
Buena Park
6 Carbon Creek Channel I X 107 Orange Avenue II X
23 North-South SoCal Edison Right-of-Way w/o Magnolia Street I X
41 Ball Road II X Buena Park and Cypress 53 Cerritos Avenue II X
Fullerton
49 Brookhurst Road II X 38 Lemon Street II X 33 Acacia Avenue II X 26 and 108 Orangethorpe Avenue II X
Garden Grove
111 and 112 Orangewood Avenue II X X 98 Ninth Street II X 48 Brookhurst Street II X
37 Anaheim Boulevard/ Haster Street II X
56 Chapman Avenue II X 66 Euclid Street II X
Orange
123 Serrano Avenue II X 20 Metrolink Side Trail I X 76 Imperial Highway II X 121A Santa Ana Canyon Road II X 132 Tustin Avenue II X 73 Glassell Street II X 91 Lincoln Avenue II X 44 Ball Road II X
14B
East-West Edison right-of-way/ Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue
I X
114 Orangewood Avenue II X 88 Lewis Street II X
Placentia
108 and 110 Orangethorpe Avenue II X 155 Orangethorpe Avenue II X 85 Lakeview Avenue II X 162 Van Buren Street III X 133 Tustin Avenue II X 82 Kraemer Boulevard II X 45 Blue Gum Street II X 116 Richfield Road II X
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 70
Bicycle Master Plan
Neighboring
Jurisdiction Bike ID Street/Path Name Bikeway
Class Existing Proposed
Stanton
54 Cerritos Avenue II X
32 Union Pacific Railroad north of Katella and east of Euclid I X
93 Magnolia Street II X
22 North-South SoCal Edison ROW west of Magnolia Street I X
62 Dale Street II X 163 Western Avenue II X 79 Knott Avenue II X
Yorba Linda
85 Lakeview Avenue II X 78 Kellogg Drive II X 109 Orangethorpe Avenue II X 17 Fairmont Boulevard II X 28 Santa Ana River Trail I X 75 Gypsum Canyon Road II X
County of Orange
27 Santa Ana River Trail I X 72 Gilbert Street II X 42A Ball Road II X 42B Ball Road III X 42C Ball Road II X 42D Ball Road II X 48C Brookhurst Street II X
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 71
Bicycle Master Plan
4. Needs Analysis
4.1 Population and Employment Profile According to the United States Census Bureau’s 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates18, Anaheim’s population was approximately 342,973, with a projected population of 380,000 by 2035. Residential growth will occur primarily in the Platinum Triangle and through infill development throughout the mostly built-out city. Major employment centers in the City include The Anaheim Resort and the Anaheim Canyon. More than 58% of the City’s residents are ages 15-54, and are of prime bicycling age for work commute trips.
4.2 Types of Bicyclists The Plan seeks to address the needs of all current and potential bicyclists and seeks to understand the needs and preferences of all types of bicyclists, which may vary among skill levels and trip types. In addition, the propensity to bicycle varies from person to person, providing insight into potential increases in bicycling rates. Research shows that there are four types of bicyclists,19 as shown in Figure 12 – Four Types of Bicyclists:
Figure 12 – Four Types of Bicyclists
18 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF 19 http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 72
Bicycle Master Plan
Strong and Fearless bicyclists will ride almost anywhere, any time. High traffic volumes and speeds, and lack of bikeway designation do not deter these riders. They are estimated to be less than one percent of the population.
Enthused and Confident bicyclists will ride on most roadways where traffic volumes and speeds are not high. These riders, estimated at 5 to 7 percent of the population, are confident in positioning themselves to share the roadway with motorists.
Interested but Concerned bicyclists will ride if bicycle paths or lanes are provided on low traffic and low speed streets. They are typically not confident cycling alongside motorists. These riders are estimated to comprise 60% of the population, and the primary target group that is likely to bicycle more if encouraged to do so.
“No Way No How” people do not consider cycling part of their transportation or recreation options, and comprise about one-third of the population. The needs of bicyclists also vary among trip purposes. For example, people who bicycle for performance-recreational purposes may prefer long and straight roadways without traffic signals, while bicyclists who ride with children to school may prefer direct roadways with lower vehicular volumes and speeds. This Plan considers these differences and develops a bikeway network to serve all user types, including:
Commuters - Adults who regularly bicycle between home and work
Enthusiasts - Skilled adults who ride for exercise and recreation
Casual/Family/Elderly Riders - Adults who use bicycles for running errands, recreation, tourism, exercise, or as a family activity
Children - Children who bicycle to school and for fun An effective bikeway network accommodates bicyclists of all abilities. Casual bicyclists generally prefer roadways with low traffic volumes and low speeds. They also prefer paths that are physically separated from roadways. Because experienced bicyclists typically ride to destinations or to achieve a goal, they generally choose the most direct route, which may include arterial roadways with or without bike lanes. Bicyclists of all abilities and purposes ride every day in Anaheim. Parents bicycle with their children to school, people bicycle to work, community members bicycle to transit stations, and recreational bicyclists ride through the City on extended bicycle trips. Recent technology, such as electric bicycles, has encouraged less confident bicycle riders to enjoy the benefits of cycling. At times, this has also allowed bicyclists to utilize facilities such as on-street bike lanes that they may not normally feel able to ride in safely and comfortably.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 73
Bicycle Master Plan
4.3 Cyclist Comfort Level
In 2012, the Mineta Transportation Institute developed measures of low-stress connectivity to evaluate and guide bicycle network planning20. Criteria include factors such as number of vehicle travel lanes and vehicle speed. Road segments can be classified into four Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS): LTS 1 is generally suitable for children; LTS 2 represents the comfort level for the “Interested but Concerned” rider type; LTS 3 can be tolerated by the “Enthused and Confident” rider type that prefers to still have dedicated space on the road for cyclists; and LTS 4 can only be tolerated by the “Strong and Fearless” rider type. Table 6 – Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic below shows a generalized summary of methods to determine LTS levels on arterial streets.
Table 6 – Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic
Class I Bike Paths and Class IV Cycle Tracks have the lowest level of traffic stress between intersections, and are generally categorized as LTS 1. Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes can exhibit the full range of traffic stress. Where they have ample width and are positioned on a road whose traffic is slow and simple (a single lane per direction), they can offer cyclists a low-stress riding environment. However, bike lanes can also present a higher stress environment when positioned on roads with heavy traffic or next to parking lanes.
20 http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 74
Bicycle Master Plan
4.4 Public Outreach The City solicited input from the public over the course of the planning process, which began with the City’s Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan that was adopted in 2014. Outreach efforts included: 1. Presentations at regularly scheduled Neighborhood Council District meetings, where details of the Plan were discussed and the public was invited to participate. The planning process was introduced at the Neighborhood Council meetings in January 2014, and followed with more detailed presentations in August 2014. Staff returned to the Neighborhood Councils in January 2016 to present the Plan recommendations at that point in the planning process. Staff returned to the Neighborhood Councils in July 2016, to announce that the Draft Plan was available for public comment from August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016. Additional meetings were held with the Neighborhood Districts in February, 2017. 2. An online survey was completed by 201 respondents in Fall 2014. Findings are detailed in Appendix E - Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results and are summarized as follows: • Over 70% of respondents see bicyclists on Anaheim streets once or more per day
• If safe bicycle routes were in close proximity, respondents would bicycle to complete the following trip types:
o 90% for exercise/health
o 61% for shopping/errands
o 54% for work commutes
o 23% to get to transit
• Over 83% of respondents answered that there are too few bicycle routes in Anaheim, and over 76% shared that this prevents them from bicycling more often
• To be influenced to bicycle more often, respondents prioritized the following:
o More buffered bike lanes (74%)
o More paved off-street (Class I) paths (67%)
o More traditional on-street bike lanes (Class II with 6-inch stripe) (59%)
o More bicycle boulevards (shared roadways designed to slow vehicle traffic and give equal priority to bicyclists) (59%) 3. A Bicycle Master Plan Open House was held Saturday, October 18, 2014, at the Muzeo, to solicit public input on their preferences among the proposed new bicycle lanes and trails. The public preferences are summarized as follows: • Lemon Street bicycle boulevard from Ball Road to La Palma Park
• Broadway buffered bike lanes from Dale Street to Olive Street
• Orange Avenue buffered bike lanes from Carbon Creek Channel to Magnolia Avenue
• Ball Road bicycle path from Lemon Street to Walnut Street
• Carbon Creek Channel bicycle path from Beach Boulevard through Dad Miller Golf Course
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 75
Bicycle Master Plan
4. A fact sheet on the Plan, including the web link to the Plan on the City’s website, was distributed in August 2016 to raise awareness of the Plan and solicit public input during the public review period from August 1 to August 31, 2016. It was available at the four Neighborhood Council Meetings in July 2016, National Night Out on August 2, 2016, at educational programs held by the Traffic Safety Program, at all City facilities and events, and at various back-to-school open houses in local school districts in the month of August 2016. The fact sheet was also emailed to various distribution lists, including OCTA’s. The fact sheet is included as Appendix F – Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet. 5. A workshop was held at the Planning Commission meeting on August 8, 2016, which included the opportunity for public comment. 6. The Plan was adopted through a series of Planning Commission and City Council hearings in early 2017.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 76
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 77
Bicycle Master Plan
5. Bikeway Network Recommendations
5.1 Proposed Bikeways A comprehensive bikeway network improves bicyclists’ level of safety, convenience, and access to key destinations. Planning a bikeway network enables the City to prioritize and seek funding to construct bicycle facilities where they will provide the greatest benefit to bicyclists and the community-at-large. The proposed bikeway network, when completed, will include 180.17 miles of bicycle facilities to increase connectivity within Anaheim and to surrounding communities. The proposed bikeway network has been developed to create a safe and logical network. It is important to note that bicyclists are legally entitled to ride on all city streets, regardless of whether the streets are a part of the designated bikeway network. The scope of the Plan is limited to proposing bikeways that do not require the removal of vehicle travel lanes. Staff has identified areas for future study that focus on specific geographic areas or types of bikeways facilities that may have additional impacts to the Planned Roadway Network in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These areas for future study include The Anaheim Resort and Platinum Triangle, road diets, Class III Bicycle Boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, off-road/unpaved riding and hiking trails, and pedestrian facilities. Table 7 – Proposed Bikeways details all of the proposed bikeways in the Anaheim bikeway network, which are also shown in Figure 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network (West) and Figure 14 – Proposed
Bikeway Network (East).
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 78
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 79
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 7 – Proposed Bikeways
Class I Bike Path Proposed
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
2 Anaheim Coves Trail North Extension Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street 0.94
3 Basin Trail south of La Palma Avenue Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 0.46
4 Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Wagner Avenue 0.25 6 Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City Limit Beach Boulevard 1.30 7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street 0.57 8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue 1.89 165 Carbon Creek Channel Schweitzer Park Lincoln Avenue 0.73
9 Carbon Creek Diversion Channel Kraemer Boulevard Orangethorpe Avenue 1.35
10 Crescent Avenue Bike Bridge Muller Street Chippewa Avenue 0.18 11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 1.62
12 East Tustin Flood Control Path Santa Ana River Trail Anaheim Canyon Metrolink 0.79
13 East-West Edison right-of-way north of Katella Avenue UPRR West of Ninth Street Walnut Street 0.41
14A
East-West Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue
Harbor Boulevard Douglass Road 2.31
14B
East-West Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue
Douglass Road Orange City Limit 0.32
15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana Canyon Road La Palma Avenue 0.54
16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.09
179 Imperial La Palma Connector Santa Ana River Trail Connector w/o Imperial Highway Imperial Highway 0.45
18 Imperial Park Path Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 0.75 19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street east of Brasher Street 4.23 20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue 0.98 21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Avd Margarita Anaheim Hills Road 1.27
23 North-South Edison right-of-way west of Magnolia Street Broadway La Palma Avenue 1.26
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 80
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
24 North-South Union Pacific Railroad- Olive Street Continuation Vermont Avenue E-W Southern California Edison right-of-way south of Cerritos Avenue 1.18
109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Highway 1.66
178 Peralta Canyon Park Overcrossing Pinney Drive Santa Ana River Trail 0.25
29 Santa Ana River Trail Connector west of Imperial Highway Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.28
30 Sycamore Connector west of State College Boulevard Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.13
31 Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Connection Alt 1 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue 0.28
175 Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Connection Alt 2 Orange Sub Santa Ana River Trail 0.17 (Alt. to 31 – Not Counted)
32 Union Pacific Railroad north of Katella and east of Euclid Stanton City Limits Broadway 3.42
Total 30.05
Class II Bike Lane Proposed
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles 33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits .61 35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.56
37 Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street Garden Grove City Limits Cerritos Avenue 1.25
38 Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits north of Freedom Lane 1.10
41 Ball Road Buena Park City Limits Knott Avenue 0.38
42D Ball Road Western Avenue Gaymont Street 0.69 43A Ball Road Brookhurst Street Walnut Street 1.75 43B Ball Road Walnut Street West Place 0.25 44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City Limits 2.31 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.64
46A Broadway Dale Street Southern California Edison Trail 0.23
46B Broadway Southern California Edison Trail Gilbert Street 0.75
46C Broadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 81
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles 49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Limits 1.00
50 Camino Grande/Stagecoach Road Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 1.53
51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Serrano Avenue 0.56
54 Cerritos Avenue West City Limits (east of Magnolia) Walnut Street 2.51
55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Douglass Road 1.65
58 Crescent Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street 0.22
62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City Limits 1.64 63 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.41
171 Dupont Drive (W) Orangewood Avenue Dupont Drive (E) 2.22
64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 2.09
66 Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Ball Road 1.52
67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 1.07 68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Street 0.20
70 Gerda Drive Crescent Elementary School Pinney Drive/Royal Oak Road 0.39
71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek Trail 0.58 74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue Miraloma Avenue 0.67
75 Gypsum Canyon Road Santa Ana Canyon Road Yorba Linda City Limit 0.16
77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.38 79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.93 82 Kraemer Boulevard Frontera Street Orangethorpe Avenue 1.37
81 La Palma Avenue Buena Park City Limits Acacia Street 4.63
167 La Palma Avenue State College Boulevard Blue Gum Street 1.18
83 Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana Canyon Road Riverdale Avenue 0.25
85A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.50
85B Lakeview Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue Yorba Linda City Limit 0.26
87A Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 87B Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.52 88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.25
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 82
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
89A Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue Southern California Edison Trail 1.74
89B Lincoln Avenue Southern California Edison Trail Euclid Street 2.26
90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Wilshire Avenue 0.16 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 2.49 94 Manchester Avenue Santa Ana Street Lincoln Avenue 0.44 96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Circle 1.31 99 Ninth Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Avenue 1.56 101 North Street West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.45 103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street 0.22 105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Running Springs Drive 0.21
107A Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits Carbon Creek Trail 0.97
107B Orange Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue 1.41
26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 0.75
108 Orangethorpe Avenue State College Boulevard Placentia Avenue 0.36
110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer Boulevard Miller Street 0.63 112 Orangewood Avenue West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.51
114 Orangewood Avenue Mountain View Avenue Dupont Drive (W) 1.03
115 Pinney Drive Santa Ana Canyon Road Gerda Drive 0.06
116 Richfield Road Basin Trail south of La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.22
118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Frontera Street 0.40 123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.10 125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Weir Canyon Road 1.45
126 South Street State College Boulevard Peregrine Street 0.50
130 Sunkist Street South Street Miraloma Avenue 1.01 131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Avenue 0.91 172 Towne Centre Place Dupont Drive (E) Rampart Street 0.23
133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Miraloma Avenue 1.18
134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Boysen Park Trail 1.65
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 83
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
136 Wagner Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street 0.50
138A Walnut Street Katella Avenue Ball Road 1.02 138B Walnut Street Ball Road Santa Ana Street 0.65 140 West Street Santa Ana Street North Street 0.94 141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits 0.76
Total 71.13
Class III Bike Routes Proposed
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles 57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street 1.00
145B Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRR Trail 0.25
147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.49 148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76 149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Santa Ana River Trail 0.13 86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.56 150 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.53 151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42 152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street 0.23 106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 1.09 154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street 1.98
158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Way Euclid Street Anaheim Boulevard 1.26
122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63 159 Santa Ana Street East Street State College Boulevard 0.72 160 South Street Indiana Street State College Boulevard 1.97 161 South Street Rio Vista Street Anaheim Coves Trail 0.28 170 Sycamore Street West Street Sycamore Connector 2.22 162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limit north of Miraloma Avenue 0.42
135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 0.15 173 West Street North Street La Palma Avenue 0.42 143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street 0.48
Total 19.13
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 84
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 85
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network (West)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 86
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 87
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 14 – Proposed Bikeway Network (East)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 88
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 89
Bicycle Master Plan
5.2 Proposed Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities The City will continue to promote the integration of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities into future development of commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, and multi-family residential developments in the City. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, detailed in Appendix B, will help to implement more bicycle parking. The proposed parking code amendment, as discussed in Section 3.7 above, will address bicycle parking in the City’s municipal code.
5.3 Proposed Multi-Modal Connections Convenient connections for bicyclists to continue their trips on public transit include three key elements: bicycle access to transit stops; bicycle parking facilities at multi-modal centers; and accommodation for bicycles on trains and buses. The bikeway network connects to existing transit stops and provides bicycle parking at multi-modal centers such as the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station and the ARTIC. Multi-modal connections were scoring criteria in the priority ranking for the proposed segments of the Plan.
5.4 Proposed Education, Awareness, and Enforcement Programs The City recognizes that in addition to providing safe and inviting bikeways facilities, ongoing education, awareness, and enforcement are critical components of the safety of riders on the City’s bikeway network. In addition to maintaining existing programs with the Anaheim Police Department and Anaheim Fire & Rescue as funding is available, the City will pursue grant funding for additional resources for the Traffic Safety Program and bicycle helmet distribution. Additional opportunities include the creation and distribution of a bicycle user map, pursuing a Safe Routes to Schools program, and coordinating with ATN and employers in the City to increase the number of bicycle commuters.
5.5 Bicycle Signal Detection In-pavement loop detectors are used at signalized intersections to trigger a traffic light when a roadway user approaches the intersection. California law (AB 1581) requires that all new traffic actuated traffic signals respond to the presence of bicycles and motorcyclists. The City of Anaheim currently complies with State guidelines for traffic signal timing and detection. This is accomplished through traffic signal retiming, signal upgrades, and rehabilitation projects. The City is committed to continue to seek funding to ensure bicycle loop detectors are installed at all signalized intersections, particularly during roadway construction. While bicycle detector loops facilitate faster and more convenient bicycle trips, if they aren’t calibrated properly, or stop functioning, they can frustrate cyclists waiting for signals to change, unaware that the loop is not working. The City is responsible for ensuring that all bicycle loops are operable.
5.6 Implementation Toolbox Appendix H – Implementation Toolbox, is a menu of design standards from the current versions of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Additionally, the toolbox includes a selection of non-standard treatments, for reference, from nationally recognized publications by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which have not been adopted into the CA MUTCD or the HDM. These standards and best practices have been implemented by public agencies and municipalities nationwide. This menu of options is intended to assist the City in the selection and design of bicycle facilities, to ensure that the appropriate bicycle facility is placed. The wide range of tools could address issues on specific types of facilities, and would be implemented on a case-by-case basis.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 90
Bicycle Master Plan
6. Implementation and Funding
6.1 Project Prioritization
The proposed bikeway network was prioritized based on key indicators of demand, utility, connectivity, and readiness. Based on the ranking analysis, three tiers of ranked projects have been identified, as shown in Table 8 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 1, Table 9 – Priority Ranking of the
Proposed Network – Tier 2, Table 10 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 3, and Figure 15 -
Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West) and Figure 16 - Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East). The complete scoring analysis is provided in Appendix G - Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores. For purposes of prioritization, individual segments were combined into corridors, shown in Bold, to better capture the intent of closing gaps in the existing network. Individual segments are also scored, and shown in italics.
Demand Criteria focus on population and employment along each segment. The probability of bicycle commuting trips is higher in corridors that have higher population and/or employment densities. Bikeways connecting to employers with more than 250 employees have a higher demand due to Transportation Demand Management programs implemented by these employers. Medium to high density residential areas typically have lower automobile demand and higher bicycle and transit ridership.
Utility Criteria focus on the completeness of the bikeway network. New bikeways that connect to existing facilities tend to attract more ridership as they serve to extend existing facilities and provide more opportunities to areas serviced by existing bikeways. Several bikeways, both existing and proposed, have been identified as Regional Bikeways through a collaborative process with OCTA and the cities within each County Supervisorial District. These intercity bikeways are intended to serve as the backbone of the County’s bikeway network. Facilities that connect to the regional bikeway system are anticipated to benefit from these connections once the regional network is substantially completed. Inter-city connectivity outside of these regional corridors was also considered to account for bicyclists from other cities that may consider using their bikeways due to a connection into Anaheim.
Connectivity Criteria focus on multimodal flexibility and special generators that lie outside typical commuter bicycling patterns. Connectivity to Metrolink, Amtrak, and high quality transit corridors were ranked highly, as bicycles can be used to provide the last mile connection between transit and employment or population centers. High Quality Transit Corridors are those bus routes with a service frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak hours. Connections to elementary, middle, and high schools received additional points, as well as connections to parks, community centers, and libraries.
Readiness Criteria focus on agency coordination and physical barriers to implementation. Bicycle projects may become more complex as more affected agencies are involved with the process. Right of way acquisition is costly relative to the cost to construct bicycle facilities, and can serve as a significant setback to the implementation of bikeways. Removal of on-street parking to provide bicycle facilities may have unintended consequences to degrade the quality of life in the surrounding residential neighborhoods that may be already impacted by spillover parking concerns.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 91
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 8 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 1
Tier 1 Priority Ranking
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
1
6
164
165
7
5
8
Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City
Limits La Palma Avenue 87
2 107
154 Orange Avenue Buena Park City
Limits Euclid Street 87
3 122
159 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street State College
Boulevard 87
4
37
36
35
34
38
Haster Street/ Anaheim
Boulevard/ Lemon Street
Garden Grove
City Limits
Fullerton City
Limits 86
5
81
166
167
La Palma Avenue West Buena Park City
Limits Blue Gum Street 84
6 68
69 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Glassell Street 82
7 32
13 UPRR/Edison w/o Walnut Stanton City
Limits Broadway 81
8
41
42D
43
Ball Road Buena Park City
Limits West Place 79
9 48
49 Brookhurst Street Katella Avenue Fullerton City
Limits 79
10
128
130
96
97
Sunkist/ Miraloma Cerritos Avenue Van Buren Street 79
11
134
4
136
137
Vermont/Wagner Citron Street Rio Vista Street 79
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 92
Bicycle Master Plan
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
12
58
59
10
60
151
101
102
103
Crescent Avenue/ North Street Carbon Creek
Channel Olive Street 77
13 46
47 Broadway Dale Street State College
Boulevard 75
14
160
126
127
161
South Street Indiana Street Anaheim Coves
Trail 75
15
123
124
125
Serrano Avenue Orange City
Limits
Weir Canyon
Road 74
16 132
133A Tustin Avenue Orange City
Limits
Placentia City
Limits 74
17
143
170
30
Sycamore Street/Westmont Drive Loara Street Van Buren Street 73
18 89A & B Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue Euclid Street 72
19 109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Hwy 72
20
88
84
85
Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana
Canyon Road
Yorba Linda City
Limits 72
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 93
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 9 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 2
Tier 2 Priority Ranking
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
21 64
87 East/Lewis Katella Avenue La Palma Avenue 69
22
94
90
144
92
Manchester/Loara Santa Ana Street North Street 69
23
153
106
24 Olive Street Edison Trail s/o
Cerritos La Palma Avenue 69
24
55
63
149
Cerritos/ Douglass/ Katella Anaheim
Boulevard
Santa Ana River
Trail 68
25
147
71
148
72
Gilbert Street South City Limits La Palma Avenue 68
26 22
23 N-S Edison ROW w/o Magnolia Stanton City
Limits La Palma Avenue 67
27 44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City
Limits 66
28 54 Cerritos Avenue West City Limits
(e/o Magnolia) Walnut Street 65
29 40
158 Anaheim Shores/
Romneya/Karcher La Palma Avenue Anaheim
Boulevard 65
30
111
112
113
114
171
172
Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Rampart Street 65
31 140
173 West Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 65
32 26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 64
33 66
65 Euclid Street Orangewood
Avenue Lincoln Avenue 64
34 86
15 Lemon Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 64
35 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 63
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 94
Bicycle Master Plan
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
36
152
145A
145B Crone Avenue/ Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Walnut Street 63
37 82
73 Kraemer/ Glassell Orange City Limits Orangethorpe
Avenue 63
38 33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City
Limits 62
39 138 Walnut Street Katella Avenue Santa Ana Street 62
40 162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City
Limits 60
41
31
12
20
Tustin Metrolink Paths Orange City Limits Tustin Avenue 60
42 62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City
Limits 59
43
67
15
16
17
Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Yorba Linda City
Limits 58
44 104
105 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Running Springs
Drive 57
45 57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 56
46
19
29
179
La Palma Avenue East Blue Gum Street Santa Ana River
Trail 56
47 21
100 Nohl Ranch Pelanconi Park Serrano Avenue 56
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 95
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 10 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 3
Tier 3 Priority Ranking
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
48 76
18 Imperial Hwy Orange City Limits Santa Ana
Canyon Road 52
49 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City
Limits 51
50 1
2 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Frontera Street 49
51 77
78 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda City
Limits 49
52 117
118 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Frontera Street 48
53 163
141 Western Avenue Stanton City
Limits
Buena Park City
Limits 48
54 9 Carbon Creek Diversion Channel Kraemer
Boulevard
Orangethorpe
Avenue 47
55
120
115
178
70
Royal Oak/ Pinney/ Gerda Nohl Ranch Road
Crescent
Elementary
School
46
56 51
131 Canyon Creek/Sunset Ridge Serrano Avenue Serrano Avenue 45
57 108 Orangethorpe Avenue State College
Boulevard Placentia Avenue 44
58 98
99 Ninth Street Garden Grove
City Limits Cerritos Avenue 44
59 13
East-West Edison ROW/Union
Pacific Railroad ROW north of
Katella Avenue
Harbor Boulevard Orange City
Limits 43
60 74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue Miraloma
Avenue 43
61 79
80 Knott Avenue Stanton City
Limits Lincoln Avenue 41
62 11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont
Boulevard Serrano Avenue 40
63 110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer
Boulevard Jefferson Street 34
64 135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 34
65 116 Richfield Road Basin Trail s/o La
Palma Avenue
Placentia City
Limits 33
66 3 Basin Trail s/o La Palma Avenue Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 27
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 96
Bicycle Master Plan
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
67 75 Gypsum Canyon Road Santa Ana Canyon
Road
Yorba Linda City
Limits 26
68 50 Camino Grande/Stagecoach Road Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 24
69 88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood
Avenue 22
Proposed projects may be implemented out of scoring order as opportunities arise, which may include grant availability, new development projects, capital improvement projects, or roadway repaving. The City Public Works Department will regularly review the project list and rankings to evaluate current priorities, needs, and opportunities for implementing the bikeway network in a logical and efficient manner. Due to the unpredictability of funding sources, economic conditions, and community support, some projects, especially those that require right-of-way purchase or coordination with multiple jurisdictions, may take longer to be developed. Additionally, while the priority ranking combines several segments into a corridor, any segment within that corridor can be implemented independently of the others. Funding for an entire corridor doesn’t need to be secured in order to implement any part of the corridor. As projects are implemented, lower ranked projects will move up the list. The project list and individual projects outlined in the Plan are flexible concepts that serve as a guideline. The ranked project list, and perhaps the overall system and segments themselves, may change over time as a result of changing bicycling patterns, land use patterns, implementation constraints and opportunities and coordination with the implementation of other transportation system facilities.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 97
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 15 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 98
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 99
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 16 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 100
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 101
Bicycle Master Plan
6.2 Bicycle Ridership Estimates and Forecasts Current bicycling level and forecasted future bicycle ridership and vehicle trip reduction in Anaheim were estimated using US Census data, along with adjustments for likely Census underestimations. Census data captures only work commute trips and does not include bicycle trips for other purposes, such as school, shopping, or other errands. Of the work commute trips reported, Census data only captures the mode of travel for the longest portion of the trip, and excludes bicycle trips as part of a multi-modal trip. The Plan supplements US Census data with other methodologies for estimating bicycle trips of students and transit riders, which are described in Table 11 - Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction
Estimates. The Plan estimates that the actual current number of daily bicycle commuters in Anaheim is closer to 6,593 riders, making 13,186 daily trips and saving an estimated 9,097 vehicle trips per weekday. This estimate does not include recreation or utilitarian bicycle trips. Additional assumptions according to industry standards were used to estimate future ridership and VMT reductions from the build out of the bikeways network. The 2002 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report, Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (NCHRP
Report 552) 21 presents methodologies and tools to estimate potential value and benefits of bicycle facilities. Bicycle ridership estimates were developed using a cost, demand, and benefit analysis and estimation tool22 derived from and consistent with NCHRP Report 552.People within one mile of a bikeway are more likely to ride a bicycle, with the likelihood of bicycling increasing within one-half mile and one-quarter-mile of bikeways. Estimated ridership for a new facility is derived based on existing and induced demand from the quarter-mile, half-mile and one mile buffers around a facility. To be conservative, the existing population density was used rather than the forecast build out density, and the future forecasts were normalized based on the US Census based existing ridership estimation. As shown in Table 11 - Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates, completion of the proposed Anaheim Bikeway Network could increase the total number of bicycle trips from the current estimate of 13,186 to 41,444, with annual VMT reduction increase from 9,975,331 to 31,350,424.
21 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_552.pdf 22 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikecost/
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 102
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 11 – Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates
Current Statistics
and Estimates Anaheim Methodology Notes
Estimated Ridership of the Existing Bikeway Network Population 342,973 2014 ACS Number of Employed Persons 155,031 2014 ACS
Bicycle-to-Work Mode Share 0.7% 2014 ACS
Number of Bicycle Commuters 1,085 Employed Persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share
Work-at-Home Mode Share 3.2% 2014 ACS
Estimated Work-at-Home Bicycle Commuters 2,480 Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one bicycle trip per day
Existing Transit-to-Work Mode Share 4.4% 2014 ACS
Estimated Transit-Bicycle Commuters 1,705 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle. School Children Grades K-12 66,114 2014 ACS
Estimated School Children Bicycling Mode Share 2.0% National Safe Routes to School Surveys (2003)
Estimated School Bicycle Commuters 1,322 School children multiplied by school children bike mode share
Adjusted Current Estimated Total Number of Daily Bicycle Commuters
6,593 Total of bike-to-work, work at home, transit, and school commuters. Does not include recreation or utilitarian
Adjusted Current Estimated Total Daily Bicycle Trips 13,188 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 103
Bicycle Master Plan
Current Statistics
and Estimates Anaheim Methodology Notes
Estimated VMT Reductions of Current Bicycle Network
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 9,097
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults and 53% for school children. Based on survey results from 10 California cities conducted by Alta between 1990 and 1999, L.A. Countywide Policy Document survey (1995), and National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, 1995. Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 2,374,410 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year) Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 38,220 Assumes average round trip travel length of 7 miles for adults and 1 mile for school children. Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 9,975,331 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)
Projected Ridership and VMT Reductions at Build Out of Bicycle Network Future Estimated Total Daily Bicycle Trips 41,444 NCHRP 552 Methodology using the analysis tool at http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikecost
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 28,591 Assumes same ratio of vehicle trip replacement from existing conditions, assumes same percentage of school trips from existing conditions Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 7,462,284 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 120,117 Assumes average round trip travel length of 7 miles for adults and 1 mile for school children, using same school children percentage of total trips estimated for existing conditions. Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 31,350,424 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 104
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 105
Bicycle Master Plan
6.3 Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network Since 2004, Anaheim has implemented approximately 32 miles of new bikeways. Table 12 – Bikeway
Network Expenditures Since 2004, summarizes these estimated costs.
Table 12 – Bikeway Network Expenditures Since 2004
Class Centerline Miles Cost Per Mile Total Estimated Cost Class I Bike Path (Anaheim Coves) 1.63 $306,748 $500,000
Class I Bike Path (SoCal Edison ROW w/o Magnolia) 1.33 $338,345 $450,000
Class I Bike Path 0.83 $1,957,040 $1,624,343 Class II Bike Lane 27.54 $133,170 $3,667,501 Class III Bike Route 0.59 $25,070 $14,791
Total $6,256,635
Two notable recent projects are 3.79 miles of new Class I bike paths, including the Anaheim Coves Trail, which is 1.6 miles long and cost $550,000, and the SoCal Edison Bike Path between Broadway and Stanton City Limits, which is 1.3 miles long and cost $450,000. The remaining Class I bike paths are estimated to have cost a combined total of $1,624,343. The 27.54 miles of Class II bike lanes 0.59 miles of Class III bike routes have been added as part of road widening or street pavement rehabilitation projects. Since these were part of larger projects, the portion of the overall cost attributed to the bikeway is difficult to isolate, therefore the costs were estimated using national bikeways cost estimates developed for the Federal Highway Administration23.
23 www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 106
Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Anaheim has implemented several projects designed to improve pedestrian and biking routes to schools and throughout the community. Prior to 2013, State and Federal funding grants were available for SRTS infrastructure improvements. Below is a list of projects in Anaheim funded through the SRTS Federal Grant or the SR2S State Grant Programs.
Table 13 – Safe Routes to Schools Grant Awards
After the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, SRTS projects were integrated into the State’s Active Transportation Program (ATP). Federal and State funded SRTS infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects are now funded through this program. The four projects awarded to the City of Anaheim in the first ATP Cycle in 2014 are currently in design or under construction. The project awarded to Anaheim in 2015 will commence design in mid-2017.
Project Year
Awarded Award Amount Description Benefitting
Schools
Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road Traffic Signal Installation Project
2015 $368,100
Installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Winston Road
Magnolia High, Salk Elementary
La Palma Sidewalk Improvement Project 2013 $450,000
Sidewalk gap closure (410 feet) project on the south side of La Palma Avenue between Sunkist Street and SR-57 freeway.
Sunkist Elementary, Sycamore Junior High
Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Drive Traffic Signal System Improvement
2013 $331,200
To signalize the intersection and include pedestrian countdown signals.
Centralia Elementary, Danbrook Elementary
Bike Trail Along Edison Right-Of-Way 2012 $448,560
To build a bicycle trail along Edison Right-of-Way between Broadway and Lola Avenue
Dale Junior High, Maxwell Elementary
Sidewalk Gap Closure on Ball Road 2011 $426,600
To build 1,350 feet of sidewalk on the north side of Ball Road between Magnolia Avenue and 160 feet west of Sherrill Street. Bike lanes will also be installed on Ball Road between Magnolia Avenue and Dale Avenue
Dale Jr High School, Magnolia High School
Sidewalk Gap Closure on La Palma Avenue 2011 $530,000
To build 300 feet of sidewalk on the south side of La Palma Avenue west of East Street
Sycamore Junior High, Thomas Edison Elementary
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 107
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 14 – Active Transportation Program Awards
Project Year
Awarded
Award
Amount Description Benefitting
Schools
West Street and Citron Street Sidewalk Gap Closure 2015 $2,056,000 Multiple sidewalk gap closures on West Street, Citron Street, and Sycamore Street
Mann Elementary, Price Elementary, Westmont Elementary, Anaheim High
South Street Sidewalk Gap Closure 2014 $796,000
Sidewalk gap closure project on the south side of South Street between the Metrolink tracks and East Street
Jefferson Elementary, Olive Elementary
Western Avenue Pedestrian Signal 2014 $400,000
New pedestrian signal at an existing midblock school crosswalk on Western Avenue.
Danbrook Elementary, Orangeview Jr High, Western High
Cerritos Avenue Sidewalk Gap Closure 2014 $1,209,000
Full sidewalk gap closure project on the south side of Cerritos Avenue east of Euclid Street. Partial gap closure on the north side of the street.
Palm Lane Elementary, Ball Jr High, Loara High
Anaheim Coves Trail Northern Extension 2014 $832,000 To extend the Anaheim Coves trail northerly from Lincoln Avenue to Frontera Street
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 108
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 109
Bicycle Master Plan
6.4 Proposed Bikeway Network Cost Estimates Each proposed bikeway in the network will undergo more detailed cost analysis prior to proceeding with the project. Costs can range widely as most Class II or III bike lanes may be implemented as part of larger road rehabilitation projects, but complex projects, such as connections to the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station, can be extremely costly. The same FHA cost estimates are used for the proposed Bikeway Network. The City will continue to seek grant funding in addition to incorporating bikeways installation into larger projects. Table 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network
Estimated Cost summarizes cost estimates for the proposed bikeway network recommended in this plan.
Table 15 – Proposed Bikeway Network Estimated Cost
Class Centerline Miles Cost Per Mile Total Estimated Cost Class I Bike Path 30.05 $1,957,040 $58,809,052 Class II Bike Lane 71.13 $133,170 $9,472,382 Class III Bike Route 19.13 $25,070 $479,589
Total $68,761,023
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 110
Bicycle Master Plan
6.5 Implementation and Funding Opportunities The City of Anaheim’s street network is approximately 640 centerline miles. The Department of Public Works collects pavement condition information such as distress (cracking), rutting, and roughness. Pavement condition is considered with other variables such as traffic volume, type of road, maintenance history, coordination with other capital projects, and allocated funding levels to prioritize street resurfacing projects. The Traffic and Transportation Section works closely with the Design Section and Operations Division to review resurfacing efforts and implements bicycle improvements in conjunction with resurfacing. This close coordination has resulted in the implementation of the majority of Class II and Class III bikeway installations since 2004. The Department of Public Works actively seeks to implement bicycle facilities with any street improvement project that involves the widening and/or upgrade of existing arterial streets. Each year, Anaheim pursues grant opportunities to build out the arterial highways in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, consistent with the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In conjunction with these projects, implementation of or improvements to a bicycle facility in the Bicycle Master Plan is included the project. The adoption of the Plan will allow for a significant increase in the number of arterial streets that are eligible for bikeway improvements. Additionally, any development of private property immediately adjacent to any street on the Bicycle Master Plan is subject to dedicate and improve the street to the ultimate width, including bicycle lanes, consistent with the Anaheim Municipal Code sections on Dedications and Improvements. Potential funding sources for projects, programs, and plans can be found at the federal, state, regional, and local levels, including non-traditional funding sources. More expensive projects may take longer to implement. Most funding sources are highly competitive, with many potential projects competing for a relatively small amount of money. Therefore, it is impossible to determine exactly which projects will be funded by which funding sources. Additionally, programs and opportunities will be implemented and/or change over time. Anaheim actively pursues opportunities to implement and projects as funding is available. Projects may be implemented out of priority order as grants typically are specific in the type of projects that are eligible. Additionally, street improvement projects and pavement maintenance projects will not follow the bicycle project priority list; Anaheim will take advantage of these projects and programs as they occur. Table 14 – Recently Funded Bikeways Project, is an example of a project that was funded by a combination of grant funding, development fees, and other non-grant sources for its design and implementation.
Table 16 – Recently Funded Bikeways Project
Project Year Awarded Award Amount Description
Nohl Ranch Multi-Use Trail (Bike ID 21)
2016 (Funds Available FY 17/18)
$650,000 from Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BCIP)
10-foot wide Class I bikeway and pedestrian trail ranging from 3-10 feet wide in compliance with Caltrans standards.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendices
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan Appendix A Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist
Appendix A Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist
BTA 891.2 Plan Element Location a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan.
Page 101
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers.
Maps - Pages 15, 17 (Existing Land Use) Pages 19, 31 (Proposed Land Use) Description – Pages 11 to 13 c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. Maps - Pages 31, 33, 37, 39, 85, 87 Description – Pages 23 to 42 & Pages 77 to 83 d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers.
Map - Page 47 Description – Pages 43, 44, 45, 89
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
Map – Page 47 & 51 Description – Pages 49, 50
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
Map - Page 47 Description – Pages 43, 44, 45, 89
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists.
Page 53 to 58, 89
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but not limited to, letters of support.
Pages 74 & 75
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
Pages 63 to 67
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation. Pages 77 to 99
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
Pages 105 to 110
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 1 of 22
General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 includes the following:
Existing Bikeways Not in 2004 General Plan – Addition To GP
Class I Bike Path
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
176 Walnut Canyon Reservoir Canyon Rim Canyon Rim 1.74
Total 1.74
Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 – Addition to GP
Class I Bike Path
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles
1 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Lincoln Avenue 1.63
17 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda City Limits 0.14
22** North-South SoCal Edison Right of Way west of Magnolia Avenue
Stanton City Limits Broadway 1.33
28 Santa Ana River Trail Yorba Linda Boulevard Yorba Linda City Limits 0.42
164* Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard Schweitzer Park 0.27
Total 3.79
*Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been implemented
**Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been partially implemented
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 2 of 22
Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 – Addition to GP
Class II Bike Lane
34 Anaheim Boulevard Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.53
36 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.53
40 Anaheim Shores / Romneya Drive La Palma Avenue Euclid Street 0.71
42A** Ball Road Knott Avenue Western Ave 0.5
42C** Ball Road Gaymont Street Brookhurst Street 0.5
47** Broadway East Street State College Boulevard 0.76
48B** Brookhurst Street Lincoln Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.50
48C** Brookhurst Street Ball Road Katella Avenue 1.01
52A* Canyon Rim Road Nohl Ranch Road Fairmont Boulevard 1.17
52B Canyon Rim Road Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 0.97
56 Chapman Avenue Harbor Boulevard Garden Grove City Limits 0.25
59* Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street Muller Street 0.51
60* Crescent Avenue Chippewa Avenue Loara Street 0.58
69** Frontera Street Rio Vista Street Glassell Street 1.01
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 3 of 22
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles
72 Gilbert Street South City Limits Ball Road 1.01
73* Glassell Street Orange City Limits Frontera Street 0.16
80** Knott Avenue Orange Avenue Lincoln Avenue 0.51
84** Lakeview Avenue La Palma Riverdale 0.48
91* Lincoln Avenue Rio Vista Street Orange City Limits 0.49
92 Loara Street Wilshire Street North Street 0.38
95* Miller Street La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 1.00
97** Miraloma Avenue La Loma Circle Van Buren Street 1.91
98B** Ninth Street Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue 0.50
102 North Street Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard 0.34
111A* Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street 0.50
111B Orangewood Avenue Ninth Street East City Limit east of Janette Lane 0.22
117** Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Dutch Avenue 1.11
120* Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 0.47
121B Santa Ana Canyon Road Weir Canyon Road Gypsum Canyon Road 1.98
124** Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Road Canyon Rim Road 1.43
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 4 of 22
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles
127** South Street Sunkist Street Rio Vista Street 0.51
128B** Sunkist Street Wagner Avenue South Street 0.50
132 Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Santa Ana River Trail 0.39
133B* Tustin Avenue Miraloma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.38
137** Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Rio Vista Street 0.51
144* Wilshire Avenue Loara Street Lincoln Avenue 0.47
163** Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.76
166** La Palma Avenue Acacia Street State College Boulevard 0.50
Total 26.04
*Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been implemented
**Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been partially implemented
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 5 of 22
Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 – Addition to GP
Class III Bike Routes
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
42B Ball Road Western Avenue Gaymont Street 0.69
146 Dutch Avenue/Park Vista Avenue Rio Vista Street Frontera Street 0.59
Total 1.28
Total Bikeways Built Since 2004 32.85
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 6 of 22
Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan
Class I Bike Paths
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
2 Anaheim Coves Trail North Extension Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street 0.94
7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street 0.57
8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue 1.89
14B East-West Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue
Douglass Road Orange City Limit 0.32
15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana Canyon Road La Palma Avenue 0.54
21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Avd Margarita Anaheim Hills Road 1.27
31 Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Connection Alt 1 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue 0.28
175 Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Connection Alt 2 Orange Sub Santa Ana River Trail
0.17 (Alternative - Not Counted)
178 Peralta Canyon Park Overcrossing Pinney Drive Santa Ana River Trail 0.25
179 Imperial La Palma Connector
Santa Ana River Trail Connector w/o Imperial Highway
Imperial Highway 0.45
Total 6.51
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 7 of 22
Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan
Class II Bike Lanes
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 0.75
33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits 0.61
35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.56
37 Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street Garden Grove City Limits Cerritos Avenue 1.25
38 Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon Street La Palma Avenue
Fullerton City Limits north of Freedom Lane
1.10
42D Ball Road Western Avenue Gaymont Street 0.69
43B Ball Road Walnut Street West Pl 0.25
44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City Limits 2.31
46A Broadway Dale Street SCE Trail 0.23
46C Broadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85
54 Cerritos Avenue West City Limits (east of Magnolia)
Walnut Street 2.51
62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City Limits 1.64
66 Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Ball Road 1.52
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 8 of 22
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
87B Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.52
88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.25
89B Lincoln Avenue SoCal Edison Trail Euclid Street 2.26
93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 2.49
101 North Street West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.45
103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street 0.22
107B Orange Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue 1.41
112 Orangewood Aveenue West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.51
116 Richfield Road Basin Trail south of La Palma Avenue
Placentia City Limits 0.22
126 South Street State College Boulevard Sunkist Street 0.50
133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Miraloma Avenue 1.18
138A Walnut Street Katella Avenue Ball Road 1.02
Total 29.29
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 9 of 22
Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan
Class III Bike Routes
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
145B Crone Street Nutwood Street UPRR 0.25
147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.49
148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76
150 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.53
151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42
152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street 0.23
153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 1.09
154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street 1.98
158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Way Euclid Street Anaheim Boulevard 1.26
159 Santa Ana Street East Street State College Boulevard 0.72
160 South Street Indiana Street State College Boulevard 1.97
161 South Street Rio Vista Street Anaheim Coves Trail 0.28
Total 10.98
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 10 of 22
Change in Bikeways Classification
Class II Bike Lane Reclassified to Class I Bike Path
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street e/o Brasher Street 4.23
109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Highway 1.66
Total 5.89
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 11 of 22
Change in Bikeways Classification
Class II Bike Lane Reclassified to Class III Bike Route
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57
86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.56
106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57
122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63
135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 0.15
143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street 0.48
145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street 1.00
170 Sycamore Street West Street Sycamore Connector 2.22
173 West Street North Street La Palma Avenue 0.42
Total 7.60
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 12 of 22
Change in Bikeways Classification
Class III Bike Route Changed to Class II Bike Lane
155 Orangethorpe Avenue Miller Street Jefferson Street 0.87
108 Orangethorpe Avenue State College Boulevard Placentia Avenue 0.36
115 Pinney Drive Santa Ana Canyon Road Gerda Drive 0.06
Total 1.29
Deletion from the General Plan
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
N/A Mountain Park Drive Weir Canyon Road Gypsum Canyon Road N/A
N/A Weir Canyon Road Blue Sky Road Mountain Park Drive N/A
N/A Gypsum Canyon Road Mountain Park Drive Santa Ana Canyon Road N/A
N/A Oak Canyon Drive Running Springs Road East end of Street N/A
N/A Old Bridge Path Fairmont Boulevard Old Bridge Road N/A
N/A Orangewood/Santa Ana River Link I-5 Santa Ana River N/A
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 13 of 22
Figures: Replace Figure C-5, Page C-33 of the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan, Figure G-1, Page G-5 of the Green Element of the Anaheim General Plan to reflect the changes referenced in the tables above.
Text: Amendments to the Anaheim General Plan are shown in strikeout for removal and bold for additions.
Circulation Element GOAL 2.2: Provide a safe circulation system. Policies: 1) Promote the principle that streets have multiple uses and users, and protect the safety of all users.
2) Discourage high speed, through traffic on local streets with appropriate traffic calming measures (e.g., traffic enforcement, bulb-outs, lane striping, chokers, etc).
3) Design access onto major arterial streets in an orderly and controlled manner.
4) Promote common driveways and reduce curb cuts along arterial highways to minimize impacts to traffic flows.
5) Minimize disruptions to traffic and pedestrian/bicycle flow.
6) Implement street design features on arterial highways such as the use of medians, bus turnouts, consolidated driveways and on-street parking prohibitions to minimize mid-block traffic congestion.
7) Implement street design features that discourage through traffic intrusion on residential streets.
8) Support freeway improvements that remove through traffic from local and arterial streets.
9) Provide bus turnouts along heavily traveled arterials to minimize traffic conflicts.
10) Provide adequate sight distances for safe vehicular movement on roadways, at intersections and at driveways.
11) Implement arterial grade separations at railroad crossings.
GOAL 3.1: Provide a well-maintained street system. Policies: 1) Maintain the street network in optimal functioning condition.
2) Maintain and rehabilitate all components of the circulation system, including roadways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, Intelligent Transportation systems and traffic signals.
3) Prioritize maintenance and reconstruction projects.
4) Coordinate maintenance or enhancement of transportation facilities with related infrastructure improvements.
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 14 of 22
5) Implement bicycle routes, priority signaling and bicycle amenities whenever roadways are improved.
6) Give additional maintenance priority to streets with bike lanes or bike routes.
GOAL 7.1: Protect and encourage bicycle travel. Policies: 1) Provide safe, direct, and continuous bicycle routes for commuter and recreational cyclists.
2) Incorporate bicycle planning into the traditional transportation and roadway maintenance planning processes.
3) Support and implement bicycle routes that minimize cyclist/motorist conflicts.
4) Support roadway design policies that promote attractive circulation corridors and safe and pleasant traveling experiences for bicyclists.
5) Support OCTA’s program to provide bike racks on transit buses.
6) Implement a bikeway system with linkages to routes in neighboring jurisdictions and regional bicycle routes.
7) Maximize the use of easements and public rights-of-way along flood channels, utility corridors, rail lines and streets for bicycle and pedestrian paths.
8) Connect Downtown with The Platinum Triangle using the Olive Street railroad right-of-way for pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit users.as a “rails to trails” project.
9) Require that new streets or developments contain adequate right of way for bicycle lanes, where appropriate.
10) Where space and appropriate roadway conditions currently exist, continue to install bike routes with priority to segments serving US Census documented existing high bicycle ridership areas.
11) Work with the Caltrans to provide appropriate accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians along Caltrans facilities, as well as applying for funding for state, local and regional non-motorized modal projects.
Goal 12.1: Ensure adequate parking is made available to City residents, visitors, and businesses. Policies: 1) Assess the adequacy of existing or proposed on- and off-street parking as needed, especially in urban and commercial areas, to ensure that an adequate supply is provided.
2) Explore strategies for the management of parking supply, which can include parking fees, metered on-street parking, and staggered work schedules.
3) Develop strategies for the control of parking demand such as improved transit service, amenities for bicyclists, and rideshare vehicles.
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 15 of 22
4) Develop strategies for shared parking opportunities in mixed-use and multiple-use development.
5) Encourage the use of well-designed, aesthetically-enhanced parking structures as an alternative to large, expansive surface parking lots.
6) Encourage businesses to provide bicycle parking facilities such as bike racks and lockers to promote bicycling.
Green Element Goal 3.1: Actively plan for the use of utility easements as recreational trails and open space amenities. Policy: 1) Coordinate with Southern California Edison to pursue the implementation of recreational and open space amenities on utility easements.
Goal 9.1: Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips Policies: 1) Encourage alternative work schedules for public and private sector workers.
2) Encourage development of new commercial and industrial projects that provide on-site amenities that help to lesson vehicle trips such as on-site day care facilities, cafeterias, automated teller machines and bicycle storage facilities.
3) Encourage use of vanpools and carpools by providing priority parking through the project design process.
4) Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the City’s trail and bikeway master plan and by providing convenient links between the trail system and desired destinations.
5) Encourage the development of commercial, office and residential uses in appropriate mixed-use and multiple use settings.
Goal 10.1: Improve the efficiency and ridership of public transit within the City. Policies: 1) Continue to expand the convenience and quality of local transit service.
2) Provide convenient connections and shuttle services from commuter rail stations to employment centers and entertainment venues.
3) Work with public transit providers to ensure that transit stops are safe, comfortable and convenient.
4) Continue multi-faceted efforts to inform the public about transit opportunities, scheduling and benefits.
5) Provide convenient first/last mile bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit stops.
Goal 11.1: Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and transit-oriented development.
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 16 of 22
Policies: 1) Encourage commercial growth and the development of commercial centers in accordance with the Land Use Element.
2) Encourage mixed-use development in accordance with the Land Use Element.
3) Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to lessen vehicle trips.
4) Encourage higher densities and mixed-use development in the vicinity of major rail and transit stops.
5) Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial centers to encourage one-stop shopping.
6) Locate new public facilities with access to mass transit service and other alternative transportation services, including rail, bus, bicycles and pedestrian use.
7) Provide everyday opportunities to connect with nature through the promotion of trails, bicycle routes, and habitat friendly landscaping.
Community Design Element GOAL 3.1: Single-family neighborhoods are attractive, safe and comfortable. Policies: 1) Continue to maintain and improve the visual image and quality of life of single-family neighborhoods.
2) Strengthen the important elements of residential streets that unify and enhance the character of the neighborhood, including parkways, mature street trees, compatible setbacks, and a unified range of architectural detailing.
3) Require new and infill development to be of compatible scale, materials, and massing as existing development.
4) Improve the pedestrian and social atmosphere of the street by orienting new homes towards the street with attractive front porches, highly visible street facades, and compatible setbacks.
5) Enhance and encourage neighborhood or street identity with theme landscaping or trees, entry statements, and enhanced school or community facility identification.
6) Maintain, improve and/or develop parkways with canopy street trees, providing shade, beauty and a unifying identity to residential streets.
7) Encourage well-designed, front yards to provide an effective visual transition from the street to the homes.
8) Where feasible, encourage the actual or visual narrowing of streets through measures such as widened parkways, canopy trees, and sidewalk bulbs at the intersections.
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 17 of 22
9) Site garages back from the street and minimize street frontage devoted to driveways and vehicular access.
10) If desired by the community, provide continuous sidewalks and links to nearby community facilities, retail centers and transit stops for safety and convenience.
11) Encourage a variety of architectural styles, massing, floor plans, facade treatment and elevations to create visual interest.
12) Reduce the impact of monotonous walls, located at the periphery of residential neighborhoods along arterial corridors, through landscaping, varied surface treatment, and use of vertical and/or horizontal design elements.
13) Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from single family neighborhoods to nearby commercial centers, schools, and transit stops.
GOAL 4.1: Multiple-family housing is attractively designed and scaled to complement the neighborhood and provides visual interest through varied architectural detailing. Policies: 1) Reduce the visual impact of large-scale, multiple-family buildings by requiring articulated entry features, such as attractive porches, and detailed facade treatments, which create visual interest and give each unit more personalized design.
2) Discourage visually monotonous, multiple-family residences by incorporating different architectural styles, a variety of rooflines, wall articulation, balconies, window treatments, and varied colors and building materials on all elevations.
3) Require appropriate setbacks and height limits to provide privacy where multiple-family housing is developed adjacent to single-family housing.
4) Reduce the visual impact of parking areas by utilizing interior courtyard garages, parking structures, subterranean lots, or tuck-under, alley-loaded designs.
5) Require minimum lot size criteria in the Zoning Code to encourage professional, responsible, on-site property management.
6) Provide usable common open space amenities. Common open space should be centrally located and contain amenities such as seating, shade and play equipment. Private open space may include courtyards, balconies, patios, terraces and enclosed play areas.
7) Where a multiple-story apartment building abuts single-story development, provide for a gradual transition in height by reducing the height of the building adjacent to the smaller scale use.
8) Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from multiple-family development to nearby commercial centers, schools, and transit stops.
9) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 18 of 22
10) Encourage multi-family housing developers to comply with Residential Voluntary Measure A4.106.9.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code that outlines the provision of long-term bicycle parking for multi-family buildings. GOAL 8.1: Anaheim’s mixed-use areas are attractively designed, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, easily accessible, and contain a proper blend of commercial retail, office and residential uses. Policies: 1) Encourage design flexibility in mixed-use development by allowing both a vertical and/or horizontal mix of uses.
2) In vertical mixed-use, site retail or office uses on the ground floor, with residential and/or office uses above.
3) Encourage architecture that divides individual buildings into a base, middle and top (i.e., second story and higher density residential uses could incorporate different window treatment, architectural detailing, colors, balconies, and bays). For two-story buildings, ground floor retail uses should be distinguished from second story facades, with both containing rich surface articulation. Rooflines should have a finished look with cornices, parapets or other finishing details.
4) Locate commercial/retail uses near the sidewalk to provide high visibility from the street.
5) Design development with the pedestrian in mind by including wide sidewalks, canopy street trees, sitting areas and clearly defined pedestrian routes.
6) With large-scale mixed-use development, orient the tallest portions of the buildings towards the center of the site and ensure that the height of the buildings at the periphery are compatible with adjacent development.
7) Minimize the visual impact of surface parking by providing either parking structures, rear- or side-street parking with effective landscape buffering.
8) Segregate residential parking from commercial and office parking.
9) Locate mixed-use development in areas of high visibility and accessibility, and along streets that balance vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
10) Strategically locate potentially disruptive retail uses such as nightclubs or bars to avoid future conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
11) Provide each residential use with its own private space (such as balconies, patios or terraces) and larger communal spaces such as lobbies, central gardens or courtyards.
12) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
13) Provide appropriate bicycle parking facilities to serve diverse users of mixed-use developments. Bicycle parking should be highly visible and/or near the entrance of the building.
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 19 of 22
GOAL 13.1: Anaheim has a vibrant, distinctive, bicycle and pedestrian-friendly Downtown that respects its historic context and provides civic, shopping, employment, and entertainment opportunities for residents and visitors. Policies: 1) Use the Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines to ensure that new development reflects the diverse architectural heritage, and that the detailing and scale of the area is maintained and/or enhanced.
2) Incorporate historic themes and community symbols into the design of the Downtown area to distinguish it as Anaheim’s historic/civic core.
3) Provide generous bicycle and pedestrian amenities such as bicycle lanes, sharrows or signs to encourage vehicles to share the road with bicyclists, bike racks and lockers, wide sidewalks, ground-level retail uses, parkways, vintage streetlights, sitting areas, and street furniture as key features of Downtown Anaheim.
4) Establish a strong sense of architectural identity and visual continuity through similarities in scale, height, massing, facade organization, signage, material use, colors and roof shapes.
5) Encourage architectural detailing, which includes richly articulated surfaces and varied facade treatment, rather than plain or blank walls.
6) Locate commercial buildings close to the public right-of-way to better define the urban space and create pedestrian interest. Consistent street frontages of buildings are encouraged, but can be relieved with occasional courtyards, patios and setbacks.
7) Develop a sign program for important streets that complements the architecture of individual buildings and also provides a unifying element along the streetscape.
8) Encourage the following types of signs: indirectly lit signs, raised letter signs, wall signs, awnings, and double-faced, projecting signs along pedestrian streets.
9) Discourage the use of the following types of signs: internally illuminated, plastic, flashing signs, billboards, generic trademark signs, and any sign temporarily affixed to ground-floor windows. Roof signs are generally discouraged, although exceptions can be made for historically appropriate designs through established zoning provisions.
10) Where feasible, incorporate either angled or parallel parking on local commercial streets in the Downtown area to provide convenient access to retail uses.
11) Minimize the visual impact of surface parking lots by locating them behind buildings, away from the street, if possible, or through perimeter and interior landscaping and small-scale fencing.
12) Encourage use of parking structures in lieu of surface parking lots. When provided along a pedestrian-oriented street, the structure should be designed to provide ground-level retail and/or office space. On streets where cars must occupy the ground level, a landscaped setback should be used to minimize and soften the visual impact of the structure.
13) Design public plazas and spaces that are both comfortable and convenient. They should be well-defined by surrounding buildings, located near the street for visual contact and
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 20 of 22
convenience, contain abundant seating opportunities, and incorporate amenities such as distinctive focal points, public art, ample shade, and eating and entertainment possibilities.
14) Mark the transition from residential areas of the Colony to the Downtown core with special edge treatment, gateway monumentation and distinctive signage.
Economic Development Element GOAL 6.4: Promote the revitalization of Downtown Anaheim as a pedestrian-oriented and bicycle-friendly civic town center, enhanced with diverse retail, residential and cultural opportunities. Policies: 1) Promote the Anaheim Colony Historic District as a destination for local residents and regional visitors thereby creating a stimulus for economic revitalization.
2) Encourage quality design through implementation of the Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles, and Design Guidelines.
3) Encourage mixed-use development incorporating ground-floor retail and high quality architecture that is consistent with the historic nature of the area.
4) Encourage well-designed, convenient parking structures, distinctive street furniture, and ample bicycle and pedestrian amenities as stimuli to Downtown shopping and commercial activity.
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 21 of 22
General Plan Amendments (West)
Appendix B General Plan Amendments
Page 22 of 22
General Plan Amendments (East)
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Existing Bikeways
Class I Bike Path Existing
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
1 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Lincoln Avenue 1.63
5 Carbon Creek Channel Gilbert Street Crescent Avenue 0.45
164 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard Schweitzer Park 0.27
17 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda City Limits 0.14
22 North-South SoCal Edison right-of-way west of Magnolia Street Stanton City Limits Broadway 1.33
27A Santa Ana River Trail Orange City Limit Yorba Linda Boulevard 5.72
28 Santa Ana River Trail Yorba Linda Boulevard Yorba Linda City Limits 0.42
27C Santa Ana River Trail West Orange City Limit Orange City Limit 0.43
177 Santa Ana River Trail South Santa Ana River Trail Connector at Imperial Highway
Yorba Linda City Limits 2.65
176 Walnut Canyon Reservoir Canyon Rim Road Canyon Rim Road 1.74
Total 14.78
Class II Bike Lane Existing
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
34 Anaheim Boulevard Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.53
36 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.53
39 Anaheim Hills Road Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 0.67
40 Anaheim Shores / Romneya Drive La Palma Avenue Euclid Street 0.71
42A Ball Road Knott Avenue Western Ave 0.5 42C Ball Road Gaymont Brookhurst 1.79
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
47 Broadway East Street State College Boulevard 0.76
48A Brookhurst Street Lincoln Avenue Ball Road 1.02 48B Brookhurst Street Lincoln Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.50 48C Brookhurst Street Ball Road Katella Avenue 1.01 52A Canyon Rim Road Nohl Ranch Road Fairmont Boulevard 1.17 52B Canyon Rim Road Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 0.97
53 Cerritos Avenue (West of Knott Avenue) Buena Park City Limits Stanton City Limits 0.32
56 Chapman Avenue Harbor Boulevard Garden Grove City Limits 0.25
59 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street Muller Street 0.51 60 Crescent Avenue Chippewa Avenue Loara Street 0.58 65 Euclid Street Ball Road Lincoln Avenue 1.01 69 Frontera Street Rio Vista Street Glassell Street 1.01 72 Gilbert Street South City Limits Ball Road 1.01 73 Glassell Street Orange City Limits Frontera Street 0.16 76 Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.67
78 Kellogg Drive Orangethorpe Avenue Yorba Linda City Limit 0.67
80 Knott Avenue Orange Avenue Lincoln Avenue 0.51 84A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Santa Ana River Trail 0.33
84B Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Riverdale Avenue 0.15
91 Lincoln Avenue Rio Vista Street Orange City Limits 0.49 92 Loara Street Wilshire Street North Street 0.38 95 Miller Street La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 1.00 97 Miraloma Avenue La Loma Circle Van Buren Street 1.91
98A Ninth Street Garden Grove City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.12
98B Ninth Street Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue 0.50
102 North Street Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard 0.34 104 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Weir Canyon Road 0.53 111A Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street 0.50
111B Orangewood Avenue Ninth Street East City Limit east of Janette Lane 0.22
113 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Mountain View Avenue 0.66
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
117 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Dutch Avenue 1.11 119 Riverdale Avenue Orange City Limits Lakeview Avenue 1.26
120 Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 0.47
121A Santa Ana Canyon Road Orange City Limits Weir Canyon Road 5.98 121B Santa Ana Canyon Road Weir Canyon Road Gypsum Canyon Road 1.98 124 Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Road Canyon Rim Road 1.43 127 South Street Peregrine Street Rio Vista Street 0.51 128A Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Wagner Avenue 1.03 128B Sunkist Street Wagner Avenue South Street 0.50 132 Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Santa Ana River Trail 0.39 133B Tustin Avenue Miraloma Avenue Placentia City Limit 0.38 137 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Rio Vista Street 0.51
139 Weir Canyon Road Santa Ana Canyon Road Blue Sky Road 1.67
144 Wilshire Avenue Loara Street Lincoln Avenue 0.47 155 Orangethorpe Avenue Miller Street Jefferson Street 0.87 163 Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.76
166 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street State College Boulevard 0.5
Total 43.8
Class III Bike Route Existing
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles 42B Ball Road Western Gaymont 0.69
146 Dutch Avenue/Park Vista Avenue Rio Vista Street Frontera Street 0.59
Total 1.28
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Proposed Bikeways
Class I Bike Path Proposed
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
2 Anaheim Coves Trail North Extension Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street 0.94
3 Basin Trail south of La Palma Avenue Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 0.46
4 Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Wagner Avenue 0.25
6 Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City Limit Beach Boulevard 1.30
7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street 0.57 8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue 1.89 165 Carbon Creek Channel Dale Street Lincoln Avenue 0.73
9 Carbon Creek Diversion Channel Kraemer Boulevard Orangethorpe Avenue 1.35
10 Crescent Avenue Bike Bridge Muller Street Chippewa Avenue 0.18
11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 1.62
12 East Tustin Flood Control Path Santa Ana River Trail Anaheim Canyon Metrolink 0.79
13 East-West Edison right-of-way north of Katella Avenue
UPRR West of Ninth Street Walnut Street 0.41
14A
East-West Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue
Harbor Boulevard Douglass Road 2.31
14B
East-West Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue
Douglass Road Orange City Limit 0.32
15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana Canyon Road La Palma Avenue 0.54
16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.09
179 Imperial La Palma Connector
Santa Ana River Trail Connector w/o Imperial Highway
Imperial Highway 0.45
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
18 Imperial Park Path Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 0.75
19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street east of Brasher Street 4.23 20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue 0.98
21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Avd Margarita Anaheim Hills Road 1.27
23 North-South Edison right-of-way west of Magnolia Street Broadway La Palma Avenue 1.26
24 North-South Union Pacific Railroad- Olive Street Continuation Vermont Avenue
E-W Southern California Edison right-of-way south of Cerritos Avenue
1.18
109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Highway 1.66
178 Peralta Canyon Park Overcrossing Pinney Drive Santa Ana River Trail 0.25
29 Santa Ana River Trail Connector west of Imperial Highway
Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.28
30 Sycamore Connector west of State College Boulevard Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.13
31 Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Connection Alt 1 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue 0.28
175 Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Connection Alt 2 Orange Sub Santa Ana River Trail 0.17 (Alt. to 31 – Not Counted)
32 Union Pacific Railroad north of Katella and east of Euclid Stanton City Limits Broadway 3.42
Total 30.05
Class II Bike Lane Proposed
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles 33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits .61 35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.56
37 Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street Garden Grove City Limits Cerritos Avenue 1.25
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
38 Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits north of Freedom Lane 1.10
41 Ball Road Buena Park City Limits Knott Avenue 0.38
42D Ball Road Western Avenue Gaymont Street 0.69 43A Ball Road Brookhurst Street Walnut Street 1.75 43B Ball Road Walnut Street West Place 0.25 44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City Limits 2.31 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.64
46A Broadway Dale Street Southern California Edison Trail 0.23
46B Broadway Southern California Edison Trail Gilbert Street 0.75
46C Broadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85 49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Limits 1.00
50 Camino Grande/Stagecoach Road Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 1.53
51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Serrano Avenue 0.56
54 Cerritos Avenue West City Limits (east of Magnolia) Walnut Street 2.51
55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Douglass Road 1.65
58 Crescent Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street 0.22
62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City Limits 1.64 63 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.41
171 Dupont Drive (W) Orangewood Avenue Dupont Drive (E) 0.23
64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 2.09
66 Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Ball Road 1.52
67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 1.07
68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Street 0.20
70 Gerda Drive Crescent Elementary School Pinney Drive/Royal Oak Road 0.39
71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek Trail 0.58 74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue Miraloma Avenue 0.67
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
75 Gypsum Canyon Road Santa Ana Canyon Road Yorba Linda City Limit 0.16
77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.38 79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.93
82 Kraemer Boulevard Frontera Street Orangethorpe Avenue 1.37
81 La Palma Avenue Buena Park City Limits Acacia Street 4.63 167 La Palma Avenue State College Boulevard Blue Gum Street 1.18 83 Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana Canyon Road Riverdale Avenue 0.25 85A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.50 85B Lakeview Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue Yorba Linda City Limit 0.26 87A Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 87B Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.52 88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.25
89A Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue Southern California Edison Trail 1.74
89B Lincoln Avenue Southern California Edison Trail Euclid Street 2.26
90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Wilshire Avenue 0.16 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 2.49
94 Manchester Avenue Santa Ana Street Lincoln Avenue 0.44
96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Circle 1.31 99 Ninth Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Avenue 1.56 101 North Street West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.45 103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street 0.22 105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Running Springs Drive 0.21 107A Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits Carbon Creek Trail 0.97 107B Orange Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue 1.41
26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 0.75
108 Orangethorpe Avenue State College Boulevard Placentia Avenue 0.36
110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer Boulevard Miller Street 0.63
112 Orangewood Avenue West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.51
114 Orangewood Avenue Mountain View Avenue Dupont Drive (W) 1.03
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles 115 Pinney Drive Santa Ana Canyon Road Gerda Drive 0.06
116 Richfield Road Basin Trail south of La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.22
118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Frontera Street 0.40 123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.10 125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Weir Canyon Road 1.45 126 South Street State College Boulevard Peregrine Street 0.50 130 Sunkist Street South Street Miraloma Avenue 1.01 131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Avenue 0.91
172 Towne Centre Place Dupont Drive (E) Rampart Street 0.23
133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Miraloma Avenue 1.18 134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Boysen Park Trail 1.65 136 Wagner Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street 0.50 138A Walnut Street Katella Avenue Ball Road 1.02 138B Walnut Street Ball Road Santa Ana Street 0.65 140 West Street Santa Ana Street North Street 0.94 141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits 0.76
Total 71.13
Class III Bike Routes Proposed
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles 57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street 1.00 145B Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRR Trail 0.25 147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.49 148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76
149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Santa Ana River Trail 0.13
86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.56 150 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.53 151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42 152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street 0.23 106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 1.09 154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street 1.98
Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Centerline
Miles
158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Way Euclid Street Anaheim Boulevard 1.26
122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63
159 Santa Ana Street East Street State College Boulevard 0.72
160 South Street Indiana Street State College Boulevard 1.97
161 South Street Rio Vista Street Anaheim Coves Trail 0.28
170 Sycamore Street West Street Sycamore Connector 2.22
162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limit north of Miraloma Avenue
0.42
135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 0.15 173 West Street North Street La Palma Avenue 0.42 143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street 0.48
Total 19.13
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
SURVEY RESULTS
Anaheim Outdoors’
commitment to engaging the
community to define the
vision elicited over 200 survey
responses, as summarized in
the following slides.
HOW OFTEN DO YOU
SEE OTHERS MAKING
TRIPS BY BICYCLE?
WHAT TYPES OF TRIPS
WOULD YOU USE A
BICYCLE FOR IF SAFE
BICYCLE LANES OR
TRAILS WERE IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
YOUR RESIDENCE?
MY NEIGHBORHOOD’S
BICYCLE LANES AND
TRAILS ARE:
HOW OFTEN DO
YOU BICYCLE?
WHAT PREVENTS YOU
FROM BICYCLING MORE?
WOULD THE
FOLLOWING
IMPROVEMENTS
INFLUENCE YOU TO
BIKE MORE OFTEN?
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan Appendix E Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet
Bike
Recent Projects
Anaheim Coves Trail
Ball Road to
Lincoln Avenue
Gilbert Street
Anaheim south
city limits to Ball
Road
West Anaheim
Between Magnolia and Dale
avenues from Stanton city limits
to Broadway Avenue
Get Involved
Aug. 1, 2016
Draft master plan available
for review and comment at
Anaheim.net/bike
Aug. 8, 2016
Planning Commission
workshop, 5 p.m.
Anaheim City Hall
Aug. 31, 2016
Last day for draft plan
comments at
bike@Anaheim.net
Anaheim’s Bicycle Master Plan is the vision for the
city’s bikeways network.
With community input, the plan will guide building of
new bikeways in the next two decades.
The goal? To triple Anaheim’s more than 60 miles of
bikeways with new routes that will connect
neighborhoods, employment centers and
transportation hubs.
Cycling lifts quality of life by lowering emissions,
reducing congestion and promoting health and fun!
Proposed Projects
Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail
Pelanconi Park to
Anaheim Hills Road
Anaheim Canyon
Metrolink Station
to Santa Ana
River Trail
Anaheim Coves
Trail North
Lincoln Avenue to
Frontera Street
Learn More
Anaheim.net/bike
Explore the Map
Anaheim.net/bikemap
Comments
bike@anaheim.net
Anaheim Bikeways
64.5 miles of existing bikeways
119.6 miles of proposed bikeways
Regional bike path
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
For purposes of prioritization, individual segments were combined into corridors, shown in Bold, to better capture the intent of closing gaps in the existing network. Stand-alone segments are shown in italics.
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
Tier 1 Priority Ranking
Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City
Limits
La Palma
Avenue Class I Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 87
6 Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City Limits Beach Boulevard Class I Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 84
164 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard Schweitzer Park Class I Existing 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 68
165 Carbon Creek Channel Schweitzer Park Lincoln Avenue Class I Proposed 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 58
7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street Class I Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 39
5 Carbon Creek Channel Gilbert Street Crescent Avenue Class I Existing 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 46
8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue Class I Proposed 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 2 77
Orange Avenue Buena Park City
Limits Euclid Street Various Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 87
107 Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits Magnolia Avenue Class II Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 87
154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street Class III Proposed 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 73
Santa Ana Street Walnut Street State College
Boulevard Class III Proposed 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 87
122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street Class III Proposed 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 87
159 Santa Ana Street East Street State College Boulevard Class III Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 42
Haster Street/ Anaheim
Boulevard/ Lemon Street
Garden Grove City
Limits
Fullerton City
Limits Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 86
37 Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street Garden Grove City Limits Cerritos Avenue Class II Proposed 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 78
36 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Class II Existing 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 2 55
35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street Class II Proposed 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 71
34 Anaheim Boulevard Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue Class II Existing 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 62
38 Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits n/o Freedom Ln Class II Proposed 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 59
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
La Palma Avenue West Buena Park City
Limits
Blue Gum
Street Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 84
81 La Palma Avenue Buena Park City Limits Acacia Street Class II Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 84
166 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street State College Boulevard Class II Existing 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 53
167 La Palma Avenue State College Boulevard Blue Gum Street Class II Proposed 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 65
Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Glassell
Street Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 82
68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Street Class II Proposed 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 63
69 Frontera Street Rio Vista Street Glassell Street Class II Existing 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 69
UPRR/Edison w/o Walnut Stanton City Limits Broadway Class I Proposed 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 81
32 Union Pacific Railroad north of Katella and east of Euclid Stanton City Limits Broadway Class I Proposed 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 63
13 East-West Edison ROW north of Katella Avenue UPRR West of Ninth Street Walnut Street Class I Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 51
Ball Road Buena Park City
Limits West Pl Class II Ex/Prop 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 79
41 Ball Road Buena Park City Limits Knott Avenue Class II Proposed 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 47
42 Ball Road Knott Avenue Brookhurst St Class II Existing 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 73 43 Ball Road Brookhurst Street West Pl Class II Proposed 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 75
Brookhurst Street Katella Avenue Fullerton City
Limits Class II Ex/Prop 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 79
48 Brookhurst Street Katella Avenue Crescent Avenue Class II Existing 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 80
49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Limits Class II Proposed 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 79
Sunkist/ Miraloma Cerritos Avenue Van Buren
Street Class II Ex/Prop 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 79
128 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue South Street Class II Existing 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 56
130 Sunkist Street South Street Miraloma Avenue Class II Proposed 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 41
96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Cir Class II Proposed 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 58
97 Miraloma Avenue La Loma Cir Van Buren Street Class II Existing 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 56
Vermont/Wagner Citron Street Rio Vista
Street Various Ex/Prop 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 79
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Boysen Park Trail Class II Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 63
4 Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Wagner Avenue Class I Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 38
136 Wagner Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street Class II Proposed 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 49
137 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Rio Vista Street Class II Existing 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 48
Crescent Avenue/ North Street Carbon Creek
Channel Olive Street Various Ex/Prop 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 77
58 Crescent Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 47
59 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street Muller Street Class II Existing 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 52
10 Crescent Avenue Bike Bridge Muller Street Chippewa Avenue Class I Proposed 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 50
60 Crescent Avenue Chippewa Avenue Loara Street Class II Existing 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 62 151 North Streetreet Loara Street West Street Class III Proposed 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 69
101 North Street West Street Harbor Boulevard Class II Proposed 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 46
102 North Street Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard Class II Existing 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 43
103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 42
Broadway Dale Street State College
Boulevard Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 75
46 Broadway Dale Street East Street Class II Proposed 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 75
47 Broadway East Street State College Boulevard Class II Existing 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 33
South Street Indiana Street Anaheim
Coves Trail Various Ex/Prop 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 75
160 South Street Indiana Street State College Boulevard Class III Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 75
126 South Street State College Boulevard Peregrine Street Class II Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 35
127 South Street Peregrine Street Rio Vista Street Class II Existing 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 35
161 South Street Rio Vista Street Anaheim Coves Trail Class III Proposed 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 31
Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Weir Canyon
Road Class II Ex/Prop 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 74
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road Class II Proposed 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 48
124 Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Road Canyon Rim Road Class II Existing 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 54
125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Weir Canyon Road Class II Proposed 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 63
Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Placentia City
Limits Class II Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 74
132 Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Santa Ana River Trail Class II Existing 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 64
133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Placentia City Limits Class II Proposed 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 66
Sycamore Street/Westmont
Drive Loara Street Van Buren
Street Various Proposed 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 73
143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street Class III Proposed 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 59
170 Sycamore Street West Street Sycamore Connector Class III Proposed 0 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 63
30 Sycamore Connector w/o State College Bl Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue Class I Proposed 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 52
89 Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue Euclid Street Class II Proposed 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 72
109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial
Highway Class I Proposed 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 72
Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana Canyon
Road
Yorba Linda
City Limits Class II Ex/Prop 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 72
88 Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana Canyon Road Riverdale Ave Class II Proposed 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 65
84 Lakeview Avenue Riverdale Avenue La Palma Avenue Class II Existing 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 68
85 Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda City Limits Class II Proposed 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 47
Tier 2 Priority Ranking
East/Lewis Katella Avenue La Palma
Avenue Class II Proposed 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 69
64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 69
87 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Ball Road Class II Proposed 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 39
Manchester/Loara Santa Ana Street North Street Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 69
94 Manchester Avenue Santa Ana Street Lincoln Avenue Class II Proposed 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 43
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Wilshire Avenue Class II Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 28
144 Wilshire Avenue Loara Street Lincoln Avenue Class II Existing 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 46
92 Loara Street Wilshire Street North Street Class II Existing 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 71
Olive Street Edison Trail s/o
Cerritos
La Palma
Avenue Various Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 69
153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue Class III Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 67
106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street Class III Proposed 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 61
24 North-South Union Pacific Railroad- Olive Street Continuation Vermont Avenue
E-W SCE ROW south of Cerritos Avenue
Class I Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 59
Cerritos/ Douglass/ Katella Anaheim Boulevard Santa Ana
River Trail Various Proposed 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 68
55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Douglass Road Class II Proposed 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 61
63 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Class II Proposed 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 51
149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Santa Ana River Trail Class III Proposed 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 62
Gilbert Street South City Limits La Palma
Avenue Various Ex/Prop 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 68
147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue Class III Proposed 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 62
71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek Trail Class II Proposed 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 38
148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road Class III Proposed 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 62 72 Gilbert Street South City Limits Ball Road Class II Existing 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 42
N-S Edison ROW w/o Magnolia Stanton City Limits La Palma
Avenue Class I Ex/Prop 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 67
22 North-South SoCal Edison ROW west of Magnolia Street Stanton City Limits Broadway Class I Existing 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 66
23 North-South SoCal Edison ROW west of Magnolia Street Broadway La Palma Avenue Class I Proposed 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 54
44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City
Limits Class II Proposed 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 66
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
54 Cerritos Avenue West City Limits (e/o
Magnolia) Walnut Street Class II Proposed 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 65
Anaheim Shores/
Romneya/Karcher La Palma Avenue Anaheim
Boulevard Various Ex/Prop 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 65
40 Anaheim Shores / Romneya Drive La Palma Avenue Euclid Street Class II Existing 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 58
158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Way Euclid Street Anaheim Boulevard Class III Proposed 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 57
Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Rampart
Street Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 65
111 Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street ECL e/o Janette Lane Class II Existing 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 26
112 Orangewood Avenue West Street Harbor Boulevard Class II Proposed 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 47
113 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Mountain View Avenue Class II Existing 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 55
114 Orangewood Avenue Mountain View Avenue Dupont Drive (W) Class II Proposed 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 47
171 Dupont Drive (W) Orangewood Avenue Dupont Drive (E) Class II Proposed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 24
172 Towne Centre Pl Dupont Drive (E) Rampart Street Class II Proposed 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 22
West Street Santa Ana Street La Palma
Avenue Various Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 65
140 West Street Santa Ana Street North Street Class II Proposed 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 57
173 West Street North Street La Palma Avenue Class III Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 62
26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond
Avenue Class II Proposed 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 64
Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Lincoln
Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 64
66 Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Ball Road Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 56
65 Euclid Street Ball Road Lincoln Avenue Class II Existing 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 47
Lemon Street Ball Road La Palma
Avenue Class III Proposed 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 64
86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue Class III Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 44
15 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Street Class III Proposed 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 60
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma
Avenue Class II Proposed 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 63
Crone Avenue/ Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Walnut Street Class III Proposed 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 63 152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street Class III Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 35 145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street Class III Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 36 145B Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRR Trail Class III Proposed 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 63
Kraemer/ Glassell Orange City Limits Orangethorpe
Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 2 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 63
82 Kraemer Boulevard Frontera Street Orangethorpe Avenue Class II Proposed 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 49
73 Glassell Street Orange City Limits Frontera Street Class II Existing 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 56
33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City
Limits Class II Proposed 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 62
138 Walnut Street Katella Avenue Santa Ana
Street Class II Proposed 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 62
162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City
Limits Class III Existing 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 60
Tustin Metrolink Paths Orange City Limits Tustin
Avenue Class I Proposed 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 60
31 Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Connection Orange Sub Tustin Avenue Class I Proposed 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28
12 East Tustin Flood Control Path Santa Ana River Trail Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Class I Proposed 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 36
20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue Class I Proposed 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 52
62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park
City Limits Class II Proposed 0 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 59
Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Yorba Linda
City Limits Various Ex/Prop 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 58
67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Santa Ana Canyon Road Class II Proposed 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 52
15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana Canyon Road La Palma Avenue Class I Proposed 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 50
16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue Class I Proposed 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 53
17 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda City Limits Class I Existing 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 49
Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Running
Springs Drive Class II Ex/Prop 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 57
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
104 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Weir Canyon Road Class II Existing 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 53
105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Running Springs Drive Class II Proposed 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 47
57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana
Street Class III Proposed 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 56
La Palma Avenue East Blue Gum Street Santa Ana
River Trail Class I Proposed 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 56
19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street e/o Brasher Street Class I Proposed 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 58
29 Santa Ana River Trail Connector w/o Imperial Highway La Palma Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Class I Proposed 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 32
179 Imperial La Palma Connector Santa Ana River Trail Connector w/o Imperial Highway
Imperial Highway Class I Proposed 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 44
Nohl Ranch Avd Margarita Serrano
Avenue Various Proposed 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 2 56
21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Pelanconi Park Anaheim Hills Road Class I Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 40
100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Avenue Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 59
Tier 3 Priority Ranking
Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Santa Ana
Canyon Road Various Ex/Prop 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 52
76 Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road Class II Existing 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 37
18 Imperial Park Path Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road Class I Proposed 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 48
45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City
Limits Class II Proposed 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 51
Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Frontera
Street Class I Ex/Prop 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 49
1 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Lincoln Avenue Class I Existing 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 55
2 Anaheim Coves Trail North Extension Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street Class I Proposed 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 36
Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda
City Limits Various Ex/Prop 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 49
77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue Class II Proposed 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 33
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
78 Kellogg Drive Orangethorpe Avenue Yorba Linda City Limits Class II Existing 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 38
Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Frontera
Street Class II Ex/Prop 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 48
117 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Dutch Avenue Class II Existing 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 42
118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Frontera Street Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 45
Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Buena Park
City Limits Class II Proposed 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 48
163 Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue Class II Existing 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 41
141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits Class II Proposed 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 45
9 Carbon Creek Diversion Channel Kraemer Boulevard Orangethorpe
Avenue Class I Proposed 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 47
Royal Oak/ Pinney/ Gerda Nohl Ranch Road
Crescent
Elementary
School
Various Ex/Prop 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 46
120 Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road Class II Existing 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 44
115 Pinney Drive Santa Ana Canyon Road Gerda Drive Class II Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 41
178 Peralta Canyon Park Overcrossing Gerda Drive Santa Ana River Trail Class I Proposed 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 42
70 Gerda Drive Crescent Elementary School
Pinney Drive/Royal Oak Rd Class II Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 35
Canyon Creek/Sunset Ridge Serrano Avenue Serrano
Avenue Class II Proposed 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 45
51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Serrano Avenue Class II Proposed 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 39
131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Avenue Class II Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 34
108 Orangethorpe Avenue State College
Boulevard
Placentia
Avenue Class II Proposed 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 44
Ninth Street Garden Grove City
Limits
Cerritos
Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 44
98 Ninth Street Garden Grove City Limits Katella Avenue Class II Existing 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 27
99 Ninth Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Class II Proposed 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 27
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100
Bike
ID Street/Path From To Bikeway
Class
Existing
or
Proposed
Employment
Centers
Population
Density
Regional
Bikeway
Connection
Gap
Closure
Inter-City
Connectivity
Multimodal
Connectivity Schools
Parks/
Library/
Rec
Center
Agency
Coordination
Existing
ROW
Impacts
On
Street
Parking
Impact
Score
13
East-West Edison ROW/Union
Pacific Railroad ROW north of
Katella Avenue
Harbor Boulevard Orange City
Limits Class I Proposed 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 43
74 Grove St La Palma Avenue Miraloma
Avenue Class II Proposed 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 43
Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Lincoln
Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 41
79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue Class II Proposed 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 41
80 Knott Avenue Orange Avenue Lincoln Avenue Class II Existing 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 40
11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Boulevard Serrano
Avenue Class I Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 40
110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer Boulevard Jefferson
Street Class II Proposed 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 34
135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway Class III Proposed 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 34
116 Richfield Road Basin Trail s/o La
Palma Avenue
Placentia City
Limits Class II Proposed 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 33
3 Basin Trail s/o La Palma Avenue Richfield Road Lakeview
Avenue Class I Proposed 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 27
75 Gypsum Canyon Road Santa Ana Canyon
Road
Yorba Linda
City Limits Class II Proposed 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 26
50 Camino Grande/Stagecoach Road Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch
Road Class II Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 24
88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood
Avenue Class II Proposed 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 22
Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Criteria Raw Score Weight Total Score Description
Demand
Employment Centers
2 8 16 Connects to employer with >250 employees
1 8 8 Connects to census block with employment density > 0.00014 emp/sf
0 8 0 Connects to census block with employment density < 0.00014 emp/sf
Population Density
2 8 16 Connects to census block with population density > 0.00053 pop/sf
1 8 8 Connects to census block with population density < 0.00053 pop/sf
0 8 0 Does not connect to any census block with residential properties
Utility
Regional Bikeway Connection
2 6 12 Bikeway is part of regional bikeway corridor
1 6 6 Bikeway connects to regional bikeway corridor
0 6 0 Bikeway does not connect to regional bikeway corridor
Gap Closure
2 6 12 Bikeway connects to two or more existing bikeways
1 6 6 Bikeway connects to one existing bikeway
0 6 0 Bikeway does not connect to any existing bikeway
Inter-City Connectivity
2 2 4 Provides direct connection to another city
1 2 2 Bikeway is on a city limit but does not cross the city limit
0 2 0 Bikeway does not connect to another city
Connectivity
Multimodal Connectivity
2 3 6 Bikeway connects to a Metrolink station or a Transit Priority Area (Intersection of two HQTC's)
1 3 3 Bikeway connects with a High Quality Transit Corridor
0 3 0 Bikeway does not connect with a High Quality Transit Corridor
Schools
2 4 8 Bikeway connects to 2 or more Elementary, Middle, or High Schools
1 4 4 Bikeway connects to one Elementary, Middle, or High School
0 4 0 Bikeway does not connect to any Elementary, Middle, or High Schools
Parks/ Library/ Rec Center
2 3 6 Bikeway connects to 2 or more libraries, parks, or community centers
1 3 3 Bikeway connects to one library, park, or community center
0 3 0 Bikeway does not connect to any libraries, parks, or community centers
Readiness
Agency Coordination
2 2 4 Does not require coordination with any agencies for permit and/or approval
1 2 2 Requires coordination with one or two agencies for permit and/or approval
0 2 0 Requires coordination with three or more agencies for permit and/or approval
Existing ROW Impacts
2 4 8 Improvements fit within existing street section
1 4 4 Improvements can fit within the existing right of way, but requires modifications to medians or curbs
0 4 0 Significant ROW and widening required to implement bikeway
On Street Parking Impact
2 4 8 On-street parking unaffected
1 4 4 Minimal in-street parking affected, usually less than 30% of the corridor, and not adjacent to spillover parking impacted areas
0 4 0 Significant on-street parking impacts- requires lane removal or parking removal over most of the bikeway
Draft February 16, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
INTRODUCTION The following guidelines are derived from and consistent with standards within the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HCM)1, the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)2, and existing City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Details3. These guidelines are intended to reference the most recent versions of each of these sources as they are updated over time. Updates to the toolbox will be performed by the Public Works Department and approved by the City Engineer as design guidelines and standards within the HDM and the California MUTCD change over time. A toolbox of strategies for implementing bicycle facilities is provided to illustrate many of the ways that individual bicycle facilities can be designed and implemented. This document is intended to assist the City in the design and implementation of bikeways and facilities within the context of the neighborhood it serves. Bikeways should not be implemented in a “one size fits all” approach. The implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan through this toolbox will ensure that the bicycle network will complement the neighborhoods they serve. The toolbox enables the City to work with the local neighborhoods and districts to determine the most appropriate improvements.
BIKEWAYS CLASSIFICATIONS
Class I – Bike Paths
Class I bike paths allow for two-way, off-street bicycle use. Bike paths can be designed for exclusive bicycle use, and can also be designed as shared-use paths that may be used by pedestrians and other non-motorized users. These facilities should generally be designed as separated facilities away from parallel streets. They are commonly planned along rights-of-way such as waterways, utility corridors, flood control access roads, and railroads which provide the opportunity for long separated bikeways. Bike paths can also include amenities such as lighting, signage, and fencing where appropriate. Bike paths provide critical connections in the city where roadways are absent or are not conducive to bicycle travel. Bike paths should have a minimum of eight feet of pavement, with at least two feet of unpaved shoulders on each side. Signs must have three feet of clearance from the bike path. Paved width of twelve feet is preferred. For shared use paths, a separate path five feet in width should be provided adjacent to the paved bike path, and striping and/or signage should be provided to separate pedestrian from bicycle travel areas. Appropriate design speed, sight distance, superelevation, and clearances shall be incorporated into the design of any Class I bike path. Slopes greater than 4% require more detailed review. Grades should not exceed 5%. Speed bumps shall not be used. Bike path design should take into account vertical requirements, the impacts of maintenance of both the bike path and any utility corridors, and emergency vehicles on shoulders. Lighting should be provided where commuters will likely use the bike path in the evenings. Each project will coordinate with the Anaheim Public Utilities Department to determine lighting requirements.
1 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm 2 http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/ 3 http://www.anaheim.net/285/Standard-Plans-and-Details
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Both American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Caltrans recommend against using most sidewalks for bike paths, due to conflicts with driveways and intersections. Bike paths should only be considered adjacent to roadways that have high vehicle volume and vehicle speed, and those streets should also have uses with potential bicycle demand on that street. Where sidewalks are used as bike paths, they should be properly separated from the roadway, and pedestrian and bicycle uses should be separated. These paths should have carefully designed intersection and driveway crossings. Bike paths closer than five feet from the edge of the shoulder shall include a physical barrier to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the roadway, and would be considered Class IV Cycle Track facilities. Crossings of roadways, other than at intersections, should be carefully engineered to accommodate a safe and visible crossing for users. The design needs to consider the width of the roadway, whether it has a median, the posted speed limit, and the roadway’s average daily and peak-hour traffic volumes. All shared use paths should generally conform to the design recommendation by:
• California MUTCD
• Caltrans Highway Design Manual
• AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Facilities adjacent to rail corridors should also conform with the latest version of these documents:
• “Rails-with-Trails”: Lessons Learned, FHWA, 2002
• SCRRA Rail-with-Trail Design Guidelines
Class II – Bike Lanes Bike lanes are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for exclusive or preferential bicycle travel. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, on-street parking, or edge of pavement. Consideration should be given to proximity and type of on-street parking, as well as prevailing speeds and traffic volumes in the design of bike lanes.
Bike Lane with No On-Street Parking These bike lanes are adjacent to the curb or edge of pavement. Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Consideration should be given to proximity and type of on-street parking, as well as prevailing speeds and traffic volumes in the design of bike lanes. Bike lanes shall be a minimum of five feet wide or three feet wide from the gutter pan if the gutter is greater than two feet wide. A width of six feet is preferred. Bike lanes wider than six feet need extra striping and signage to ensure that motorists do not use the bike lane as a vehicle lane or parking lane. Wider bike lanes should be considered on streets with volumes greater than 45 mph, or on heavily travelled bike routes to allow for bicycles to pass within the bike lane.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Bike Lane Next to On-Street Parallel Parking Where on-street parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed between the parking area and the travel lane and have a minimum width of five feet adjacent to an eight foot parking lane. Parking “T”s should be placed within the parking lane to ensure that autos are parked as close to the curb as possible. Alternatively, a four foot lane with a three foot buffer area is recommended so that bicyclists do not ride in the area where parked automobile doors can open. The buffer area should be clearly striped. For high turnaround or heavily utilized parking areas, the bike lane should be six feet plus the door buffer.
Bike Lane and Diagonal Parking In certain areas with high parking demand such as urban commercial areas, diagonal parking may be used to increase parking supply. Conventional diagonal parking is not compatible or recommended in conjunction with high levels of bicycle traffic. Drivers backing out of conventional diagonal parking have poor visibility of approaching bicyclists. Conventional diagonal parking should not be permitted on any street identified with a bike lane in the Bicycle Master Plan.
Buffered Bike Lane Buffered bike lanes are conventional bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the bike lane from the adjacent vehicle travel lane. Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lane and the travel lane. This treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speed, adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Where bicyclist volumes are high or where bicyclist speed differentials are significant, the desired bicycle travel area width is seven feet. Buffers should be at least two feet wide. If three feet or wider, mark with diagonal or chevron hatching. For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, consider a dotted line for the inside buffer boundary where cars are expected to cross.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013.
Class III – Bike Routes Bike routes have been typically designated as simple signed routes along street corridors, usually local streets and collectors, and sometimes along arterials to fill gaps between bike lanes. With proper route signage, design, and maintenance, bike routes can be effective in guiding bicyclists along routes suited for bicycling. Class III bike routes should be designed in a manner that encourages bicycle usage, convenience, and safety. There are a variety of other improvements that can enhance the safety and attraction of streets for bicyclists. Bike routes can become more useful when coupled with such techniques as signage, wide curb lanes, shared lane markings, and traffic calming measures. Bike routes should not be placed on streets with a speed limit greater than 35 miles per hour, or high hourly traffic volumes. Placement of new bike routes on arterial streets should be reviewed for compatibility with the street and the adjacent land uses before placement to ensure that the bike route is compatible with the neighborhood. There are many features that can be implemented on bike routes, depending on the intended use of the facility. Bike routes can be as simple as signed shared routes, or could have multiple enhancements to convert the street into a Bicycle Boulevard (also called Neighborhood Greenway), or could have a range of improvements somewhere between the two. This section will review potential implementation tools from least impactful to most impactful.
Bike route with Wide Outside Lane This type of facility is implemented on streets that are too narrow to stripe a Class II bike lane. It is an existing implementation of bike routes found in Anaheim. The wide outside lane provides adequate on-street space for the vehicle and bicycle to share the lane without requiring the vehicle to leave its lane to pass the bicyclist. This should only be implemented for lane widths of 14 or 15 feet. This type of facility should not be implemented on high volume or high speed streets.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow) Shared Lane Marking stencils (commonly called “Sharrows”) have been introduced for use in California and may complement signage as an additional treatment for bike routes. The stencil serves a number of purposes, such as reminding bicyclists to ride further from parked cars to avoid collisions with opening car doors, raising motorists’ awareness of bicycles potentially in the travel lane, and showing bicyclists the correct direction of travel. The 11 foot minimum distance from curb shown in the CA MUTCD is based on a seven foot parking stall. Shared lane markings adjacent to an eight foot parking stall may be installed at a minimum of 12feet from centerline to curb. Placing the sharrow between vehicle tire tracks may also be considered as it will increase the life of the markings and the long-term cost of maintenance to the treatment. All new Class III bike routes should have sharrows in addition to bike route signage.
Additional Signage and Pavement Markings Signage and pavement markings are cost-effective yet highly-visible treatments that can improve the riding environment on a bike route. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes.
Wayfinding Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along the bike network, including where multiple routes intersect and at key bicyclist “decision points.” Wayfinding signs displaying destinations and distances can dispel common misperceptions about time and distance while increasing user ease and accessibility to the bicycle network. Wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bike route and should correspondingly use caution. Note that too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of-way and become invisible to regular users.
Warning Signs advising motorists to “Share the Road”, informing motorists that “Bicycles May Use Full Lane”, or notifying motorists about the “Three Foot Rule” for passing bicyclists may also improve bicycling conditions on any street, including a bike route. These signs may be useful near major bicycle trip generators such as schools, parks and other activity centers. Warning signs should also be placed on major streets approaching any bikeway to alert motorists of bicycle crossings. These signs may be placed on all streets as deemed appropriate.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
On-Street Parking Delineation with parking Ts on bike routes will clearly indicate where a vehicle should be parked and can discourage motorists from parking their vehicles too far into the adjacent travel lane. Parking Ts help bicyclists by maintaining a wide enough space to safely share a travel lane with moving vehicles while minimizing the need to swerve farther into the travel lane to maneuver around parked cars and opening doors. In addition to benefiting bicyclists, delineated parking spaces can also promote the efficient use of on-street parking by maximizing the number of spaces in areas where on-street parking is in high demand.
Loop Detector Stencils may be used at signalized intersections with in-pavement detection. The CA MUTCD Bicycle Detector Symbol may be used to indicate where bicyclists should wait to activate a green light
Local Intersections – Curb Bulb-Outs and High-Visibility Crosswalks
Installation of curb bulb-outs and high-visibility crosswalks is appropriate for bike routes near activity centers that may generate large amounts of pedestrian activity such as schools or commercial areas. The bulb-outs should only extend across the parking lane and should not obstruct bicyclists’ path of travel or the travel lane. This treatment may be combined with a stop sign on the cross street if necessary. Bulb-outs also provide a safety benefit for pedestrians as it reduces crossing distance and increases the visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross the street. This is a traffic calming device, and typically requires neighborhood approval. It is a moderate cost measure, and could potentially impact storm water runoff if not designed correctly. Bulb-outs should not be installed at corners where trucks or buses frequently make a right turn. Bulb-outs can decrease on-street parking capacity, but they do significantly increase the line of sight for vehicles at the intersection by pushing parked vehicles away from the intersection.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Bicycle Boulevard
Bicycle boulevards (also known as “Neighborhood Greenways”) are low-volume, low-speed streets modified to enhance bicyclist comfort by using treatments such as signage, pavement markings, traffic calming and/or traffic reduction, and intersection modifications. These treatments allow the through movement of bicyclists while discouraging similar through-trips by non-local motorized traffic.
• Signs and pavement markings are the minimum treatments necessary to designate a street as a bicycle boulevard. • Bicycle boulevards should have a maximum posted speed of 25 mph. Use traffic calming to maintain an 85th percentile speed below 22 mph.
• Implement volume control treatments based on the context of the bicycle boulevard, using engineering judgment. Target motor vehicle volumes range from 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day.
• Intersection crossings should be designed to enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Ewing, Reid and Brown, Steven. (2009). U.S. Traffic Calming
Additional References and Guidelines NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Caltrans- Comprehensive Design Guidelines for Cycle Tracks- under development
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
GAP CLOSURES AND ROADWAY RETROFITS
Lane Narrowing Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to provide the needed space for bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that are wider than those prescribed in City standards. For most streets, City standards allow for the use of 11 foot lanes. Industry standards allow for the use of 10 foot lanes as needed. Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before 10 foot wide travel lanes are installed to create space for bike lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for bike lanes.
Road Widening
If right-of-way is available, or a street is not widened to its ultimate width, road widening serves as an opportunity to complete bikeway segments. Sometimes, this will also involve lane narrowing.
Lane Reconfiguration The removal of a single travel lane, often referred to as a “Road Diet”, will generally provide sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for bike lane retrofit projects. Under these conditions, bike lanes could take the place of one or more vehicle travel lanes. Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations exist. For instance, a four-lane street (with a center line and two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. Prior to implementing this measure, a traffic analysis is needed for each project location to identify overall transportation impacts including analysis of peak hour volumes. Studies from around the country indicate that this type of lane removal may be used on streets with high-end traffic volumes ranging from 22,000 – 30,000 ADT.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
The removal of any travel lane will result in a reduction of available vehicle capacity. Any lane reconfiguration will require its own analysis, and possibly an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan, in order to ensure that the removal of the traffic lane will not significantly impact the surrounding streets.
Parking Removal
Bicycle lanes could replace one or more on-street parking lanes on streets where there is negligible demand for on-street parking and/or the importance of bike lanes outweighs parking needs. For instance, parking may be needed on only one side of a street to accommodate residences and/or businesses. Eliminating or reducing on-street parking also improves sight distance for bicyclists in bike lanes and for motorists on approaching side streets and driveways. Prior to reallocating on-street parking for bike lanes, a parking study should be performed to gauge demand and concerns from local residents and businesses.
Connection Gap Closure – Wide Outside Lane & Signage
As an interim measure, for connection gaps with no on-street parking and without adequate right of way for widening or lane width reductions to provide continuous bike lanes, a wide outside lane may be used with the appropriate signage. If parking is under-utilized, its removal should be considered to provide for dedicated bicycle facilities. The gap area should have “Bike Route” signs and warning signs such as ‘Share the Road’. It should be reiterated that this should only be considered as a temporary interim measure for short term bicycle network gap closures until funding can be secured to provide continuous bike lanes.
Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011. Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013. FHWA. Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes. 2010.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
Bike Lane at Right Turn Only Lane
The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to place the bike lane between the right-turn lane and the rightmost through lane. The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage indicating that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. Existing bike lane width for that street shall be used
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010. FHWA. Interim Approval (IA-14). 2011.
Combined Bike Lane / Turn Lane
The combined bicycle/right turn lane places a standard width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dotted line delineates the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared lane. This treatment includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of proper positioning within the lane. This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate both a standard through bike lane and right turn lane. For a shared turn-lane, the maximum width is 13 feet; narrower is preferable. The bike lane pocket should have a minimum width of four feet. A dotted four inch line and bike lane marking should be used to clarify bicyclist positioning within the combined lane, without excluding cars from the suggested bicycle area. A “Right Turn Only” sign with an “Except Bicycles” plaque may be needed to make it legal for through bicyclists to use a right turn lane. Case studies cited by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center indicate that this treatment works best on streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less). Shared turn-lanes may not be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with long right turn lanes.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
BICYCLE DETECTION
Loop Detectors
Bicycle-activated loop detectors are installed within the roadway to allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in the traffic signal. This allows the bicyclist to stay within the lane of travel without having to maneuver to the side of the road to trigger a push button. Loops that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles should be supplemented with pavement markings to instruct bicyclists how to trip them.
Video Detection Cameras
Video detection systems use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at a location. These systems can be calibrated to detect bicycles. Video camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection.
Additional References and Guidelines
California MUTCD Caltrans Highway Design Manual Caltrans Standard Plans (1999) ES-5B AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Loop Detector Pavement Markings
Locate a Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking where a bicycle can be detected in a shared travel lane by a loop detector or other detection technology. Bicycle Detector Pavement Markings guide bicyclists to position themselves at an intersection to trigger signal actuation. Efforts need to be made to ensure that signal detection devices are capable of detecting a bicycle. Detectors for traffic-actuated signals need to be located in the bicyclist’s expected path, including left-turn lanes and shoulders. Marking the road surface to indicate the optimum location for bicycle detection is helpful to the bicyclist.
Bikeway Signage Several regulatory, warning, and wayfinding sign types are available to implement and supplement bicycle facilities. The following tables highlight signs currently available.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
REGULATORY SIGNAGE (CA-MUTCD)
Description Facility
Type
CA MUTCD
CODE Graphic
STOP signs shall be installed on shared-use paths at points where bicyclists are required to stop.
Bike Path Class I R1-1
YIELD signs shall be installed on shared-use paths at points where bicyclists have an adequate view of conflicting traffic as they approach the sign, and where bicyclists are required to yield the right-of-way to that conflicting traffic.
Bike Path Class I R1-2
Where motor vehicles entering an exclusive right-turn lane must weave across bicycle traffic in bike lanes, the BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES sign may be used to inform both the motorist and the bicyclist of this weaving maneuver.
Bike Lane Class II R4-4
The NO MOTOR VEHICLES sign may be installed at the entrance to a shared-use path. Bike Path Class I R5-3
The Bicycle WRONG WAY sign and RIDE WITH TRAFFIC plaque may be placed facing wrong-way bicycle traffic, such as on the left side of a roadway. This sign and plaque may be mounted back-to-back with other signs to minimize visibility to other traffic.
Bike Lane Class II R5-1b R9-3cP
If the installation of signs is necessary to restrict parking, standing, or stopping in a bike lane.
Bike Lane Class II R7-9 R7-9a
Where pedestrians are prohibited, the No Pedestrians sign may be installed at the entrance to the facility.
Bike Path Class I R9-3
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Description Facility
Type
CA MUTCD
CODE Graphic
The R9-5 sign may be used where the crossing of a street by bicyclists is controlled by pedestrian signal indications. Signal R9-5
The R9-6 sign may be used where a bicyclist is required to cross or share a facility used by pedestrians and is required to yield to the pedestrians.
Signal R9-6
The Shared-Use Path Restriction (R9-7) sign may be installed on facilities that are to be shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. The symbols may be switched as appropriate.
Bike Path Class I R9-7
The Bicycle Signal Actuation sign may be installed at signalized intersections where markings are used to indicate the location where a bicyclist is to be positioned to actuate the signal
Signal R10-22
Where it is not intended for bicyclists to be controlled by pedestrian signal indications, the BICYCLE PUSH BUTTON FOR GREEN LIGHT sign may be used.
Signal R10-26
The Bike Path Exclusion sign may be used to identify a bike path and prohibit motor vehicles and motorized bicycles from entering the bike path. If motorized bicycles are permitted, the “Motorized Bicycles” portion may be replaced with “Motorized Bicycles Permitted”.
Bike Path Class I R44A
The BIKE LANE sign shall be placed at the beginning of each designated bike lane and along each at all major changes in direction.
Bike Lane Class II
R81 R81A R81C
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Guide Signage
Description Facility
Type
CA MUTCD
CODE Graphic
If used, Bike Route Guide signs should be placed at the beginning and end of bike routes and repeated at regular intervals so that bicyclists entering from side streets will have an opportunity to know that they are on a bike route. Similar guide signing should be used for shared roadways with intermediate signs placed for bicyclist guidance. The M1-8 sign may be used on numbered routes.
Bike Route Class III
D11-1 M4-14 M4-6 M4-5 M1-8 M1-8a
If used, Bike Route Guide (D11-1) signs should be provided at decision points along designated bike routes, including supplemental signs to inform bicyclists of bike route direction changes and confirmation signs for route direction, distance, and destination. Option: The M4-14, M4-6, and M4-5 supplemental plaques may be mounted above the appropriate Bike route Guide signs, Bike route signs, or Interstate Bike route signs. Destination (D1-1, D1-1b, D1-2B, D1-3, D1-3b, and D3-1) signs may be mounted below Bike route Guide signs, Bike route signs, or Interstate Bike route signs to furnish additional information, such as directional changes in the route, or intermittent distance and destination information. Guidance: If used, the appropriate arrow (M6-1 through M6-7) sign (see Figure 9B-4) should be placed below the Bike route Guide sign.
Bike Route Class III
M6-1 / M6-2 M6-3 / M6-4 M6-5 / M6-6 M6-7 D1-1 D1-1b (R) D1-1b (L) D1-2b D1-3 D1-3b D3-1
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Description Facility
Type
CA MUTCD
CODE Graphic
The BICYCLE PARKING AREA (D4-3) sign or BICYCLE PARKING (G93C(CA)) sign may be installed where it is desirable to show the direction to a designated bicycle parking area. The arrow may be reversed as appropriate.
Bicycle Parking D4-3 G93C (CA)
Directional sign for bikeway access to bike paths. The wording on the D11-1 and S17 (CA) signs can be changed to reflect a bike path and a specific bike path, respectively.
Bike Path Class I
D11-1 S17 (CA) M6-1
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Warning Signage
Description Facility Type CA MUTCD
CODE Graphic
The Bicycle Warning sign alerts the road user to unexpected entries into the roadway by bicyclists, and other crossing activities that might cause conflicts. These conflicts might be relatively confined, or might occur randomly over a segment of roadway. This sign may use supplemental signs below the sign.
Non Bikeway Facilities W-11-1
Other bicycle warning signs such as SLIPPERY WHEN WET may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent.
All Bikeways W8-10 W8-10p
Other bicycle warning signs such as Hill may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent. All Bikeways W7-5
Other bicycle warning signs such as BIKEWAY NARROWS may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent.
Bike Path Class I W5-4a
Other bicycle warning signs such as NARROW BRIDGE may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent.
All Bikeways W5-2
May be used to warn bike path users of pedestrian activity. Bike Path Class I W11-2
May be used to warn bikeway users of a traffic signal ahead. All Bikeways W3-3
Other bicycle warning signs such as BUMP may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent. All Bikeways W8-1
Other bicycle warning signs such as DIP may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent. All Bikeways W8-2
May warn bike path users of a playground ahead that may be adjacent to the path. Bike Path Class I W15-1
To warn motorists to watch for bicyclists traveling along the highway, the SHARE THE ROAD plaque may be used with W11-1 sign.
Bike Route Class III W16-1
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
Temporary Traffic Control (TTC)
Description Facility Type
CA
MUTCD
CODE
Graphic
The PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE DETOUR (M4-9a) should be used where a pedestrian/bicycle detour route has been established because of the closing of a pedestrian/ bicycle facility to through traffic. Standard: If used, the Pedestrian/Bicycle Detour sign shall have an arrow pointing in the appropriate direction.
Bike Path Class I M4-9a
The BICYCLE DETOUR (M4-9c) may be used where a pedestrian or bicycle detour route (not both) has been established because of the closing of a bicycle facility to through traffic.
Bike Lane Class II; or Bike Route Class III
M4-9c
Several standard signs [W21-5, W21-5a, W21-5b, C24 (CA), C30A (CA), C31A (CA)] may be used to warn bicyclists of changes in conditions regarding the roadway shoulder.
Bike Route Class III or other Shared Roadway
W21-5a C24 (CA)
Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including:
• Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle network
• Helping users identify the best routes to destinations
• Helping to address misperceptions about time and distance
• Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g., “interested but concerned” bicyclists) A community-wide bicycle wayfinding signage plan would identify:
• Sign locations
• Sign type – what information should be included and design features
• Destinations to be highlighted on each sign – key destinations for bicyclists
• May include approximate distance and travel time to each destination Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bike route and should use caution. Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bike routes, including the intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists rather than per vehicle signage standards.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Appendix G Implementation Toolbox
MISCELLANEOUS
Rumble Strips Rumble strips are provided to alert motorists that they are wandering off the travel lanes onto the shoulder. They are most common on long sections of straight freeways in rural settings, but are also used on sections of winding streets where vehicles may cross into the shoulder. Early designs placed bumps across the entire width of the shoulder, which is very uncomfortable for cyclists. A newer rumble strip design is more bicycle-friendly: 12-16 inch grooves are cut to the left of the bike lane line and a right edge line is added at this location. This creates a buffer area between the travel lane and the bike lane.
Drainage Gates Care must be taken to ensure that drainage grates are bicycle-safe. If not, a bicycle wheel may fall into the slots of the grate causing the cyclist to fall. Replacing existing grates or welding thin metal straps across the grate perpendicular to the direction of is required. These should be checked periodically to ensure that the straps remain in place. The most effective way to avoid drainage-grate problems is to eliminate them entirely with the use of inlets in the curb face. If a street-surface grate is required for drainage, care must be taken to ensure that the grate is flush with the road surface. Inlets should be raised after a pavement overlay to within 6 mm (1/4") of the new surface. If this is not possible or practical, the pavement must taper into drainage inlets so they do not cause an abrupt edge at the inlet.
Reflectors & Raised Pavement Markers These can deflect a bicycle wheel, causing the cyclist to lose control. If pavement markers are needed for motorists, they should be installed on the motorist's side of the stripe, and have a beveled front edge. Pavement markers should not be used on shoulder lines or turn lane lines, as cyclists tend to use these. The use of raised pavement markers has been restricted or prohibited by several jurisdictions in recent years, including Washington State. Provisions can be made for their use in certain circumstances, including lane tapers, on uphill edgelines with 50’ separation between installations, and where a specific engineering study concludes that the benefit of the installation to correct a demonstrable problem at a given site.
Sidewalks as Bicycle Facilities The use of sidewalks as bicycle facilities is not encouraged by AASHTO. There are exceptions to this rule: while in residential areas, it is true that sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. Sidewalks can be used for short distances to make connections between off-street shared use paths and other facilities when such routing provides safer and more direct access than other available options. Shared use paths and cycle tracks can be placed next to sidewalks if appropriately designed.
-8- PC2017-***
EXHIBIT "B"
IA
IA k
k
Ho
l
d
e
r
S
t
Kn
o
t
t
A
v
e
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Da
l
e
S
t
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
A
v
e
Gil
b
e
r
t
S
t
Br
o
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
Mu
l
l
e
r
S
t
La Palma Ave
Crescent Ave
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Orange Ave
Ball Rd
Cerritos Ave
Katella Ave
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Nu
t
w
o
o
d
S
t
9th
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Dis
n
e
y
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Le
w
i
s
S
t
Lo
a
r
a
S
t
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
Do
u
g
l
a
s
s
R
d
S H
a
s
t
e
r
S
t
Disney Way
Gene Autry Way
W
e
s
t
S
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
lv
d
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
lv
d
O
li
v
e
S
t
E
a
st
S
tSouth S t
Verm o n t Ave
Sant a Ana S tBroadwayLincolnAve
S y c a m o re S tNorthSt
Ball Rd
Wagner Ave
South St
La Palma Ave
Romneya Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Le
m
o
n
S
t
Ra
y
m
o
n
d
A
v
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
P l a c e n t i a A v e
Su
n
k
i
s
t
S
t
Rio
V
i
s
t
a
S
t
CrowtherAve
Ora n g e t h orpe A v e
Mira lom a Av e
La Pal ma A v e
R
e
d
G
u
m
S
t
K
ra
e
m
e
r
Blv
d
M
ille
r
S
t
TustinAve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
Esperanza R dOrangethorpeAve
La Palma Ave
ImperialHwy
S a n t i a g o B l
M e a t s A v e
Im per i a l H w y
NohlRanch Rd
SantaAnaCanyonRd
FairmontBlvd
C a n y on RimRd S e r r a n o A v e
Weir
C
anyonRd
O a k C anyon Dr
M
e
tr
olin
k
B
l
u
e
G
u
m
St
Cerritos A v e
|ÿ241
|ÿ91|ÿ90
|ÿ55
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
Romneya Dr A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ills
R
d
Existing and ProposedBicycle Facilities
Figure C-5 Page C-33
0 1 20.5 Miles City of Anaheim
General Plan Program
School
City Boundary
Park-and-RideIA
Transit StationkProposed Top PriorityClass II BikewayProposed 2nd PriorityClass II BikewayProposed 3rd PiorityClass II Bikeway
Proposed Top PriorityClass III BikewayProposed 2nd PriorityClass III Bikeway
Proposed 3rd PriorityClass III Bikeway
Existing Class I Bikeway
Exisitng Class II Bikeway
Existing Class III Bikeway
Existing Off Road Trail
Proposed Off Road Trail
Proposed Top PriorityClass I BikewayProposed 2nd PriorityClass I BikewayProposed 3rd PriorityClass I Bikeway
Sphere-of-Influence
Adopted: May 25, 2004Revised: November 23, 2016
Parks/Open Space
Exhibit B - 1
IA
IA k
k
Ho
l
d
e
r
S
t
Kn
o
t
t
A
v
e
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Da
l
e
S
t
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
A
v
e
Gil
b
e
r
t
S
t
Br
o
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
Mu
l
l
e
r
S
t
La Palma Ave
Crescent Ave
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Orange Ave
Ball Rd
Cerritos Ave
Katella Ave
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Nu
t
w
o
o
d
S
t
9th
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Dis
n
e
y
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Le
w
i
s
S
t
Lo
a
r
a
S
t
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
Do
u
g
l
a
s
s
R
d
S H
a
s
t
e
r
S
t
Disney Way
Gene Autry Way
W
e
s
t
S
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
lv
d
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
lv
d
O
li
v
e
S
t
E
a
st
S
tSouth S t
Verm o n t Ave
Sant a Ana S tBroadwayLincolnAve
S y c a m o re S tNorthSt
Ball Rd
Wagner Ave
South St
La Palma Ave
Romneya Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Le
m
o
n
S
t
Ra
y
m
o
n
d
A
v
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
P l a c e n t i a A v e
Su
n
k
i
s
t
S
t
Rio
V
i
s
t
a
S
t
CrowtherAve
Ora n g e t h orpe A v e
Mira lom a Av e
La Pal ma A v e
R
e
d
G
u
m
S
t
K
ra
e
m
e
r
Blv
d
M
ille
r
S
t
TustinAve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
Esperanza R dOrangethorpeAve
La Palma Ave
ImperialHwy
S a n t i a g o B l
M e a t s A v e
Im per i a l H w y
NohlRanch Rd
SantaAnaCanyonRd
FairmontBlvd
C a n y on RimRd S e r r a n o A v e
Weir
C
anyonRd
O a k C anyon Dr
M
e
tr
olin
k
B
l
u
e
G
u
m
St
Cerritos A v e
|ÿ241
|ÿ91|ÿ90
|ÿ55
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
Romneya Dr A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ills
R
d
Existing and ProposedBicycle Facilities
Figure C-5 Page C-33
0 1 20.5 Miles City of Anaheim
General Plan Program
School
City Boundary
Park-and-RideIA
Transit Stationk
Existing
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Off Road Trail
Proposed
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Off Road Trail
Class I Regional Bike Path
Parks/Open Space
Sphere-of-Influence
Exhibit B - 1
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
Ho
l
d
e
r
S
t
Kn
o
t
t
A
v
e
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Da
l
e
S
t
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
A
v
e
Gil
b
e
r
t
S
t
Bro
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
Mu
l
l
e
r
S
t
La Palma Ave
Crescent Ave
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Orange Ave
Ball Rd
Cerritos Ave
Katella Ave
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Nu
t
w
o
o
d
S
t
9th
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Dis
n
e
y
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Le
w
i
s
S
t
Lo
a
r
a
S
t
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
Do
u
g
l
a
s
s
R
d
S H
a
s
t
e
r
S
t
Disney Way
Gene Autry Way
W
e
st
S
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
Blv
d
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
lv
d
O
liv
e
S
t
E
a
s
t
S
tSou t h St
Ve r m ont A v e
S a n t a A n a StBroadwayLincolnAve
Syc amor e StNorthSt
Ball Rd
Wagner Ave
South St
La Palma Ave
Romneya Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Le
m
o
n
S
t
Ra
y
m
o
n
d
A
v
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
P l a c e n t i a A v e
Su
n
k
i
s
t
S
t
Rio
V
i
s
t
a
S
t
CrowtherAve
O r a ng ethor p e Ave
M ir a l o m a Ave
L a P a l m a Av e
R
e
d
G
u
m
S
t
K
r
a
e
m
e
r
B
l
v
d
M
ill
e
r
S
t
TustinAve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
Esperanza R dOrangethorpeAve
La Palma Ave
ImperialHwy
S a n t i a g o B l
M e a t s A v e
Impe r i a l H w y
NohlRanch R d
SantaAnaCanyonRd
FairmontBlvd
C a n y o n RimRd S e r r a n o A v e
W
eirCanyonRd
O a k Canyon Dr
M
e
trolin
k
B
lu
e
G
u
m
St
Cerritos A v e
|ÿ241
|ÿ91|ÿ90
|ÿ55
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
Romneya Dr A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ills
R
d
")!(SP
Green Plan
City of Anaheim
General Plan ProgramFigure G-1 Page G-5
0 1 20.5 Miles
*Residential areas outside half-mile radius of Neighborhood or Community Park or quarter- mile radius of a Mini Park.
Adopted: May 25, 2004Revised: November 23, 2016
Public Parks
Open Space
Golf Course
Public Schools
Water Uses
Groundwater Protection Zone
City Boundary
Sphere-of-Influence
Riding/Hiking, Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail
Park Deficiency Areas*
General Park Location(P
General School Location)S
Cultural Facilities$
Exhibit B - 2
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
Ho
l
d
e
r
S
t
Kn
o
t
t
A
v
e
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Da
l
e
S
t
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
A
v
e
Gil
b
e
r
t
S
t
Bro
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
Mu
l
l
e
r
S
t
La Palma Ave
Crescent Ave
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Orange Ave
Ball Rd
Cerritos Ave
Katella Ave
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Nu
t
w
o
o
d
S
t
9th
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Dis
n
e
y
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Le
w
i
s
S
t
Lo
a
r
a
S
t
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
Do
u
g
l
a
s
s
R
d
S H
a
s
t
e
r
S
t
Disney Way
Gene Autry Way
W
e
st
S
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
Blv
d
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
lv
d
O
liv
e
S
t
E
a
s
t
S
tSou t h St
Ve r m ont A v e
S a n t a A n a StBroadwayLincolnAve
Syc amor e StNorthSt
Ball Rd
Wagner Ave
South St
La Palma Ave
Romneya Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Le
m
o
n
S
t
Ra
y
m
o
n
d
A
v
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Sta
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
P l a c e n t i a A v e
Su
n
k
i
s
t
S
t
Rio
V
i
s
t
a
S
t
CrowtherAve
O r a ng ethor p e Ave
M ir a l o m a Ave
L a P a l m a Av e
R
e
d
G
u
m
S
t
K
r
a
e
m
e
r
B
l
v
d
M
ill
e
r
S
t
TustinAve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
Esperanza R dOrangethorpeAve
La Palma Ave
ImperialHwy
S a n t i a g o B l
M e a t s A v e
Impe r i a l H w y
NohlRanch R d
SantaAnaCanyonRd
FairmontBlvd
C a n y o n RimRd S e r r a n o A v e
W
eirCanyonRd
O a k Canyon Dr
M
e
trolin
k
B
lu
e
G
u
m
St
Cerritos A v e
|ÿ241
|ÿ91|ÿ90
|ÿ55
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
Romneya Dr A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ills
R
d
")!(SP
Green Plan
City of Anaheim
General Plan ProgramFigure G-1 Page G-5
0 1 20.5 Miles
*Residential areas outside half-mile radius of Neighborhood or Community Park or quarter- mile radius of a Mini Park.
Public Parks
Open Space
Golf Course
Public Schools
Water Uses
Groundwater Protection Zone
City Boundary
Sphere-of-Influence
Riding/Hiking, Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail
Park Deficiency Areas*
General Park Location(P
General School Location)S
Cultural Facilities$
Exhibit B - 2
-9- PC2017-***
EXHIBIT "C"
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
N
O
.
3
4
3
F
O
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
2
0
1
7
B
I
CY
C
L
E
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
-
1
-
CE
Q
A
A
c
t
i
o
n
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
No
.
3
3
0
(
E
I
R
3
3
0
)
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
No.
34
6
(
E
I
R
3
4
6
)
1.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
–
Th
e
2
0
1
7
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
(
M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
C
a
s
e
N
o
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
6
5
1)
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
a
C
i
t
y
-
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
An
a
h
e
i
m
’
s
2
0
0
4
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
T
h
e
p
r
oj
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
5
1
3
)
to
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
.
2.
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
–
A
n
y
o
w
n
e
r
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
o
f
r
e
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
.
3.
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
/
T
i
m
i
n
g
–
A
n
y
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
t
i
m
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
,
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
to
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
sa
m
e
o
r
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
r
e
s
u
l
t
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
s
a
me
o
r
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
e
f
f
e
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
ith any
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
o
r
C
i
t
y
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
a
d
eq
u
a
c
y
o
f
a
n
y
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
“
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
en
t
a
l
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
/
t
i
m
i
n
g
”
a
n
d
,
i
f
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
m
a
y
r
e
f
e
r
s
a
i
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
ng
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
A
n
y
c
o
s
t
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n order to
ma
k
e
a
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
en
t
a
l
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
y
/
t
i
m
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
bo
r
n
e
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
.
S
t
a
f
f
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
will be
ch
a
r
g
e
d
o
n
a
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
b
a
s
i
s
a
t
t
h
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
f
e
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
4.
Ti
m
i
n
g
–
T
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
h
e
r
e
a
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
m
o
n
it
o
r
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
I
n
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
t
e
m
s
a
r
e
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
i
t
i
s
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
p
o
i
n
t
w
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
.
O
n
c
e
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
c
tion item has
be
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
,
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
ro
u
t
i
n
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
es and
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
w
i
l
l
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
.
F
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
i
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
i
n
g
i
s
“
t
o
b
e
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
a
p
p
roved
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
s
”
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
c
o
n
s
is
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
p
l
a
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
i
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
z
o
n
ing
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
in
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
5.
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
–
S
h
a
l
l
m
e
a
n
t
h
a
t
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
m
i
t
i
g
a
ti
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
(
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
b
y
a
l
l
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
6.
On
g
o
i
n
g
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
–
Th
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
d
es
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
ba
s
i
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
le
t
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
i
n
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
o
f
e
a
c
h
y
e
a
r
stating
ho
w
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
s
)
ha
s
b
e
e
n
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
.
W
h
e
n
c
o
m
p
li
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
p
e
r
i
o
d of
on
e
y
e
a
r
,
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
e
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
a
t
i
s
fi
e
d
a
n
d
n
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
.
F
o
r
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
to be
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
“
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
D
u
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
”
t
h
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
e
t
t
e
r
w
i
l
l
r
e
vi
e
w
t
h
o
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
o
n
l
y
w
h
i
l
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
.
M
o
n
itoring
wi
l
l
b
e
d
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
c
on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
7.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
–
Fo
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
a
b
u
il
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
a
s
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
i
s
s
u
e
d
f
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
r
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
ng
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
u
t
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
ts required for
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
t
e
n
a
n
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
m
i
n
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
on
s
t
o
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
N
O
.
34
3
F
O
R
2
0
1
7
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
Ti
m
i
n
g
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Completion
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
.
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
E
I
R
5.
2
-
1
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
o
t
e
o
n
a
l
l
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
re
s
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
a
t
th
e
p
r
e
g
r
a
d
e
c
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.
Us
e
l
o
w
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
o
b
i
l
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
b
y
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
tu
n
e
d
.
Us
e
l
o
w
s
u
l
f
u
r
f
u
e
l
f
o
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
o
w
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
p
o
w
e
r
p
o
l
e
s
)
w
h
e
n
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
Co
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
in
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
-
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
s
.
W
h
e
n
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
o
t
h
a
t
l
a
n
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
o
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
e
e
t
s
a
r
e
k
e
p
t
t
o
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
f
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
f
o
r
o
f
f
-
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
p
l
a
n
t
o
m
i
n
i
mi
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
f
l
o
w
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
fr
o
m
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
(
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
pu
b
l
i
c
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
,
u
s
e
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
sa
t
e
l
l
i
t
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
)
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
2
-
6
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
i
n
co
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
u
s
s
t
a
n
d
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
ra
c
k
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
i
n
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
N
O
.
34
3
F
O
R
2
0
1
7
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
Ti
m
i
n
g
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Completion
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
3
-
1
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
a
r
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
.
R
a
r
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
o
a
k
,
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
,
w
a
l
n
u
t
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
,
an
d
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
a
g
e
s
c
r
u
b
.
I
f
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
o
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
,
h
e
a
l
t
h
y
sp
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
.
5.
3
-
2
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
w
il
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
a
n
d
r
e
-
ve
g
e
t
a
t
e
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
l
o
s
s
o
f
s
m
a
l
l
a
nd
/
o
r
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
i
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
3
-
3
I
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
s
t
i
m
e
d
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
(t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
c
h
1
a
n
d
J
u
l
y
1
)
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
s
u
r
v
ey
s
f
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
G
a
m
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
S
u
c
h
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
t
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
On
g
o
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
5.
3
-
4
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
n
o
n
n
a
t
i
v
e
t
r
e
e
s
s
h
al
l
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
n
l
y
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
ne
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
On
g
o
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
5.
3
-
5
A
n
y
c
r
u
s
h
i
n
g
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
gn
a
t
c
a
t
c
h
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
3
-
6
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
a
n
d
/
o
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
a
n
d
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
o
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
pr
i
o
r
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
r
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
a
g
e
s
c
r
u
b
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
ar
e
a
s
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
n
a
t
i
v
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
t
o
b
e
pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
r
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
N
O
.
34
3
F
O
R
2
0
1
7
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
Ti
m
i
n
g
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Completion
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
3
-
7
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
a
n
d
a
l
o
n
g
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
a
r
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
re
f
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
ar
e
a
s
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
3
-
8
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
a
n
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
af
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
o
r
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
it
a
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
G
a
m
e
(
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
16
0
1
-
1
6
0
3
o
f
t
h
e
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
G
a
m
e
C
o
d
e
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
A
r
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
o
f
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
(
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
4
of
t
h
e
C
l
e
a
n
W
a
t
e
r
A
c
t
)
o
r
t
h
a
t
no
s
u
c
h
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
i
n
a
m
a
n
n
e
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
I
f
a
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
4
P
e
r
m
i
t
fr
o
m
t
h
e
A
C
O
E
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
a
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
1
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
,
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
R
e
g
i
o
n
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
4
-
1
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
rt
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
st
u
d
i
e
s
t
o
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
/
a
b
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
f
o
r
ar
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
o
r
i
n
f
e
r
r
e
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
.
O
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
wh
e
r
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
s
u
c
h
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
ng
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
/
o
r
in
s
i
t
u
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
4
-
2
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
rt
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
st
u
d
i
e
s
t
o
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
/
a
b
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
/
o
r
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
o
r
i
n
f
e
r
r
e
d
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
.
O
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
su
c
h
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
t
a
il
e
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
a
nd
/
o
r
i
n
s
i
t
u
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
ba
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
N
O
.
34
3
F
O
R
2
0
1
7
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
Ti
m
i
n
g
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Completion
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
4
-
3
A
l
l
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
CE
Q
A
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
C
o
d
e
)
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
1
0
8
3
.
2
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
GE
O
L
O
G
Y
A
N
D
S
O
I
L
S
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
5
-
1
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
an
d
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
ar
e
a
s
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
o
r
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
re
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
A
l
l
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
in
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
in
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
HA
Z
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
H
A
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
an
y
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
a
cu
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
s
i
t
e
o
r
so
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
s
i
t
e
.
5.
6
-
3
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
a
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
f
o
r
m
e
r
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
s
i
t
e
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
s
i
t
e
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
s
ub
m
i
t
a
P
h
a
s
e
I
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
i
t
e
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
I
f
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
r
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
/
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
th
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
C
a
r
e
A
g
e
n
c
y
(O
C
H
C
A
)
a
n
d
/
o
r
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
(R
W
Q
C
B
)
,
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
HY
D
R
O
L
O
G
Y
A
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
On
g
o
i
n
g
.
5
.
7
-
1
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
to
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
f
l
o
o
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
f
a
c
il
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
w
e
l
l
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
of
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
n
g
,
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
2
5
-
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
f
l
o
w
s
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
5.
7
-
2
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
st
u
d
y
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
i
t
s
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
i
f
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
a
de
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
i
n
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
d
r
ai
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
o
r
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
t
o
a
n
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
February 2017 | Addendum to the General Plan and Zoning Code Update
EIR No. 330
and
Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project EIR No. 346
2017 Bicycle Master Plan
Development Case No. 2017-00007
Prepared for:
City of Anaheim
Contact: Christine Saunders, Associate Planner
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805
714.765.5238
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: William Halligan, Vice President, Environmental Services
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Table of Contents
February 2017 Page i
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM ............................................................. 3 1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.......................................................................... 3
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 5
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 15
3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 19
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 29
4.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 29 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................... 30
4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ......................................... 30 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................ 31
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 33
5.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 36 5.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 38 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 44
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 49 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................. 52 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 56 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 58
5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 64 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 70 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 72 5.12 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................................... 74
5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 78 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 80 5.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................... 82 5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................... 84
5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 88 5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 92
6. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................. 95
6.1 CITY OF ANAHEIM ......................................................................................................................................... 95
6.2 PLACEWORKS.................................................................................................................................................... 96
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES
Appendix A 2017 Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 Existing City of Anaheim Bikeway Network (West) ..................................................................... 11
Figure 4 Existing City of Anaheim Bikeway Network (East) ...................................................................... 13
Figure 5 Proposed City of Anaheim Bikeway Network (West) .................................................................. 21
Figure 6 Proposed City of Anaheim Bikeway Network (East) ................................................................... 23
Figure 7 Proposed General Plan Amendments –West ................................................................................. 25
Figure 8 Proposed General Plan Amendments– East .................................................................................. 27
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Summary of Bicycle Network Mileage ............................................................................................ 17
Table 2 Net Change in Maximum Daily Weekday Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................. 42
Table 3 Net Change in Maximum Annual GHG Emissions ..................................................................... 57
Table 4 Hazardous Materials Sites Listings in Anaheim ............................................................................. 62
February 2017 Page 1
1. Introduction
The City of Anaheim is seeking approval of the 2017 Bicycle Master Plan (the Proposed Project or 2017
Plan), an update to the 2004 City of Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan (2004 Plan), which would guide the City of
Anaheim in implementation of a comprehensive bicycle network through the General Plan horizon year of
2035. The 2004 Plan was approved as part of the City’s comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code
Update completed in May 2004.
This document is an addendum to Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330 for the General
Plan and Zoning Code Update (referred to as the “Update Project”) certified by the Anaheim City Council on
May 25, 2004, and certified Supplemental EIR (EIR) No. 346 to EIR No. 330 for the City of Anaheim
Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project (referred to as the “Rezoning Project”) certified by the City of
Anaheim on September 24, 2013. EIR No. 330 and EIR No. 346 are collectively referred as the Certified EIR
and the Update Project and the Rezoning Project are collectively referred to as the “Approved Project.”
1.1 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
1.1.1 CEQA Requirements
According to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has
been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall
be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions
are met:
1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified
or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR
or negative declaration.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction
Page 2 PlaceWorks
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified
in the previous EIR.
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Preparation of an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section
15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary.
After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, the City of
Anaheim has determined that 1) none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplement
to an EIR have occurred, and 2) the circumstances described in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines exist.
Therefore, an Addendum to EIR 330 and EIR No. 346 has been deemed appropriate.
1.1.2 Scope of Analysis in This Addendum
The City is proposing to adopt the 2017 Plan, which will replace and supersede the 2004 Plan. In conjunction
with the approval of the 2017 Plan, the City is proposing to amend its General Plan, so that the 2017 Plan
and the General Plan are consistent. The proposed General Plan Amendment is further described in
Appendix B of the 2017 Plan. Amendments to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan, Anaheim Resort, and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plans to bring them into conformance
with the General Plan and to provide typical street cross-sections will be processed at a later date. Collectively,
these actions are the “Proposed Project.” As lead agency under CEQA, the City of Anaheim is required to
evaluate the environmental impacts associated with this Proposed Project.
The scope of the review for project-related impacts for this Addendum is limited to differences between
impacts attributed to the Proposed Project and those analyzed by EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
certified by the Anaheim City Council on May 25, 2004, and certified EIR No. 346 to EIR No. 330 for the
Rezoning Project certified by the City of Anaheim on September 24, 2013. EIR No. 330 and EIR No. 346 are
collectively referred as the “Certified EIR” and the Update Project and the Rezoning Project are collectively
referred to as the “Approved Project.”
This Addendum will analyze the differences between the Approved Project analyzed by the Certified EIR and
the Proposed Project. The Approved Project will serve as the “baseline” for the environmental impact
analysis. The baseline includes all applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program
(MMP) No. 122 for the Update Project; and the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Rezoning
Project. As required by CEQA, this Addendum also addresses changes in circumstances or new information
that would potentially involve new environmental impacts.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction
February 2017 Page 3
1.2 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM
This Addendum relies on the City of Anaheim’s CEQA checklist, which addresses environmental issues
section by section. The completed checklist is included in Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis. Each
environmental topic has the following subheadings:
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (including EIR No. 330 and EIR No. 346); see description
under Subsection 3.1, Project Background, of this Addendum)
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project (including environmental checklist)
Applicable Mitigation Measures from Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A have been incorporated
into Mitigation Monitoring Plan [MMP] No. 343 for the Proposed Project.
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
For a detailed description of adopted land use planning documents that apply to the Proposed Project and
associated environmental documentation, see Section 3.1, Project Background, of this Addendum.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction
Page 4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2017 Page 5
2. Environmental Setting
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Anaheim is located in northwestern Orange County, California. The City of Anaheim is
surrounded by the Cities of Buena Park, Fullerton, Placentia and Yorba Linda to the north; unincorporated
Orange and Riverside Counties to the east; the Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated
Orange County to the south; and, the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. Figure 1, Regional
Location, shows the City boundaries in regional context.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.2.1 Existing Land Use
Figure 2, Local Vicinity Map, shows the City of Anaheim’s boundaries. The City is geographically diverse, with
the western and central portions of the City characterized by relatively flat ground that slopes gently to the
southwest. The eastern portion of the City extends generally along the Santa Ana River to the Riverside
County line. This part of the City includes hillside terrain. Residential development in the eastern portion of
Anaheim largely consists of the various hillside communities on the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-
91) that extend to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241). Other relatively flat residential
neighborhoods are located north of the Santa Ana River and east of Imperial Highway, and generally south
of the Santa Ana River at the intersection of the SR-91 and Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55). Office, industrial
and commercial uses generally spans the north side of the SR-91 between the Orange Freeway (SR-57) and
Imperial Highway.
According to US Census Household Survey Reports, Anaheim ranks 41st in bicycle work commutes among
the 70 largest cities in the United States. According to the 5-Year American Community Survey by US
Census, 1,238 Anaheim residents bicycled to work in 2015, and 1,077, 1,345, and 1,389 Anaheim residents
bicycled to work in 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively (Census 2016).
The City of Anaheim has approximately 59.86 miles of existing bikeways in the City. The bikeways network
was inventoried with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software, and an interactive map is available at
www.anaheim.net/bikemap. Additionally, the Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Bike ID 176) has been added to the
inventory as a recreational asset to the City for bicycling.
The City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation and Green Elements include existing and planned Class I, II
and III bikeways. However, it is important to note that bicycles are permitted on all roads in the State of
California and in Anaheim (with the exception of access-controlled freeways). As such, Anaheim’s entire
street network is effectively the city’s bikeway network, regardless of whether or not a bikeway stripe, stencil,
or sign is present on a given street. The regional backbone of this existing system is the Santa Ana River
Riding and Hiking Trail along the Santa Ana River from the eastern to the southern borders of the City.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Environmental Setting
Page 6 PlaceWorks
Anaheim Coves Trail provides another trail west of the Santa Ana River, and there is a plan to extend this
trail. Other major existing routes include Class II bike lanes along segments of Brookhurst Street, which is
classified as a major arterial; and, along Ball Road, Euclid Street, Santa Ana Canyon Road, Imperial Highway,
and Anaheim Boulevard, which are classified as primary arterial roadways. Existing bike routes are shown in
Figure 3, Existing City of Anaheim Bikeway Network (West), and Figure 4, Existing City of Anaheim Bikeway
Network (East).
Los AngelesCounty
RiversideCounty
SanBernardinoCounty
OrangeCounty
|ÿ241
|ÿ90
|ÿ55
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
|ÿ91
|ÿ55
|ÿ55
§¨¦5
|ÿ133
§¨¦405
§¨¦405
|ÿ22
|ÿ73
|ÿ1
|ÿ71
§¨¦605 |ÿ57
|ÿ60
|ÿ60
|ÿ241
S A N T AA N A
A N A H E I M
L A G U N AN I G U E L
L A G U N A W O O D S
T U S T I N
C Y P R E S S
C O S T AM E S A
F O U N T A I NV A L L E Y
P L A C E N T I A
D A N AP O I N T
S E A LB E A C H
L O SA L A M I T O S
Y O R B AL I N D A
G A R D E NG R O V E
L A H A B R A
L A G U N AB E A C H
S A N J U A NC A P I S T R A N O
A L I S OV I E J O
L A G U N AH I L L S
I R V I N E
M I S S I O NV I E J O
V I L L AP A R K
H U N T I N G T O NB E A C H
L A P A L M A
B U E N AP A R K
S T A N T O N
F U L L E R T O N
W E S T M I N S T E R
NE W P O R TB E A C H
N E W P O R TB E A C H
O R A N G E
B R E A
L A K EF O R E S T
R A N C H OS A N T AM A R G A R I TA
±0 42Miles
3644
Unincorporated County of Orange
City of Anaheim
City Limits
County Limits
Last Revised: 11/9/2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 - Regional Location
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUMCITY OF ANAHEIM
Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017
0
Scale (Miles)
4
UnincorporatedCounty of Orange Pacific Ocean
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Environmental Setting
Page 8 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: ESRI, 2016
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity Map
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
0
Scale (Miles)
2City of Anaheim
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Environmental Setting
Page 10 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
73 27 B
111 B
53
102
92
5
144
91
98 A
111 A
166
80
137
127
59
34
3
6
60
146
113
40
163
47
155
95
65
72
69
117
22
128 A
1
97
48 A
56
164
48 B
48 C
98 B
128 B
133 B
27 C
27 D
42 A 42 B 42 C
Kn
o
t
t
A
v
e
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Da
l
e
S
t
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
A
v
e
Gil
b
e
r
t
S
t
Br
o
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
Mu
l
l
e
r
S
t
La Palma Ave
Crescent Ave
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Orange Ave
Ball Rd
Cerritos Ave
Katella Ave
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Nu
t
w
o
o
d
S
t
9t
h
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Dis
n
e
y
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Le
w
i
s
S
t
Lo
a
r
a
S
t
St
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
Do
u
g
l
a
s
s
R
d
S
H
a
s
t
e
r
S
t
Disney Way
Gene Autry Way
W
e
s
t
S
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
l
v
d
O
li
v
e
S
t
E
a
s
t
S
t S o u t h S t
V er m o n t A v e
S an t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve
S y c a m or e St
No r t h St
Ball Rd
Wagner Ave
South St
La Palma Ave
Romneya Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Le
m
o
n
S
t
Ra
y
m
o
n
d
A
v
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
St
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
P l a c e n t i a A v e
Su
n
k
i
s
t
S
t
Rio
V
i
s
t
a
S
t
CrowtherAve
O r a n ge t h o rp e Av e
Mi r al o m a Av e
L a P a l m a A v e
R
e
d
G
u
m
S
t
K
r
a
e
m
e
r
B
l
v
d
M
ill
e
r
S
t
T
ustin
A
ve
B
l
u
e
G
u
m
S
t
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
Romneya Dr
Cerritos Ave
Crone Ave
Westmont Dr
L
e
m
o
n
S
t
C
i
t
r
o
n
S
t
Du
p
o
n
t
D
r
Orangethorpe Ave
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Carbon Creek Channel
San
t
a
A
n
a
R
i
v
e
r
Carbon
C
r
e
e
k
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
Ed
i
s
o
n
R
O
W
UPRR
UP
R
R
Miraloma Ave
G A R D E N G R O V EG A R D E N G R O V E
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
S A N T A A N AS A N T A A N A
S A N T AS A N T A
A N AA N A
CYP R E S SCYP R E S S
C Y P R E S SC Y P R E S S
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
§¨5
|91
§¨5 |57
|241|91 |91|57 |55
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A Y O R B A L I N D AY O R B A L I N D A
G A R D E NG A R D E NG R O V EG R O V E
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
REGIONAL INSET
3644
Existing Bikeways
Regional Trail ±
0 10.5 Miles
Last Revised: 11/9/2016
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class I Bike Path
#Bike ID
Unincorporated County Of Orange
City of Anaheim
City Limits
PlaceWorks
Figure 3 - Existing Bikeways - West
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUMCITY OF ANAHEIM
0
Scale (Miles)
1
Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Environmental Setting
Page 12 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
17
27 B
132
28
120
84 A
76
78
155
52 B
95
52 A
119
124
139
97
121 A
104
39
27 A
84 B
121 B
177
176
133 B
27 A
La P a l m a A v e
M
ill
e
r
S
t
T
ustin
A
ve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N
L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
Esperanza R d
OrangethorpeAve
La Palma Ave
ImperialHwy
M e a t s A v e Imp e r i a l H w y
NohlRanch R d
S a n t a A n a Ca n y o n R d F
air
m
o
nt
Blvd
C a n y o n RimRd
S e r r a n o A v e
W
eir
C
a
n
y
onRd
O a k Canyon Dr
|ÿ241
|ÿ91
|ÿ90
|ÿ55
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ill
s
R
d
S a n t i a g o
B l v d
OrangethorpeAve
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
NohlRanch R d
S t a g e Co a c h R d
Su
n
s
e
t
Rid
g
e
R
d
Canyo
n
Creek
R
d
R i v e r d a l e A v e
Miraloma Ave
G e rd a D r
G
y
p
s
u
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
San
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A
Y O R B AY O R B A
L I N D AL I N D A
V I L L AV I L L AP A R KP A R K
O R A N G EO R A N G E
§¨5
|91
§¨5 |57
|241|91 |91|57 |55
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A Y O R B A L I N D AY O R B A L I N D A
G A R D E NG A R D E NG R O V EG R O V E
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
REGIONAL INSET
3644
Existing Bikeways
Regional Trail ±
0 10.5 Miles
Last Revised: 11/9/2016
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class I Bike Path
#Bike ID
Unincorporated County Of Orange
City of Anaheim
City Limits
PlaceWorks
Figure 4 - Existing Bikeways - East
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUMCITY OF ANAHEIM
0
Scale (Miles)
1
Unincorporated Areas
Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Environmental Setting
Page 14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
February 2017 Page 15
3. Project Description
3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The 2004 Plan was approved as part of the City’s comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code Update
completed in May 2004. The City certified Program EIR No. 330 (“EIR No. 330”) for the General Plan and
Zoning Code Update on May 25, 2004 (“Update Project”), and certified Supplemental EIR No. 346 (“EIR
No. 346”) to EIR No. 330 for the City of Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project
(“Rezoning Project”) on September 24, 2013. Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 122 was approved
as part of EIR No. 330, and Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A was approved as part of EIR No. 346.
EIR No. 330 and EIR No. 346 are collectively referred as the “Certified EIR.” The Update Project and the
Rezoning Project are collectively referred to as the “Approved Project.” The City has determined that the
present Addendum to the Certified EIR would be the appropriate environmental review for the Proposed
Project, consistent with Section 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. Applicable Mitigation Measures
from Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan [MMP]
No. 343 for the Proposed Project.
3.1.1 Previous Environmental Analysis
3.1.1.1 EIR NO. 330 FOR THE UPDATE PROJECT
The Update Project identified the City’s vision for its development through build out through 2035. The
Update Project included revisions to the existing Land Use Element (including new and re-named land use
designations); the Redevelopment Element (now incorporated into the Economic Development Element);
Circulation (which would thenceforth contain the existing Scenic Highways Element); Environmental
Resource and Management section (incorporated into the Green Element); Growth Management Element;
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Element (incorporated into the new Green Element); Noise; and,
Safety and Seismic Safety Element (combined into one Safety Element). In addition to the topics addressed in
the previous General Plan Elements, new goals, policies and programs were developed to address community
design, economic development, and public services and facilities in the form of new Elements for each topic.
The new Green Element combined two required elements of the General Plan (Open Space and
Conservation which are part of the existing Environmental Resource and Management section) with an
optional element, Parks, Recreation and Community Services.
The Update Project also involved a comprehensive update to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which
contains the City’s zoning regulations. Title 18 was amended to implement the updated General Plan (e.g.,
creation of development standards to implement the proposed Mixed-Use and Corridor Residential land use
designations, creation of development standards that are consistent with the Community Design Element,
etc.) and included innovative zoning solutions that convey community expectations for future development.
Other actions included amendments to the Anaheim Stadium Master Land Use Plan and/or the development
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
Page 16 PlaceWorks
of an overlay zone for this area (which was subsequently implemented as the Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone), Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the Northeast
Area Specific Plan (including associated zoning reclassifications) and zoning reclassifications within the
Cypress Canyon Specific Plan Area, and portions of the Anaheim Colony Historical District consistent with
and necessary to implement the General Plan and Zoning Code Update.
3.1.1.2 EIR NO. 346 FOR THE REZONING PROJECT
The Rezoning Project implemented a key strategy of the City’s 2006-2014 General Plan Housing Element by
rezoning the properties identified as Housing Opportunities Sites in the Housing Element. The proposed
rezoning of these approximately 166 sites allowed “by-right” housing development at these locations by
applying one of two overlay zones to these properties: the Residential Opportunities Overlay Zone or the
Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The identified properties were already designated for residential use by the City’s
General Plan, but were zoned for and/or developed with, non-residential uses. The addition of the overlay
zone did not affect the current or future non-residential development rights that exist on the property today
and did not obligate any owner of these sites to develop their property with housing. The Rezoning Project
also included a proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to
permit “by-right” residential development on Housing Opportunity Sites located within the Mixed Use
Overlay Zone.
The Rezoning Project further included an update of General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU-5:
Residential Build-Out Estimates and LU-6: Non-Residential Build-Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan
Amendments that had been adopted since the City’s General Plan was adopted in May 2004.
Certification of EIR No. 346 also enabled the City to utilize the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption allowed
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and take advantage of other CEQA streamlining
authorized per Senate Bill 226 (Chapter 469, Statutes of 2011) by providing updated community level
environmental review.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 2017 Bicycle Master Plan (the Proposed Project or 2017 Plan) is a policy document that will guide the
City of Anaheim in its implementation of citywide bicycle facilities. The Plan would supersede the 2004
Bicycle Master Plan and is intended to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility. The Plan identifies
a network of existing and proposed bicycle facilities that are expected to improve connectivity and increase
bicycling as a mode of transportation, especially for short trips. The existing and proposed bicycle facilities
include a system of on-street bike lanes and routes and off-street bike paths to connect residents, visitors, and
workers to their destinations. The Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle
lanes. Class II and III bikeways would be implemented within the ultimate right-of-way as described in the
Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-
1 of the General Plan), which was approved in conjunction with the Certified EIR. The 2017 Plan has been
prepared to meet the California State requirements for a Bicycle Transportation Plan per Section 891.2 of the
California Streets and Highways Codes. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Anaheim
General Plan, as fully described in Appendix B of the 2017 Plan, and amendments to the Anaheim Canyon
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
February 2017 Page 17
Specific Plan, Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Anaheim Resort, and the Disneyland Resort Specific
Plans to bring them into conformance with the Anaheim General Plan and to provide typical street cross-
sections to be consistent with the 2017 Plan.
Proposed Bikeways
The bikeways network proposed by the 2017 Plan is shown in Figure 5, Proposed City of Anaheim Bikeway
Network (West), and Figure 6, Proposed City of Anaheim Bikeway Network (East). The 2017 Plan would require
modifications to the goals and policies in the Circulation Element, Green Element, Community Design
Element, and Economic Development Element of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan
Amendment is detailed in Appendix B of the 2017 Plan, which is included in Appendix A to the Addendum.
Maps showing the General Plan amendments for segments on the bikeway network are shown in Figure 7,
General Plan Amendments (West), Figure 8, General Plan Amendments (East).
Table 1, Summary of Bicycle Network Mileage, provides a summary of the centerline miles of bikeways in the
network. A complete inventory of existing bikeways is included in Appendix C, Inventory of the Anaheim
Bikeway Network, of the 2017 Plan in Appendix A to the Addendum. Due to the potential right-of-way
impacts for implementation, the City does not have and does not propose any Class IV cycle tracks at this
time. The bikeways described below will be implemented according to the latest design guidelines in the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual1, as further described in Appendix H, Implementation Toolbox of the 2017
Plan.
Table 1 Summary of Bicycle Network Mileage
Class Centerline Miles Existing Proposed Total
Class I: Bike Path 14.78 30.05 44.83
Class II: Bike Lane 43.80 71.13 114.93
Class III: Bike Route 1.28 19.13 20.41
Class IV: Cycle Track 0 0 0
Total 59.86 120.31 180.17
The 2017 Plan proposes the following classes in the bicycle network:
Class I bike paths, also referred to as “Class I Bikeways”, or shared use paths, provide a completely
separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by
motorists minimized. Class I bike paths provide critical connections to destinations not served by
roadways for recreation and as direct high-speed commute routes. The most common applications are
along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right-of-ways, abandoned railroad right-of-ways, or within and
between parks. A common application of a Class I bike path is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by
freeways or natural barriers such as a river.
1 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
Page 18 PlaceWorks
There are 14.78 miles of existing Class I bike paths in the City and 30.05 new miles are proposed as part
of the 2017 Plan.
Class II bike lanes, also referred to as “Class II bikeways”, provide a restricted right-of-way designated
for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians
prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Bike lanes
are a space on the road for bicyclists adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flow in the same direction
as motor vehicle traffic, and are designated with pavement markings and signage. Bike lanes enable
bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions and
facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists. Buffered Bike Lanes are
Class II bike lanes that provide a painted buffer for lateral separation between motor vehicle travel
and/or parking lanes and bicycles are designed to visually reinforce Section 21760 of the California
Vehicle Code that requires Three Feet for Safety when vehicles pass bicyclists. Lane Reconfiguration,
often referred to as a “Road Diet”, is the removal of one or more vehicle travel lanes to provide
sufficient right-of-way for Class II Bike Lanes. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities
for this type of retrofit project, and under these conditions, the right-of-way for the excess vehicle
capacity could be reallocated to bike lanes.
There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes, and 71.13 new miles are proposed in the 2017 Plan.
Class III bike routes, also referred to as “Class III bikeways”, provide a right-of-way on-street or off-
street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. Class III
bike routes provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic in the same travel lane. Sharrows are Class III
bike routes that can be enhanced with signage and on-street pavement markings to help reinforce that the
travel lane is shared with motor vehicles and bicycles. Bicycle Boulevards are Class III bike routes on local
roads or residential streets that are designed to facilitate safe and convenient bicycle travel. Treatments
area intended to increase motorists’ awareness of bicycle activity through the use of traffic calming
devices such as signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures.
There are 1.28 miles of existing Class III bike routes and 19.13 new miles are proposed in the 2017 Plan.
Class IV Cycle tracks or separated bikeways, also referred to as “Class IV bikeways”, promote active
transportation and provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and
which are separated from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade
separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. Due to potential right-of-way
impacts, the City is not proposing Class IV Cycle Tracks as part of the 2017 Plan. However, Cycle Tracks are
not precluded and may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Bicycle Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities
Secure bicycle parking is a key factor in encouraging bicycle use for both long and short trips. Bicycle parking
is a mitigation measure for new development projects in the Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim Resort, and
is required for new non-residential developments and schools subject to the Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code). On December 12, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
February 2017 Page 19
of a comprehensive municipal code amendment for vehicle parking, which also addresses the provision of
bicycle parking, especially for projects that cannot provide the required vehicle parking on-site. The code
amendment includes an incentive program that allows developers to provide bicycle parking and other
amenities in lieu of a vehicle parking space(s).
Project Phasing
The 2017 Plan is to be implemented through the General Plan horizon year of 2035.
3.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
This Addendum to EIR No. 330 and EIR No. 346 is intended to serve as the primary environmental
document for all future actions associated with the Proposed Project, including all discretionary approvals
requested or required to implement the Proposed Project. In addition, this Addendum is the primary
reference document for the formulation and implementation of Mitigation Monitoring Plan [MMP] No. 343
for the Proposed Project. All applicable measures from Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A approved in
conjunction with EIR No. 346 have been incorporated into MMP No. 343. This document is intended to
provide sufficient information to allow the City of Anaheim and any other permitting agencies to evaluate the
potential impacts from construction and implementation of the Proposed Project. The following
discretionary actions will be necessary to implement the Proposed Project by the City:
General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 and Miscellaneous Case No. 2017-00651 (DEV2017-00007)
Replace Appendix A of the Anaheim General Plan (2004 Bicycle Master Plan) with the 2017 Bicycle
Master Plan
Incorporate revised Figures and text updates as outlined in Appendix B of the 2017 Bicycle Master
Plan
Subsequent amendments to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan,
Anaheim Resort, and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plans to bring them into conformance with the
Anaheim General Plan and to provide typical street cross-sections.
It should be noted that this addendum to EIR No. 330 and EIR No. 346 provides a programmatic level of
analysis for implementation of the Proposed Project. Class II and III bikeways will be implemented within
the ultimate right-of-way that was analyzed in the Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway
Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan) of the Approved Project and should not require additional
CEQA analysis. Class I Bike Paths are located off-street and may be implemented as part of a larger project,
i.e. a park or bridge crossing. These projects may require coordination with multiple agencies and property
owners. Due to their potential complexity, Class I Bike Paths may require project-specific analysis.
Responsible Agencies
A responsible agency is a public agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility for carrying out or
approving a project (CEQA Guidelines § 15381 and PRC § 21069).
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
Page 20 PlaceWorks
State
California Department of Transportation
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Regional
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Orange County Flood Control District
Orange County Water District
171
152
63
101
143
147
126
136
26
30
149
1
3
5
90
10
68
58
103
46 A
4
145 B
172
43 B
88
31
161
14 B
108
41
11
8
13
151
173
94
87 A
99
112
87 B
8
6
1
0
6
5
7
7
71
33
110
4
5
138 B
74
159
165
46 B
141
1486
79
2
1
4
0
107 A
20
49
145 A
130
138 A
114
1
5
3
38
24
167
1
5
0
37
158
23
96
9
8
2
107 B
43 A
66
3
5
122
62
55
134
89 A
8
160
154
6
4170
89 B
44
14 A
93
54
32
46 C
81
19
133
42 D
Kn
o
t
t
A
v
e
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Da
l
e
S
t
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
A
v
e
Gi
l
b
e
r
t
S
t
Br
o
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
Mu
l
l
e
r
S
t
La Palma Ave
Crescent Ave
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Orange Ave
Ball Rd
Cerritos Ave
Katella Ave
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Nu
t
w
o
o
d
S
t
9th
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Di
s
n
e
y
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Le
w
i
s
S
t
Lo
a
r
a
S
t
St
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
Do
u
g
l
a
s
s
R
d
S
H
a
s
t
e
r
S
t
Disney Way
Gene Autry Way
W
e
s
t
S
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
l
v
d
O
li
v
e
S
t
E
a
s
t
S
t S ou t h St
V er m o nt A ve
S a nt a A na S tBroadwayLincolnAve
S y ca m o r e St
No rt h S t
Ball Rd
Wagner Ave
South St
La Palma Ave
Romneya Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Le
m
o
n
S
t
Ra
y
m
o
n
d
A
v
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
St
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
P l a c e n t i a A v e
Su
n
k
i
s
t
S
t
Rio
V
i
s
t
a
S
t
Crowther Ave
O r a nget h or p e A v e
M i r al o m a A v e
L a Pa l m a Av e
R
e
d
G
u
m
S
t
K
r
a
e
m
e
r
B
l
v
d
M
i
ll
e
r
S
t
T
ustin
A
ve
B
l
u
e
G
u
m
S
t
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
Romneya Dr
Cerritos Ave
Crone Ave
Westmont Dr
L
e
m
o
n
S
t
C
it
r
o
n
S
t
Du
p
o
n
t
D
r
OrangethorpeAve
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Carbon Creek Channel
Sa
n
t
a
A
n
a
R
i
v
e
r
Carbon
C
r
e
e
k
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
Ed
i
s
o
n
R
O
W
UPRR
UP
R
R
Miraloma Ave
G A R D E N G R O V EG A R D E N G R O V E
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
S A N T A A N AS A N T A A N A
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
CYP R E S SCYP R E S S
C Y P R E S SC Y P R E S S
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
§¨5
|91
§¨5 |57
|241|91 |91|57 |55
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A Y O R B A L I N D AY O R B A L I N D A
G A R D E NG A R D E NG R O V EG R O V E
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
REGIONAL INSET
3644
±
0 10.5 Miles
Last Revised: 11/9/2016
Proposed Bikeways
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
#Bike ID
Unincorporated County Of Orange
City of Anaheim
City Limits
PlaceWorks
Figure 5 - Proposed City of Anaheim Bikeway Network - West
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUMCITY OF ANAHEIM
0
Scale (Miles)
1
Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
Page 22 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
75
85B
77
70 115
16
123
175
105
116
8331
29
162
3
85 A 15
51
74
18
12
131
20
67
21
9
125
50
100
133
11
109
19
19
133
179
178LaPalmaAve
M
ill
e
r
S
t
T
ustin
A
ve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N
L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
Esperanz a R d
OrangethorpeAve
La Palma Ave
ImperialHwy
M e a t s A v e Im pe r i a l H w y
NohlRanch R d
S a n t a A n a Ca n y o n R d F
air
m
ont
Blvd
C a n y o n RimRd
S e r r a n o A v e
W
eir
C
a
n
y
onRd
O a k Canyon Dr |ÿ241
|ÿ91
|ÿ90
|ÿ55
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ill
s
R
d
S a n t i a g o
B l v d
OrangethorpeAve
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
NohlRanch R d
S t a g e Co a c h R d
Su
n
s
e
t
Rid
g
e
R
d
Canyo
n
Creek
R
d
San
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
R i v e r d a l e A v e
Miraloma Ave
G e rd a D r
Pe
l
a
n
c
o
c
n
i
Pa
r
k
Im
p
e
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
P
a
t
h
Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail
Deer
Canyon
Park
G
y
p
s
u
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A
Y O R B AY O R B AL I N D AL I N D A
V I L L AV I L L A
P A R KP A R K
O R A N G EO R A N G E
175
116
31
162
74
1220
133
19
19
Kaiser
I2
ÆP
|ÿ91
Tu
s
t
i
n
Riverdale
Ri
c
h
f
i
e
l
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Miraloma
L a Palma
M
i
l
l
e
r
Riverview
Ri
c
h
f
i
e
l
d
§¨5
|91
§¨5 |57
|241|91 |91|57 |55
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A Y O R B A L I N D AY O R B A L I N D A
G A R D E NG A R D E NG R O V EG R O V E
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
REGIONAL INSET
3644
See Inset
±
0 10.5 Miles
Last Revised: 11/9/2016
Proposed Bikeways
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
#Bike ID
Unincorporated County Of Orange
City of Anaheim
City Limits
PlaceWorks
Figure 6 - Proposed City of Anaheim Bikeways Network - East
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUMCITY OF ANAHEIM
0
Scale (Miles)
1
Unincorporated Areas
Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
Page 24 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
Kn
o
t
t
A
v
e
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Da
l
e
S
t
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
A
v
e
Gil
b
e
r
t
S
t
Br
o
o
k
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
Mu
l
l
e
r
S
t
La Palma Ave
Crescent Ave
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Orange Ave
Ball Rd
Cerritos Ave
Katella Ave
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Nu
t
w
o
o
d
S
t
9t
h
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Dis
n
e
y
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Le
w
i
s
S
t
Lo
a
r
a
S
t
St
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
Do
u
g
l
a
s
s
R
d
S
H
a
s
t
e
r
S
t
Disney Way
Gene Autry Way
W
e
s
t
S
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
B
l
v
d
O
l
i
v
e
S
t
E
a
s
t
S
t So uth S t
Ve r m o n t A v e
S an t a An a StBroadwayLincolnAve
S yc am o re S t
N orth S t
Ball Rd
Wagner Ave
South St
La Palma Ave
Romneya Dr
Orangethorpe Ave
Eu
c
l
i
d
S
t
Le
m
o
n
S
t
Ra
y
m
o
n
d
A
v
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
B
l
v
d
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
St
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
B
l
v
d
P l a c e n t i a A v e
Su
n
k
i
s
t
S
t
Ri
o
V
i
s
t
a
S
t
CrowtherAve
O r an ge t ho r p e Av e
M i r al om a Av e
La P a l ma A v e
R
e
d
G
u
m
S
t
K
r
a
e
m
e
r
B
l
v
d
M
ill
e
r
S
t
T
ustin
A
ve
B
l
u
e
G
u
m
S
t
|ÿ57
|ÿ91
§¨¦5
Romneya Dr
Cerritos Ave
Crone Ave
Westmont Dr
L
e
m
o
n
S
t
C
i
t
r
o
n
S
t
Du
p
o
n
t
D
r
Orangethorpe Ave
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Carbon Creek Channel
San
t
a
A
n
a
R
i
v
e
r
Carbon
C
r
e
e
k
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
Ed
i
s
o
n
R
O
W
UPRR
UP
R
R
Miraloma Ave
G A R D E N G R O V EG A R D E N G R O V E
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
S A N T A A N AS A N T A A N A
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
CYP R E S SCYP R E S S
C Y P R E S SC Y P R E S S
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A
B U E N AB U E N A
P A R KP A R K
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
§¨5
|91
§¨5 |57
|241|91 |91|57 |55
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A Y O R B A L I N D AY O R B A L I N D A
G A R D E NG A R D E N
G R O V EG R O V E
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
REGIONAL INSET
3644
±0 10.5 Miles
Last Revised: 11/9/2016
Amendment Type
Proposed projects not identifiedin the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan! ! ! ! !
Unincorporated County of Orange
City of Anaheim
City Limits
Existing bikeways built since 2004
Change in bikeways classification
Deletion from the General Plan
PlaceWorks
Figure 7 - General Plan Amendments - West
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUMCITY OF ANAHEIM
0
Scale (Miles)
1
Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
Page 26 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
La P a l m a A v e
M
ill
e
r
S
t
T
ustin
A
ve
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
N
L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
Esperanza R d
OrangethorpeAve
La Palma Ave
ImperialHwy
M e a t s A v e Im pe r i a l H w y
NohlRanch Rd
S a n t a A n a Ca n y o n R d F
air
m
o
nt
Blvd
C a n y o n RimRd
S e r r a n o A v e
W
eir
C
a
n
y
onRd
O a k Canyon Dr
|ÿ241
|ÿ91
|ÿ90
|ÿ55
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
H
ill
s
R
d
S a n t i a g o
B l v d
Orangethorpe Ave
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
D
r
NohlRanch R d
S t a g e Co a c h R d
Su
n
s
e
t
Rid
g
e
R
d
Canyo
n
Creek
R
d
R i v e r d a l e A v e
Miraloma Ave
G erd a D r
Pe
l
a
n
c
o
c
n
i
Pa
r
k
Im
p
e
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
P
a
t
h
Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail
Deer
Canyon
Park
G
y
p
s
u
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
San
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A
Y O R B AY O R B AL I N D AL I N D A
V I L L AV I L L AP A R KP A R K
O R A N G EO R A N G E
§¨5
|91
§¨5 |57
|241|91 |91|57 |55
S A N T AS A N T AA N AA N A
P L A C E N T I AP L A C E N T I A Y O R B A L I N D AY O R B A L I N D A
G A R D E NG A R D E NG R O V EG R O V E
B U E N AB U E N AP A R KP A R K
S T A N T O NS T A N T O N
F U L L E R T O NF U L L E R T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
REGIONAL INSET
3644
±0 10.5 Miles
Last Revised: 11/9/2016
Amendment Type
Proposed projects not identifiedin the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan! ! ! ! !
Unincorporated County of Orange
City of Anaheim
City Limits
Existing bikeways built since 2004
Change in bikeways classification
Deletion from the General Plan
Existing bikeways not in 2004 BMP
PlaceWorks
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUMCITY OF ANAHEIM
0
Scale (Miles)
1
Figure 8 - General Plan Amendments - East
Unincorporated Areas
Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Project Description
Page 28 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2017 Page 29
4. Environmental Checklist
4.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: 2017 Bicycle Master Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Christine Saunders, Associate Planner 714.765.5238
4. Project Location: The Proposed Project is citywide.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
6. General Plan Designation: The Proposed Project is citywide.
7. Zoning: The Proposed Project is citywide.
8. Description of Project: See Section 3, Project Description, of this Addendum
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
See Section 2, Environmental Setting, of this Addendum.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
California Department of Transportation
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Orange County Flood Control District
Orange County Water District
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Environmental Checklist
Page 30 PlaceWorks
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Environmental Checklist
February 2017 Page 31
4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
2) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is one of the following.
a) Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions applies when substantial changes are
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative
declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. When a checklist question receives this
response, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared.
b) Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions applies where substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will
require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. When a checklist question receives this response, a subsequent or supplemental
EIR must be prepared.
c) New Information Showing Potentially New or Increased Significant Effects applies where new
information, including regulatory changes, results in a potentially significant new impact or a potential increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. When a checklist question receives this response, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared.
d) Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. No additional environmental analysis is
required beyond that provided in the certified EIR.
e) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture
zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Environmental Checklist
Page 32 PlaceWorks
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
4) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
5) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
6) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
7) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
February 2017 Page 33
5. Environmental Analysis
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section will
briefly summarize the conclusions of the Certified EIR and then discuss how the Proposed Project is
consistent with the findings contained in the Certified EIR. Mitigation measures referenced are from Updated
and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Approved Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from Updated and
Modified MMP No. 122A have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan [MMP] No. 343 for the
Proposed Project.
5.1 AESTHETICS
5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
Implementation of the Update Project was found to have less than significant impacts on scenic vistas. The
City is largely built out. The City contains two major open space features: the Hill and Canyon Area in the
east part of the City, and the Santa Ana River. The segment of State Route (SR) 91 between SR-55 and the
east city boundary is a designated State scenic highway. The Update Project included policies to protect view
corridors and scenic resources within the SR-91 scenic highway, including designating 7,788 acres in the City
as Open Space/Recreation, to include 5,093 acres of Open Space.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
The Rezoning Project was found to have less than significant impacts on visual character, scenic vistas, and
scenic resources, as the rezoning would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations analyzed in
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project.
5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 34 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
Comments:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Vistas in Anaheim or visible from Anaheim identified in the City’s General Plan include the City’s Hill and
Canyon area; the Santa Ana Mountains; golf courses; and the Santa Ana River. The Proposed Project would
improve the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan (2004 Plan) by providing additional bikeways and modifying existing
bikeways through build out of the ultimate right-of-way to include road widening, road repurposing,
removing on-street parking, restriping, and new and widened bridges/crossings. The improvements would
occur mostly within the ultimate right-of-way and other developed land uses and would not result in
substantial aesthetic impacts to scenic vistas. Impacts related to development of Class I bicycle facilities that
are not within the ultimate right-of-way would be speculative at this time. Therefore, where construction of
Class I Bike Paths would require additional rights-of-way acquisition and/or new alignments that pass
through parklands and/or open space areas, and where bridges/crossings are proposed, additional project-
specific CEQA analysis may be required. Implementation of the 2017 Plan would not result in substantially
greater impacts to scenic vistas than analyzed in the Certified EIR. No changes or new information would
require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
There is one designated State Scenic Highway in the City: SR-91 from SR-55 east to the City boundary. The
Proposed Project would improve the 2004 Plan by providing additional bikeways and modifying existing
bikeways through build out of the ultimate right-of-way to include road widening, road repurposing,
removing on-street parking, restriping, and new and widened bridges/crossings. Although some of the
bikeway improvements would occur near a scenic highway, eligible scenic highway, and scenic expressway
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 35
along SR-91 between SR-55 and SR-241, the improvements would occur mostly within the ultimate right-of-
way and other developed land uses and would not result in substantial aesthetic impacts to designated scenic
highways. Impacts related to development of Class I bicycle facilities that are not within the ultimate right-of-
way would be speculative at this time. Therefore, where construction of Class I Bike Paths would require
additional rights-of-way acquisition and/or new alignments that pass through parklands and/or open space
areas, and where bridges/crossings are proposed, additional project-specific CEQA analysis may be required.
Implementation of the 2017 Plan would not result in substantially greater impacts to scenic resources than
analyzed in the Certified EIR. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent
EIR.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The improvements would occur mostly within the ultimate right-of-way and would not substantially degrade
the visual character of the City or its surroundings. Impacts related to development of Class I bicycle
facilities that are not within the ultimate right-of-way would be speculative at this time. Therefore, where
construction of Class I Bike Paths would require additional rights-of-way acquisition and/or new alignments
that pass through parklands and/or open space areas, and where bridges/crossings are proposed, additional
project-specific CEQA analysis may be required. Implementation of the 2017 Plan would result in similar
visual impacts as the 2004 Plan. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent
EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The majority of the 2017 Plan improvements will occur within the ultimate right-of-way and would not
substantially alter the characteristics of existing ambient lighting sources. Where the 2017 Plan involves
development of Class I bike paths, including bridges/crossings in previously undeveloped areas, increase in
ambient lighting levels in the area would occur. Because the level of lighting impact depend on various factors
such as the type and number of lighting, the area’s ambient light levels, and distance to sensitive receptors,
evaluation of light and glare impacts would be speculative without actual facilities plan. Therefore,
development of new bicycle facilities outside of the ultimate right-of-way and developed areas, the City
would be required to comply with development standards related to lighting, and additional project-specific
CEQA analysis would be provided to ensure that daytime or nighttime light and glare impacts are reduced to
a less than significant level. Implementation of the 2017 Plan would result in similar visual impacts as the
2004 Plan. Impacts would not be significant and preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.1.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related aesthetics were outlined in the Certified EIR.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 36 PlaceWorks
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 identified some Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland as mapped in the City by the
Department of Conservation; however, these areas were not designated for agriculture under the City’s
General Plan. Therefore, the Update Project did not redesignate any of these areas from agricultural to
nonagricultural uses.
No Williamson Act contracts in effect in the City were identified and no conflicts were identified between the
Update Project and existing zoning for agricultural uses. No impacts would occur.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
The findings of EIR No. 346 regarding impacts to agriculture and forest resources were the same as those of
EIR No. 330. No impact would occur.
5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 37
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Comments:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Approximately five acres along the north City boundary with Placentia, east of Tustin Avenue and north of
Miraloma Avenue, (APN 346-164-03) are identified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. The 2017 Plan
proposes a Class III bike route (i.e., Bike ID 162) within the ultimate right-of-way along the frontage of this
parcel. About 20 acres along the south side of the Santa Ana River just west of Imperial Highway are mapped
Unique Farmland on APN 358-291-01 (DLRP 2016). The 2017 Plan proposes Class I bike paths (Bike IDs
29 and 179) this parcel, owned by the Orange County Water District, however they are on the opposite side
of the Santa Ana River as the Unique Farmland portion of this parcel. The Proposed Project would not
change land uses for these parcels, the proposed bikeways would not be on the farmland portions of the
parcel, and no amendments to General Plan or zoning designations on these parcels would be required to
implement the 2017 Plan. Therefore, impacts would not be significant and preparation of a subsequent EIR
would not be necessary.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. There are no Williamson Act contracts in effect in the City, and the Proposed Project would not
change zoning designations and thus would not conflict with any zoning for agricultural uses. No impact
would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would not change zoning designations and thus would not conflict with
zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. No impact would occur. Preparation of a
subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 38 PlaceWorks
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The Proposed Project consists of improvements within the ultimate right-of-way and other
developed land uses. Project implementation would not cause a loss of forest land, and no impact would
occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
No Impact. Project implementation would not indirectly cause conversion of mapped important farmland
to non-agricultural uses for the reasons explained in Sections 5.2.2.a through 5.2.2.d. No impact would occur.
Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.2.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to agricultural resources were outlined in the Certified EIR.
5.3 AIR QUALITY
5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
Air quality related impacts of the Update Project were analyzed in EIR No. 330 using the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD)’s CEQA Handbook methodologies and thresholds. Modeling of
operational phase emissions were conducted using the URBEMIS2002 computer model. EIR No. 330
identified the following conclusions regarding air quality emissions:
Construction-Related Regional Air Quality Impact: Significant and unavoidable. EIR No. 330
concluded that, even after mitigation, construction air emissions could exceed SCAQMD’s significance
thresholds as a result of the amount of development activity that is anticipated in the City.
Operational Phase Regional Air Quality Impact: Significant and unavoidable. EIR No. 330
concluded that the operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be
significant after mitigation.
AQMP Consistency: Less than significant impact. EIR No. 330 concluded that the project would
not conflict with SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Localized Air Quality Impact: Less than significant impact. EIR No. 330 demonstrated that there
would be no carbon monoxide (CO) exceedances caused by vehicular emissions when idling at
intersections, therefore localized CO hot spot impacts of the Update Project would be less than
significant.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 39
Air Quality Compatibility: Less than significant impact. EIR No. 330 identified that while no CO
exceedance would be caused by the project, the City could place sensitive land uses proximate to areas
with elevated CO concentrations However, implementation of Update Project would ensure that
mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Odors: Less than significant impact. EIR No. 330 identified that odors generated within the City
would not affect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
The following air quality impacts were identified by EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project:
Construction emissions associated with buildout of the Rezoning Project would, like the Update Project,
result in a substantial increase in criteria air pollutants that could exceed the SCAQMD emissions
thresholds and contribute to the ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). This impact was found to be
significant and unavoidable after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Updated and
Modified MMP No. 122A listed in Section 5.3.3 below.
Long-term operation of the Rezoning Project would, like the Update Project, exceed SCAQMD’s
emissions thresholds and contribute to the O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the
SCAB. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable after implementation of mitigation
measures identified in the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A listed in Section 5.3.3 below.
As compared to the Update Project, operation of the Rezoning Project would not expose sensitive
receptors to elevated concentrations of CO at intersections. This impact was identified as less than
significant.
Operation of the Update Project and the Rezoning Project may result in placement of sensitive land uses
proximate to major sources of air pollution. This impact was identified as less than significant after
implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A listed in
Section 5.3.3 below.
5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the Proposed Project:
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 40 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X
c) 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)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
Comments:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
EIR No. 330 determined that the Update Project would not increase the frequency or severity of air quality
violations in the SoCAB and would not exceed the assumptions of the AQMP. As a result, impacts of the
Update Project were considered less than significant. In addition, as analyzed in the Initial Study in support
of the Notice of Preparation prepared for EIR No. 346, it was also determined that the Rezoning Project, as
considered, would also be consistent with the AQMP and result in a less than significant impact.
SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the
SoCAB to achieve National and California AAQS. On December 7, 2012, the SCAQMD Governing Board
adopted the 2012 AQMP and recently released the Draft 2016 AQMP. The Proposed Project would result in
changes to the approved 2004 Plan. The 2017 Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed bicycle
facilities, and does not require land use amendments that could affect the projected growth for the City.
Therefore, the 2017 Plan would not substantially affect Southern California Association of Governments’
(SCAG) demographic projects. Furthermore, it would contribute in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
encouraging active transportation and reducing vehicle trips. Overall, implementation of the Proposed Project
would reduce mobile source criteria air pollutant emissions and would result in a beneficial impact compared
to the Approved Project. Thus, it would not affect the SCAQMD regional emissions inventory or conflict
with strategies in the AQMP. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 41
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects as determined in the Certified EIR. No
changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Certified EIR identified that construction and operational activities associated with the Approved
Project, due to its scale, would generate emissions in exceedance of the thresholds established by SCAQMD,
even after incorporation of mitigation, and would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the
SoCAB. The following describes changes in regional impacts from short-term construction activities and
long-term operation of the Proposed Project.
Regional Construction Emissions
The 2017 Plan includes construction of additional bicycle facilities, which would result in increased
construction emissions compared to the 2004 Plan as analyzed under the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR
identified that construction activities associated with the Approved Project, including implementation of the
2004 Plan, would exceed the thresholds established by SCAQMD and would cumulatively contribute to air
quality impacts in the SoCAB. Even upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 as identified in the
Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A, the Certified EIR determined regional construction emissions
impacts to be significant and unavoidable. Although the Proposed Project would increase the construction
emissions, as the 2017 Plan proposes development of increased number of bicycle facilities, most
improvements would occur within the ultimate right-of-way and other developed land uses, and would not
require substantial demolition, grading, or paving activities to cause substantially greater construction
emissions than the Approved Project. Where construction of Class I bikeways require additional rights-of-
way acquisition or require extensive site preparation activities from building bridges/crossings, project-
specific CEQA analysis would be required. The scope and scale of the 2017 Plan would be similar to that of
the 2004 Plan and would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects.
Regional Operational Emissions
The Certified EIR indicated that operational activities associated with the Approved Project would exceed the
thresholds established by SCAQMD and would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the SoCAB
even with implementation of mitigation measures. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
relating to this impact.
The Proposed Project includes improvements to and expansion of the bicycle network that would increase
bicycle ridership and reduce the number of daily weekday vehicle trips by up to 28,591 trips2 and VMT by up
to 120,117 miles per day (31,350,424 miles per year)3 at full buildout. As shown in Table 2, Net Change in
2 2017 Bicycle Master Plan, Table 10, Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates (Anaheim 2017).
3 Ibid.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 42 PlaceWorks
Maximum Daily Weekday Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions, implementation of the Proposed Project would result
in a net benefit and reduce overall daily weekday emissions compared to the Approved Project. As part of the
Approved Project, the City will continue to encourage provision of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes,
and other alternative transportation-related infrastructure in new development. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
Table 2 Net Change in Maximum Daily Weekday Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction Phase
Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day)1
ROG (VOC) NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Net Change -3 -16 -104 -1 -14 -6
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No
Source: EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7 and Year 2035 emission rates. Notes: 1 Based on the estimated daily weekday reduction of 120,117 vehicle miles (Anaheim 2016).
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Certified EIR identified that construction and operational activities associated with the Approved Project
would exceed the thresholds established by SCAQMD and would cumulatively contribute to air quality
impacts in the SoCAB. Despite implementation of mitigation, this impact was identified as significant and
unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted relating to this impact.
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS,
nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS, and nonattainment for PM10
under the California AAQS. According to SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can
be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact
(SCAQMD 1993). As described above in threshold 5.3(b), the Proposed Project would not exceed
SCAQMD’s short- and long-term regional significance thresholds and therefore would not cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Furthermore, as identified in Table 2,
implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a net benefit to the regional air quality by reducing
daily weekday long-term emissions through increasing bicycle ridership and reducing vehicle trips and vehicle
miles traveled. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects. No changes or new information would require
preparation of a subsequent EIR.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would not generate any long-term CO hotspot
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 43
impacts. The following describes changes in localized impacts from short-term construction activities and
long-term operation of the Proposed Project.
Localized Construction Impacts
As discussed in threshold 5.3(b), the Proposed Project is a program-level policy document that updates the
2004 Plan. Improvements would generally be limited to the ultimate right-of-way, where localized
construction impacts would not be substantially greater than analyzed under the Certified EIR. However,
construction of Class I bike paths that require acquisition of additional rights-of-way and/or development
through undeveloped parklands or open space areas would require further CEQA analysis. Development of
the bridges/crossings would also require a project-specific CEQA analysis. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not create a new significant or increase the severity of localized construction-related impacts compared
to the Approved Project.
Localized Operational Impacts
The Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts from CO hotspots. With the turnover of older
vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, the
SCAQMD is designated in attainment for CO under both the California and National AAQS.
Implementation of the Proposed Project would promote bicycle ridership and reduction of daily vehicle trips
and vehicle miles traveled. As shown in Table 2, under full buildout conditions, the Proposed Project would
result in reducing daily weekday emissions of CO by up to 104 pounds per day compared to the Approved
Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects. No changes or new information would require preparation of a
subsequent EIR.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in the development of the types
of land uses that would generate objectionable odors that would impact a substantial amount of people.
Additionally, it also determined that odors generated from construction activities would also result in a less
than significant impact as it would be short-term in nature and disperse quickly. The Proposed Project
updates the approved 2004 Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. No changes or new information would
require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
5.3.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures from the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Approved
Project are applicable to the Proposed Project and incorporated into MMP No. 343.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 44 PlaceWorks
Construction
MM 5.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall include a note
on all grading plans which requires the construction contractor to implement the following
measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at the pre-grade conference.
Use low emission mobile construction equipment.
Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible.
Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be
planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.
Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.
Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities
(the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and
satellite parking areas with a shuttle service).
Operation
MM 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and
other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments.
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 concluded that implementation of the Update Project would include development of residential
land uses in large vacant areas, which would adversely impact sensitive species through habitat loss and
habitat modification. Buildout of the Update Project was identified as potentially impacting riparian areas
and/or wetlands through development in the Hill and Canyon Area and along the Santa Ana River.
Developments in the Hill and Canyon Area pursuant to the Update Project were identified as impacting
wildlife movement in that area. EIR No. 330 concluded that implementation of the Update Project would
comply with City tree preservation policies and the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP). Impacts to sensitive species, riparian areas, wetlands, and wildlife movement were
identified as less than significant after implementation of mitigation, while the remaining impacts were
identified as less than significant without mitigation.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 45
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
No further impacts to biological resources were identified in EIR No. 346, as the proposed Rezoning Project
was consistent with the Update Project, and development of those sites was envisioned in the Update
Project.
5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 46 PlaceWorks
Comments:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Special status species include: those listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species
Act or California Endangered Species Act; species otherwise given certain designations by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife; and plant species listed as rare by the California Native Plant Society. The
majority of bicycle facilities would be built within the ultimate right-of-way and within or along other
developed land uses such as parks, drainage channels, percolation basins, utility and railroad rights-of-way, and
schools. Proposed Class I bike paths alongside engineered percolation basins, drainage channels, trails, and
Santa Ana River are Bike IDs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 19, 20, 29, 165, 175, and 179. Bike ID 11 would pass
through Deer Canyon Park, Bike ID 21 would pass through Pelanconi Park, Bike ID 178 would pass through
Peralta Canyon Park, and Bike ID 18 would go through Imperial Park Path. These are undeveloped areas or
part of existing park area and development of these bike paths could impact sensitive species in natural
habitats – that is, habitats along the banks of rivers and streams and open space areas– through habitat
modification. As with the Approved Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 through 5.3-7 from
the Certified EIR set forth in Section 5.4.3 below would be required where biological resources are identified
to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However, because the precise alignment has not been
finalized, the extent of biological impacts for an individual project would be speculative and would require
project-specific CEQA analysis. No new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those
previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require
preparation of a subsequent EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory
agencies; that are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or are known to be
important wildlife corridors. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams.
Development of some proposed Class I bike paths could impact riparian habitats, as explained above in
Section 5.4.2.a. As with the Approved Project, implementation of MM 5.3-1 through 5.3-8 from the Certified
EIR set forth in Section 5.4.3 below would be required where biological resources are identified to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. However, because the precise alignments have not been finalized, the
extent of biological impacts for an individual project would be speculative and would require project-specific
CEQA analysis. No new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in
the Certified EIR would occur and preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 47
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Wetlands are defined under the Federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water
or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a
prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes,
and bogs. The Proposed Project includes Class I bike paths to be developed in or along developed parks,
channels, percolation basins, utility and railroad rights-of-way, and schools. Wetlands could be present next to
engineered channels and percolation basins. Project buildout could impact wetlands. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-8 from the Certified EIR set forth in Section 5.4.3 below would be
required where biological resources are identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However,
because the precise alignment has not been finalized, the extent of biological impacts for an individual project
would be speculative and would require project-specific CEQA analysis. Therefore, no new significant
impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur and
preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The proposed bicycle improvements would be built mostly in the ultimate right-of-way or in or along
developed land uses, and thus would not interfere with wildlife movement or migration. Where development
of Class I bike paths, including bridges/crossings, require disturbance of previously undeveloped areas,
project-specific CEQA analysis would be prepared once the bike path alignment has been finalized.
Therefore, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the
Certified EIR would occur and preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The proposed bicycle facilities would be mostly built in the ultimate right-of-way or in or along other
developed land uses. Where development of Class I bike paths, including Santa Ana River bridges/crossings,
require disturbance of previously undeveloped areas, project-specific CEQA analysis would be prepared once
the bike path alignment has been finalized. Additionally, project development would comply with Chapter
13.12, Street Trees, and Chapter 18.18.040, Tree Preservation, of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code.
Therefore, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the
Certified EIR would occur and preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 48 PlaceWorks
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The southeast part of the City of Anaheim – that is, east of SR-55 and south of SR-91 – is in the plan area
of the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). Deer Canyon Park
is within the NCCP boundaries and development of Class I bike path (i.e., Bike ID 11) could affect the
reserves established under the NCCP. The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of relevant
General Plan goals and policies (i.e., Green Element Goal 14.1, Policy 1), and existing codes and regulations
(i.e., Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and
the Central/Coastal Subregion (NCCP/HCP) for protection of Federal or State listed species), the impacts
would be less than significant. As with the Approved Project, the 2017 Plan would continue to adhere to the
existing General Plan goals and policies, and existing codes and regulations to ensure that projects within the
NCCP do not conflict with the provisions of the NCCP. Once the alignment for the Bike ID #11 is finalized,
a project-specific CEQA analysis would be prepared to demonstrate that the new bike path would not
conflict with the provisions of the NCCP. Therefore, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater
severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur and preparation of a subsequent
EIR would not be necessary.
5.4.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures from the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Approved
Project are applicable to the Proposed Project and incorporated into MMP No. 343.
MM 5.3-1 Retention of rare communities shall be incorporated into building and project design to the
maximum extent practical. Rare communities include oak, riparian and wetland, walnut
woodland, and coastal sage scrub. If retention is not practical, healthy specimens shall be
relocated and/or replaced.
MM 5.3-2 Property owners/developers will be required to restore and re-vegetate where the loss of
small and/or isolated habitat patches is proposed.
MM 5.3-3 If construction activity is timed to occur during the nesting season (typically between March
1 and July 1), developers will be required to provide focused surveys for nesting birds
pursuant to California Department of Fish and Game requirements. Such surveys shall
identify avoidance measures taken to protect active nests.
MM 5.3-4 Removal of nonnative trees shall be permitted only outside the nesting season.
MM 5.3-5 Any crushing of existing habitat during the breeding season of the gnatcatcher shall occur
only under the supervision of a biological monitor.
MM 5.3-6 Preserved and/or protected areas will be identified by the project biologist and isolated with
construction fencing or similar materials prior to clearing or grading activities. Protected
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 49
areas include existing woodland and coastal sage scrub adjacent to revegetation areas and
individual trees and patches of native habitat to be preserved within revegetation areas.
MM 5.3-7 Lighting in residential areas and along roadways shall be designed to prevent artificial lighting
from reflecting into adjacent natural areas.
MM 5.3-8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any project potentially affecting riparian or
wetland habitat, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence that all necessary
permits have been obtained from the State Department of Fish and Game (pursuant to
Section 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or that no such permits are required, in a
manner meeting the approval of the City of Anaheim Planning Department. If a Section
404 Permit from the ACOE is required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will also
be required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 concluded that the Update Project would not result in significant cultural resources impacts
related to historical resources, archaeological resources, and paleontological resources upon implementation
of regulatory requirements, General Plan goals and policies, and mitigation measures identified MMP No.
122 as listed in Section 5.5.3 of this Addendum.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
EIR No. 346 determined that the Rezoning Project would be consistent with land use designations identified
for those sites in the Update Project, and because EIR No. 330 already contemplated buildout of the housing
opportunity sites proposed by the Rezoning Project, impacts to cultural resources would not be greater than
identified under the EIR No. 330.
5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 50 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074? (UNOFFICIAL Checklist Question for AB 52)
X
Comments:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project consists of bicycle facilities that would be built in the ultimate right-of-way or in or
along other developed land uses such as parks, channels, percolation basins, utility and railroad rights-of-way,
and schools. Development of new bicycle facilities could involve some changes to lane configuration, signage,
and pavement markings. The City of Anaheim contains historical resources listed on the NRHP and/or the
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). However, the Proposed Project would not encroach onto
any of the listed resources and improvement within the ultimate right-of-way would not substantially detract
from the historical significance of any listed historical resources. Additionally, implementation of MM 5.4-1
from the Certified EIR would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. No new
significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would
occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Archaeological resources are prehistoric or historic evidence of past human activities, including structural
ruins and buried resources. The majority of proposed bicycle facilities would be built in the ultimate right-of-
way or in or along other developed land uses. Construction of some of the proposed Class I bike paths,
including bridges/crossings, would involve ground disturbance outside of existing roadways; such
construction could thus impact archaeological resources that may be buried in soils on the sites of those
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 51
facilities. However, this impact would be less than significant after implementation of existing regulations,
General Plan goals and policies, and MMs 5.4-2 and 5.4-3 from the Certified EIR. No changes or new
information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Fossils are the recognizable remains or evidence of past life on earth; including bones, shells, leaves, tracks,
burrows, and impressions. The majority of proposed facilities would be built in the ultimate right-of-way or
in or along other developed land uses. Construction of some of the proposed Class I bike paths, including
bridges/crossings would involve ground disturbance outside of the ultimate right-of-way; such construction
could thus impact paleontological resources that may be buried in soils on the sites of those facilities. This
impact would be less than significant after implementation of existing regulations, General Plan goals and
policies, and MMs 5.4-2 and 5.4-3 from the Certified EIR. No changes or new information would require
preparation of a subsequent EIR.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project buildout would include development of some Class I bike paths, including
bridges/crossings could include disturbance of soils not previously disturbed. Construction of such bike
facilities could disturb human remains. As stated in the Certified EIR, in the event human remains are
encountered in such construction, the construction contractor and the City of Anaheim would halt
construction and contact the County Coroner in compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5. Impacts would be less than significant and no changes or new information would require preparation
of a subsequent EIR.
5.5.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures from the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Approved
Project are applicable to the Proposed Project and incorporated into MMP No. 343.
MM 5.4-1 City staff shall require property owners/developers to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of historic resources for areas with documented or inferred resource
presence. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed
mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation
plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist.
MM 5.4-2 City staff shall require property owners/developers to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of archaeological and/or paleontological resources for areas with
documented or inferred resource presence. On properties where resources are identified,
such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 52 PlaceWorks
recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified
specialist.
MM 5.4-3 All archaeological resources shall be subject to the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources
Code) Section 21083.2.
5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 determined that the Update Project would not expose future residents to hazards from
groundshaking, liquefaction, expansive soils, landslides, erosion, and loss of topsoil provided that the General
Plan goals and policies, existing codes and regulations, and MM 5.5-1 are implemented.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
EIR No. 346 concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and
policies and MM 5.5-1, the Rezoning Project would not result in significant impacts related to geology and
soils. Because the EIR No. 330 contemplated development of the housing opportunity sites for residential
and mixed uses, impacts related to geology and soils resulting from the Rezoning Project was determined to
be less than significant.
5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) 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.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 53
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
Comments:
e) 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.
No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed to prevent construction of
buildings used for human occupancy on the surface of active faults, in order to minimize the hazard of
surface rupture of a fault to people and buildings.
The Proposed Project consists of development of bicycle facilities and does not involve development of
buildings for human occupancy. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in the City of
Anaheim. The Proposed Project would not expose people or buildings to hazards from surface rupture
of a known active fault, and no impact would occur. No changes or new information would require
preparation of a subsequent EIR.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an
EIR. Several active faults in the Anaheim Region were identified in the Certified EIR. The City is subject
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 54 PlaceWorks
to strong ground shaking. The Proposed Project would not develop structures that could pose hazards to
people, such as through collapse or through wall or ceiling fixtures falling. Impacts would be less than
significant and no impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would
occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an
EIR. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their
load-supporting capability when strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by
relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction. Parts of the City are susceptible to
liquefaction, especially along and near the Santa Ana River and in the western part of the City. The
Proposed Project could involve construction of bike facilities susceptible to liquefaction. However, as
with the Certified EIR, compliance with the regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies,
and implementation of MM 5.5-1 would ensure that impacts related to ground failure are reduced to a
less than significant level. No impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified
EIR would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an
EIR. A few of the proposed bike paths in the Hill and Canyon Area would be developed in areas
susceptible to landslides including earthquake-induced landslides. Geotechnical investigations of such
sites and compliance with recommendations of such investigations, in conformance with Mitigation
Measure 5.5-1, would reduce landslide hazards to less than significant. No impacts of greater severity
than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR
would not be necessary.
f) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Most of the proposed facilities would be built in the ultimate right-of-way where no erosion or topsoil loss
would occur. Some bike paths would be developed in or along other developed land uses. All grading
operations would comply with Anaheim Municipal Code Title 17, Land Development and Resources. All
construction operations disturbing one acre or more of soil would prepare and implement Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans specifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during
construction to minimize stormwater pollution, including pollution with sediment. Impacts would be less
than significant. No impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would
occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 55
g) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are addressed above in Sections 5.6.2.a.iii and 5.6.2.a.iv,
respectively.
Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Most of the City is above
the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin); part of the Hill and Canyon Area is not above a
groundwater basin (DWR 2016). The Orange County Water District manages groundwater levels in the Basin
within a specified operating range pursuant to state law.4 Therefore, substantial ground subsidence over the
Basin is unlikely. The project does not involve groundwater wells and would not increase water demands. No
impact would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
Collapse
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or being subject to a load. Most proposed facilities would be
built in the ultimate right-of-way not susceptible to soil collapse. Some bike paths would be built in or along
other developed land uses. Geotechnical investigations of such sites, in compliance with Mitigation Measure
5.5-1 from the Certified EIR set forth in Section 5.6.3 below, would reduce hazards to less than significant.
No impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. Preparation
of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
h) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 19-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Expansive soils contain substantial amounts of clay that swells when wetted and shrinks when dried; the
swelling or shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Soils in much of the City are
considered expansive. Most proposed facilities would be built within the ultimate right-of-way not subject to
soil expansion. Some bike paths would be built upon or next to developed land uses. Implementation of MM
5.5-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant. No impacts of greater severity than those previously
identified in the Certified EIR would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
i) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The 2017 Plan implementation would not generate wastewater and would not involve the use of
alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur and no changes or new information would
require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
4 Statutes of 1933, Chapter 924
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 56 PlaceWorks
5.6.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures from the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Approved
Project are applicable to the Proposed Project and incorporated into MMP No. 343.
MM 5.5-1 The City shall require geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic
or geologic hazards as part of the environmental or development review process. All grading
operations will be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the
applicable geotechnical investigation.
5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts because, prior to Senate Bill 97
which went into effect January 1, 2010, this was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist
and the City did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
EIR No. 346 determined that the Approved Project would be consistent with applicable state and regional
GHG reduction plans which include the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and the
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). However, even with
incorporation of mitigation (MM 5.2-2 through MM 5.2-12), the Approved Project was determined to have
significant and unavoidable regarding GHG emissions impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations
was adopted related to GHG emissions impacts.
5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 57
Comments:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG
emissions, global warming impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. EIR No. 346
determined that the Approved Project would result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impact.
The Proposed Project provides improvements to the existing bicycle network and promote bicycle ridership
while decreasing vehicle trips. It is estimated that up to 7,462,284 vehicle trips and up to 31,350,424 vehicle
miles per year could be eliminated from implementation of the improvements included under the Proposed
Project (Anaheim 2017). A reduction in vehicle trips and VMT could reduce annual GHG emissions by up to
7,837 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent5 per year (MTCO2e/yr) under full buildout conditions and
result in a net benefit (see Table 3, Net Change in Maximum Annual GHG Emissions). Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects.
Table 3 Net Change in Maximum Annual GHG Emissions
Construction Phase
GHG Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Net Change -7,809 -0.13 -0.08 -7,837
SCAQMD Threshold — — — 3,000
Exceeds Threshold — — — No
Source: EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7 and Year 2035 emission rates. Notes: 1 Based on the estimated daily weekday reduction of 31,350,424 vehicle miles (Anaheim 2016).
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
EIR No. 346 did not identify any significant impacts related to consistency of the Approved Project with the
CARB Scoping Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS. A consistency analysis of the Proposed Project to these plans is
presented below.
5 The standard unit to measure the amount of greenhouse gases in terms of the amount of CO2 that would cause the same amount
of warming. CO2e is based on the global warming potential (GWP) ratios between the various GHGs relative to CO2. The global
warming potential is the metric used to describe how much heat a molecule of a greenhouse gas absorbs relative to a molecule of CO2 over a given period of time (20, 100, and 500 years). CO2 has a GWP of 1.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 58 PlaceWorks
CARB Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and
individual projects. In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), CARB developed the Scoping Plan to
outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. CARB is in the process of preparing
a 2030 Scoping Plan to address the GHG reduction targets under Senate Bill 32. The Proposed Project would
only involve improvements to the planned bicycle network, it would not support statewide strategies to
reduce GHG and would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact compared to the Approved Project.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016. SCAG’s RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies
that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas
would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed
transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that
allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas; provide
neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike,
and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands
(SCAG 2016). The Proposed Project would not propose any new land uses and would not affect the growth
forecast for the City as assumed under the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Additionally, the Proposed Project would
update the approved 2004 Plan and includes improvements to the planned bicycle network, which would
promote increased bicycle ridership and reduce VMT, which is consistent with the strategies in the RTP/SCS.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies
outlined in the RTP/SCS and no new impacts would be introduced compared to the Approved Project.
Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.7.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to GHG emissions from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Proposed
Project.
5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 concluded that the Update Project would involve a small increase in the number of residences
next to railways and thus subject to hazards from transportation of hazardous materials by rail. Some
commercial and industrial businesses in the City use or generate hazardous materials. Two former solid waste
disposal sites are in the City. The use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials is regulated by
several agencies. Impacts related to hazardous materials were identified as less than significant after
compliance with existing regulations, General Plan goals and policies, and implementation of MM 5.6-1
through MM 5.6-3 of the Certified EIR.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 59
Parts of the City were identified as being in airport land use plans of two airports, Fullerton Municipal
Airport and the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. Hazards related to the two airports were
determined to be less than significant after implementation of MM 5.6-4 through MM 5.6-6 of the Certified
EIR.
The part of the City east of SR-55 and south of SR-91 was identified as subject to wildfire hazards; this
impact was identified as less than significant after implementation of the General Plan policies.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
EIR No. 346 concluded that upon compliance with the existing regulatory requirements and General Plan
goals and policies, implementation of MM 5.6-1 through MM 5.6-6, buildout of the Rezoning Project would
not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. .
5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) 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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 60 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
Comments:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Construction of the proposed bicycle facilities could involve the use, transport, and disposal of small
amounts of hazardous materials such as fuels, greases, and paints. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials by the project would be required to comply with existing regulations of several agencies,
including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the EPA, the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA), and the Anaheim Fire & Rescue Hazardous Materials Section.6 Compliance with
applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would
ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner, and would
minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Additionally, the hazardous materials use during
construction would be temporary and would cease upon completion. Long-term operations of the Proposed
Project would not involve routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous
materials. As discussed in the Certified EIR, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The Proposed Project would not
require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
6 The Anaheim Fire & Rescue Hazardous Materials Section is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of
Anaheim; the Certified Unified Program coordinates and makes consistent enforcement of several state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 61
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Small quantities of hazardous materials, such as fuels, greases, paints, and cleaning substances, may be used
during project construction. This small amount would not pose a significant risk to the public or the
environment if an onsite accident were to occur. Project construction contractors would maintain equipment
and supplies for containing and cleaning up small hazardous materials spills; train construction workers on
such containment and cleanup; and would notify Anaheim Fire & Rescue and the California Environmental
Protection Agency immediately in the event of a release of hazardous materials to the ground or air. The risk
of accidental releases of hazardous materials would not be greater than the severity of previously identified
effects. The Proposed Project would not require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The proposed bicycle facilities would not emit or handle hazardous materials, and would not pose hazards to
people at schools near such facilities during operation.
There are 109 K−12 schools in the City of Anaheim – consisting of 73 public schools and 36 private schools
– listed on the California School Directory maintained by the California Department of Education (CDE
2016). As discussed in Sections 5.8.2.a and 5.8.2.b above, hazardous materials would be used in conformance
with existing regulations of several agencies, and hazardous materials spills would be contained and cleaned
up promptly by project construction workers and/or emergency response agencies, as appropriate. Therefore,
the impacts would not be greater than the severity of previously identified effects. The Proposed Project
would not require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the compiling of lists of the following types of
hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action; hazardous waste discharges
for which the State Water Quality Control Board has issued certain types of orders; public drinking water
wells containing detectable levels of organic contaminants; underground storage tanks with reported
unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has migrated.
Four databases were searched on September 17, 2016 for listings in the City of Anaheim: GeoTracker,
maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board; EnviroStor, maintained by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control; the Solid Waste Information System maintained by the California Department of
Resources Recovery and Recycling; and the RCRAInfo database maintained by the US Environmental
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 62 PlaceWorks
Protection Agency.7 A total of 1,934 hazardous materials sites were identified on the four databases, as shown
below in Table 4.
Most of bicycle facilities would be developed in the ultimate right-of-way where construction activities would
not encounter contamination from listed hazardous materials sites. Some Class I bike paths, including
bridges/crossings, would be constructed in undeveloped areas. However, known hazardous materials sites
would be considered during design of the new bike facilities; for instance, paths would be routed so
construction of the paths would not disturb known hazardous materials at concentrations posing substantial
hazards to the public or the environment. Implementation of MM 5.6-3 from the Certified EIR would also
be applicable to ensure that the impacts from the 2017 Plan would not be greater than the severity of
previously identified effects of the 2004 Plan. The Proposed Project would not require preparation of a
subsequent EIR.
Table 4 Hazardous Materials Sites Listings in Anaheim
Database Type of Site Regulatory Status Number of Sites
GeoTracker Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case closed 397
Case Open 13
Subtotal 410
Cleanup Program Case closed 29
Case open 12
Subtotal 41
Registered Underground Storage Tanks Not applicable 486
Total 937
EnviroStor Evaluation No Further Action (case closed) 2
Inactive or referred to other agency 12
Subtotal 14
Historical No Further Action (case closed) 2
Referred to other agency 14
Subtotal 16
School Investigation or School Cleanup No Further Action or Certified (case closed) 17
Inactive 4
Subtotal 21
Corrective Action No Further Action 3
Active, Inactive, or referred to other agency 7
Subtotal 10
State Response Certified 1
Active or referred to other agency 4
Subtotal 5
Voluntary Cleanup No Further Action or Certified (case closed) 4
Active 1
Subtotal 5
7 RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, United States Code Title 42, Sections 6901 et seq.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 63
Table 4 Hazardous Materials Sites Listings in Anaheim
Database Type of Site Regulatory Status Number of Sites
Tiered Permit1 No Further Action (case closed) 6
Active, Inactive, referred to other agency, or land use restrictions 51
Subtotal 57
Calmortgage all 2
Total 128
Solid Waste Information System Solid Waste Disposal Sites Closed 2
Composting facility Active 1
Transfer Station Active 1
Total 4
RCRA Info Small quantity generators of hazardous wastes Not applicable 782
Large quantity generators of hazardous wastes Not applicable 83
Total 865
TOTAL 1,934
Sources: DTSC 2016; SWRCB 2016; CalRecycle 2016 1 Tiered permits are issued by DTSC to facilities that treat and/or store hazardous wastes.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles or 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. As discussed in the Certified EIR, the nearest airport from the City of Anaheim is the Fullerton
Municipal Airport, approximately two miles from the city limits. The Proposed Project would not involve any
above-grade structures within the two miles of a public airport that could result in airport safety hazards.
Project buildout would not cause hazards for people using the proposed facilities. No impact would occur
and preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. There are three heliports in the City of Anaheim (Airnav.com 2016). The proposed bicycle
facilities would not obstruct air navigation for helicopters approaching any of the heliports, and no impact
would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The City’s Emergency Operations Plan is maintained by the Emergency Management and Preparedness
Section of Anaheim Fire & Rescue. The Proposed Project would have no adverse impact on emergency
response capability. The City’s circulation system would continue to provide emergency access during
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 64 PlaceWorks
construction and alternative routes would be provided to ensure limited disruption to the existing roadway
system. The new bikeways would provide a comprehensive and safe bicycle system without physically
interfering with any emergency response or evacuation plan as analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Portions of the Hill and Canyon Area are mapped as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The Proposed Project does not involve
development of structures for human occupancy, therefore, would not expose people or structure to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The great majority of proposed facilities
would be on or next to the ultimate right-of-way, and would not result in increased urbanized area where
residences are intermixed with wildlands. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would
not be necessary.
5.8.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures from the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Approved
Project are applicable to the Proposed Project and incorporated into MMP No. 343.
MM 5.6-3 Prior to issuance of any discretionary permit for a current or former hazardous waste
disposal site or solid waste disposal site, the project property owner/developer shall submit a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City. If possible hazardous materials are
identified during the site assessments, the appropriate response/remedial measures will be
implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Care
Agency (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as
appropriate.
5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 determined that the Update Project would increase generation of pollutants that could
contaminate stormwater during both the construction and operational phases of project development but
water quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level after regulatory compliance. The EIR
No. 330 also concluded that the groundwater recharge area is so large that implementation of the Update
Project would not potentially increase the demand on groundwater supplies and compliance with General
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 65
Plan goals and policies directing the City to reduce pollution, enforce water quality management regulations,
and conserve water would further reduce groundwater impacts. EIR No. 330 indicated that the majority of
the City is built out and runoff volumes are not expected to increase significantly with the implementation of
the Update Project. concluded that existing drainage facilities in some parts of the City were identified as
deficient. Although the eastern part of the Hill and Canyon Area would require construction of drainage
facilities and there are some deficient drainage facilities in the City, the EIR No. 330 concluded that
implementation of applicable General Plan goals and policies would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level and the specific types and locations of drainage facilities will be determined at the time development
applications are submitted.
The EIR No. 330 indicated that small parts of the City – mostly within flood control channels and
percolation basins – were identified as within 100-year flood zones mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, parts of the City were mapped in dam inundation areas of three
dams: Prado Dam on the Santa Ana River in Riverside County about two miles east of the City boundary;
Walnut Canyon Reservoir in the Hill and Canyon Area of the City; and Carbon Canyon Dam in the City of
Brea about three miles north of the City. However, compliance with General Plan goals and policies related
to flood hazards in 100-year flood zones and dam inundation zones would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Furthermore, the policies contained in the General Plan seek to protect structures and
residents within flood zones by requiring all development proposals to undergo an evaluation process to
determine flood risks and ensure compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
EIR No. 346 concluded that upon compliance with the existing regulatory requirements and General Plan
goals and policies, and implementation of MM 5.7-1 through MM 5.7-3, buildout of the Rezoning Project
would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 66 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
b) 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 (e.g., 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)??
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 67
Comments:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
As with the Approved Project, construction of the Proposed Project could generate metals, organic
compounds, sediment, trash and debris, and oils and grease. However, as stated in the Certified EIR, all
construction operations disturbing one acre or more of soil would prepare and implement Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) specifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be
implemented during construction to minimize stormwater pollution. Preparation and implementation of
SWPPPs is required to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012-
0006-DWQ issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2012. The Proposed Project would not
create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
Operation of the proposed bicycle facilities could generate small amounts of trash and debris left by facility
users. However, Class I bike path development would include trash receptacles and such minor increases
would not substantially impact the quantity of runoff or other pollutant loadings to receiving water to violate
any water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements. The Proposed Project would not create a
new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of
a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
b) 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 (e.g., 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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Operation of the proposed facilities would not generate water demand and would not deplete groundwater
supplies. The Orange County groundwater basin underlies the northern half of Orange County, covering
approximately 310 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana
Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminating near the Orange County line
to the northwest, where it connects to the Central Basin of Los Angeles. The Proposed Project would not
affect this groundwater basin and would not involve land use intensification to result in additional
groundwater usage. Furthermore, most of the proposed facilities would be in the ultimate right-of-way; thus
would not increase the amount of impervious area in the City. Although Class I bike path development could
increase impervious pavement within the City, the majority of the City is built out and the new bike path
locations do not represent significant groundwater recharge area. The Proposed Project buildout would not
substantially decrease groundwater recharge to result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effect of the Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 68 PlaceWorks
Project buildout would not substantially change existing drainage patterns in and near the City. Most
proposed facilities would be in the ultimate right-of-way, and drainage for such facilities would be via existing
curbs, gutters, storm drains, and storm drain inlets. For the new Class I bike path development in previously
undeveloped areas, implementation of the required SWPPP, which incorporates BMPs, would minimize
erosion and siltation impacts, as stated in the Certified EIR. No new significant impact or a substantial
increase the severity of previously identified effect related to drainage or storm drain capacity would occur.
Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Project buildout would not substantially change existing drainage patterns in and near the City. Most
proposed facilities would be in the ultimate right-of-way, and drainage for such facilities would be via existing
curbs, gutters, storm drains, and storm drain inlets. As stated in the Certified EIR, the majority of the City is
built out and therefore runoff volumes are not expected to increase significantly. Although slight increase of
impermeable area could occur compared to the Approved Project, compliance with the existing flood control
plans and regulations would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The Proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
See Response to Sections 5.9.2(a) and 5.9.2(d).
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
See Response to Section 5.9.2(a).
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. The 2017 Plan does not propose structures for human occupancy, including housing, within
100-year flood zones. No impact would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. See Response to Section 5.9.2(g).
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 69
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
While some parts of the City are mapped in dam inundation areas of Prado Dam, Walnut Canyon Reservoir,
and Carbon Canyon Dam, some parts of the City (mainly near the Santa Ana River) are mapped as protected
from 100-year floods by levees (FEMA 2016). The Certified EIR indicated that implementation of relevant
goals and policies under the General Plan would ensure that potential flooding impacts are reduced to a less
than significant level. The 2017 Plan would not involve construction of any habitable structures within a 100-
year flood zone, and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding substantially
greater than identified in the Certified EIR. Additionally, as part of the Mainstem Project, which was aimed at
protecting parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties from flooding on the Santa Ana River,
improvements on levees in Orange County and on Prado Dam would be completed in 2016 and 2020,
respectively, to further reduce potential flooding impacts (OC Public Works 2016). Ongoing flood protection
improvements along the Santa Ana River would minimize flood hazards from failure of a dam or a levee.
Therefore, the 2017 Plan would not subject people or structures to substantial hazards from dam inundation
and impacts would be less than significant. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Seiche
A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake. The
Proposed Project does not involve development of habitable structures, and project buildout would not place
people or structures at risk of flooding due to a seiche. Impacts would be less than significant.
Tsunami
A tsunami is a sea wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes.
The City of Anaheim ranges from about seven to 19 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean; and ranges in
elevation from about 50 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the southwest corner of the City to over 1,300
feet amsl in the Hill and Canyon Area. Thus, the City is not at risk of flooding due to tsunami. No impact
would occur.
Mudflow
A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement.
Mudflows are most likely to occur during and immediately after severe rainstorms, when most proposed
facilities would not be used. Project buildout would not exacerbate mudflow hazards, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 70 PlaceWorks
5.9.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures from the Updated and Modified MMP No. 122A for the Approved
Project are applicable to the Proposed Project and incorporated into MMP No. 343.
MM 5.7-1 The City shall work with the Orange County Flood Control District to ensure that flood
control facilities are well maintained and capable of accommodating, at a minimum, future
25-year storm flows.
MM 5.7-2 The City shall require that new developments conduct a drainage study and mitigate its
drainage impacts if the development creates a deficiency in an existing storm drain facility or
discharges to an existing deficient facility.
5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 concluded that implementation of the Update Project would not substantially divide established
communities. The Update Project was found to be consistent with plans and policies intended to avoid or
mitigate an environmental effect, including the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code, and the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide issued by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The
Update Project implementation was found to comply with provisions of the Orange County Central/Coastal
Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP).
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
The EIR No. 346 determined that because EIR No. 330 contemplated development of the housing
opportunity sites for residential and mixed uses, land use and planning impacts resulting from the Rezoning
Project would be less than significant.
5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 71
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
b) 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?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X
Comments:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project would not physically divide established communities. The Proposed Project is intended
to improve connectivity between existing and planned bikeways, therefore, benefit the communities within
the City. No adverse impact would occur and preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The 2017 Plan would require an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan. The 2017 Plan meets the State
requirements for a Bicycle Transportation Plan per Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways
Codes and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans
that promote reduced VMTs and encourages active transportation. The proposed amendments would not
involve any major policy or goal changes that could adversely affect the environment, but reflects updated
environmental conditions. The General Plan amendments would modify texts of the Circulation Element,
Green Element, Community Design Element, and Economic Development Element of the General Plan.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is further described in Appendix B of the 2017 Plan. Amendments
to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Anaheim Resort, and the
Disneyland Resort Specific Plans to bring them into conformance with the General Plan and to provide
typical street cross-sections will be processed at a later date. Such amendments would improve multi-modal
connectivity and increase bicycle mode share, especially for short trips. The Proposed Project would not
conflict the overall General Plan goals and policies to promote improved bicycling safety, comfort, and
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 72 PlaceWorks
accessibility. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Development of Class I bike path (i.e., Bike ID 11) passes through Deer Canyon Park, which is located in the
NCCP. While compliance with the General Plan goals and policies, and existing federal, state, and regional
regulations protecting biological resources would ensure that projects within the NCCP boundaries do not
create conflicts, because the final alignment plan has not been prepared, project-specific CEQA analysis
would be required at the time of Bike ID 11 implementation. The Proposed Project would not create a new
significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a
subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.10.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning were outlined in the Certified EIR.
5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 indicated that the State of California designates one mineral resource zone (MRZ)-2 area and
three specific areas of regionally significant mineral resources within the City of Anaheim. It also indicated
that extensive amounts of the sand and gravel aggregate have been removed from these areas and the surface
for these areas was to be closed in December 2004, resulting less than significant impacts related mineral
resources.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
EIR No. 346 concluded that no additional significant mineral resources impacts would occur under the
Rezoning Project, as the EIR No. 330 already include development of the housing opportunity sites.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 73
5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
For the purpose of CEQA analysis, mineral resources refer to aggregate resources that consist of sand,
gravel, and crushed rock. Aggregate resources provide bulk and strength in construction materials such as
portland cement and asphaltic concrete. Other nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver,
iron, and copper and industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone,
gypsum, salt, and dimension stone.
The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the regional significance of mineral resources in
accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The State Geologist
is responsible for classifying areas within California that are subject to urban expansion or other irreversible
land uses. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification
information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide
significance. Classification into MRZ is completed by the State Geologist in accordance with the SMGB’s
priority list and according to the presence or absence of significant mineral resources.
Of the four MRZ categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are
underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant
measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by SMGB as being “regionally
significant.” Such designations require that a lead agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas be
made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies (if any exist) and that it consider the
importance of the mineral resource to the region or the state as a whole, not just to the lead agency’s
jurisdiction. The MRZ-1 zone depicts areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant
mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. MRZ-3
indicates areas of undetermined mineral resource significance.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 74 PlaceWorks
Comments:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The three mineral resource sectors identified in the Certified EIR have all been developed and are no longer
available for mining. In addition to the mineral resources identified in the Certified EIR, one additional
mineral resource sector (Sector I) is mapped next to the south side of SR-91 just east of SR-241 by the
California Geological Survey and was not identified in the EIR (CGS 1994a, CGS 1994b). Although two
mines are identified in Anaheim on the Mines Online database maintained by the Office of Mine
Reclamation, one mine (R. J. Noble sand and gravel mine just north of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue
and Batavia Street) is listed as idle and one (Star sand and gravel mine east of the intersection of Gypsum
Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road) is closed (OMR 2016, USGS 2016). No active mines in the City
are identified on the Mines Online database. Therefore, as stated in the Certified EIR, the City is largely built
out and already planned for development under the Approved Project. Implementation of the 2017 Plan
would not cause additional loss of availability of mineral resources valuable to the region. Impacts would be
less than significant and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. No locally important mineral resource recovery site would be lost due to implementation of the
Proposed Project. No impact would occur and no changes or new information would require preparation of
a subsequent EIR.
5.11.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were outlined in the Certified EIR.
5.12 NOISE
5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 determined that implementation of the General Plan goals and policies, existing codes and
regulations, and implementation of mitigation measures will reduce all potential short-term construction
noise and vibration impacts to a less than significant level. However, operational noise impacts have been
determined as significant and unavoidable as many roadways within the City are expected generate noise
levels in excess of 65 CNEL. As a result, in locations where these roadways are adjacent to existing sensitive
land uses, the impacts are anticipated to remain significant
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 75
Railroad and airport noise impacts and industrial stationary-source noise impacts were also identified as less
than significant provided that relevant General Plan goals and policies, Municipal Codes, and mitigation
measures are implemented.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
Traffic noise impacts from buildout of the Rezoning Project were identified as significant and unavoidable in
EIR No. 346, as with EIR No. 330. Residential projects developed pursuant to the Rezoning Project would
comply with City noise standards, and stationary-source noise impacts due to project buildout were
determined to be less than significant. Implementation of the Rezoning Project would generate construction
noise and groundborne vibration; such impacts were identified as less than significant.
5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project result in:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) 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?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 76 PlaceWorks
Comments:
a) 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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
City of Anaheim Noise Standards
The Noise Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan indicates that exterior noise levels at residential
locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dB while interior levels shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45
dB in any habitable room.
Stationary sources of noise are governed under the local Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure
Levels. Section 6.70.010 simply 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 sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter.8 Readings shall be
taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response.” The
section goes on to state “Traffic sounds, sound created by emergency activities and sound created by
governmental units shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter. Sound created by construction or
building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.”
Project Impacts
Construction Impacts
Roadway striping and installation of signage (for Class II bike lanes) and installation of signage (for Class III
bike routes) would briefly generate low levels of construction noise generally lower than existing ambient
traffic noise on the affected roadways. Construction of paved off-road Class I bike paths would briefly
generate some construction noise. Construction would be conducted within the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00
PM in compliance with Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code.
Therefore, construction activities would not be conducted during the most noise-sensitive parts of the day.
The sites of many of the proposed bike paths are in or along parks, drainage channels, percolation basins,
and utility and railroad rights-of-way, where the nearest noise-sensitive land uses would be some distance
from the proposed bike path. Impacts would be less than significant, and would not be greater than identified
in the Certified EIR.
Operational Impacts
Operational noise from the proposed bicycle facilities would include mechanical noises of bicycles and noise
from bicyclists speaking to other people. Operation of on-road bike lanes and bike routes would generate far
lower noise levels than existing traffic noise on the same roadways. Operation of Class I bike paths would
8 A microbar is a unit of pressure and is one millionth of one bar; atmospheric pressure at sea level under certain conditions is about
1.013 bar.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 77
generate low levels of noise generally no greater than existing noise levels in developed land uses, such as
parks, that the bike paths would pass through. Impacts would be less than significant, and there would be no
change in the previous Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Roadway striping and installation of signage (for Class II bike lanes) and installation of signage (for Class III
bike routes) would not generate groundborne vibration that would either annoy people, or cause architectural
damage, at nearby land uses. Construction of Class I bike paths would involve use of construction equipment
and trucks that would generate some groundborne vibration. Given the limited intensity of construction
effort – construction of paved bike paths about 10 feet wide – construction of the paths is not expected to
generate the intensity of groundborne vibration that activities such as pile driving and heavy grading do. In
addition, the sites of many of the bike paths are in or along parks, drainage channels, percolation basins, and
utility and railroad rights-of-way, where the nearest structures for human occupancy would be far enough
from the proposed bike path that they would not be susceptible to architectural damage or annoyance as a
result of construction-generated vibration. Development of bridges/crossings could potentially create
groundborne vibration impacts. Excessive groundborne vibration is typically caused by activities such as
blasting, or the use of pile drivers during construction. Construction of bridges/crossings is not anticipated
to require blasting activities but may require pile driving activities. As indicated under the Certified EIR,
construction activities would be required to comply with General Plan goals and policies and the Municipal
Codes. In addition, development of bridges/crossings would require project-specific CEQA analysis prior to
construction. Therefore, it is unlikely that construction of the bike paths would generate groundborne
vibration causing substantial annoyance or architectural damage, and impacts would be less than significant.
There would be no change from the previous Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be
necessary.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
See Response to Section 5.12.2 (a).
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
See Response to Section 5.12.2 (a).
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 78 PlaceWorks
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Parts of the City of Anaheim are in airport land use plans for two airports, Fullerton Municipal Airport and
Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. Airport noise contours are mapped as Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) contours, which consist of an overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that
approximates the frequency response of the human ear; and with five decibels (dB) added from 7:00 PM to
10:00 PM and 10 dB added from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The City is outside of 65-CNEL noise contours for
both aforementioned airports. Therefore, 2017 Plan buildout would not expose people to excessive noise
levels generated by aircraft approaching or departing either airport. Impacts would be less than significant,
and there would be no change from the previous Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not
be necessary.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
There are three heliports in the City of Anaheim: the North Net Training Authority Heliport just southwest
of the Orangewood Avenue overcrossing of the Santa Ana River in the southeast corner of the Platinum
Triangle; the Kaiser Permanente Anaheim Medical Center Heliport north of SR-91 and west of Tustin
Avenue; and the Anaheim Canyon Tower Heliport near the southwest corner of Miller Street and Miraloma
Avenue (the latter two heliports are both in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan area) (Airnav.com 2016) Over
congested areas, helicopters must maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within
2,000 feet of the aircraft, except as needed for takeoff and landing (Code of Federal Regulations Title 14
Section 91.119). Thus, heliport uses would not expose people on proposed bicycle facilities to excessive noise
levels. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.12.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to noise from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Proposed Project.
5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
Population and housing impacts were identified as less than significant in EIR No. 330. Estimated population
growth due to the Update Project would be within population projections for Orange County and would thus
not be a significant impact. The Update Project would involve development of more housing units than the
number of units forecast for the City in 2030; however, the increase reflects a shift in future housing
development to more multi-family residential units and does not indicate a significant population impact. The
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 79
EIR No. 330 concluded that the Update Project would develop increased numbers of housing units near
major employment centers, thus reducing travel distances and improving jobs-housing balance.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
No additional significant population and housing impacts were identified, as the proposed rezoning and
pursuant buildout were consistent with, and envisioned in, the Update Project.
5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
Comments:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The 2017 Plan does not propose development of housing and would not directly increase population. Bicycle
facilities operation would not generate employment. Construction of the proposed facilities would generate a
small number of temporary construction jobs. The unemployment rate in Orange County in August 2016
was estimated at 4.4 percent (EDD 2016). Thus, it is assumed that construction employment would be
absorbed from the regional labor force rather than attracting new workers into the region. Impacts would be
less than significant and preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 80 PlaceWorks
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Construction of the proposed facilities would not displace housing, as no facilities are planned
through residential land uses, and no impact would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be
necessary.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact. Proposed Project buildout would not displace residents, and no impact would occur.
Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.13.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to population and housing were outlined in the Certified EIR.
5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 determined that the Update Project was expected to generate increased numbers of calls for fire
and police services due to increased numbers of residents and employees and increased development
intensity in the City. However, EIR No. 330 concluded that compliance with the relevant goals and policies
and Municipal Codes, and implementation of MM 5.11-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
No additional significant public services impacts were identified in the EIR No. 346.
5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 81
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Comments:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project would not result in additional growth in the City that requires increased fire services
demand, therefore, would not require additional fire services. Impacts related to fire services were discussed
in the Certified EIR, which concluded that upon implementation of regulatory requirements, General Plan
goals and policies, and mitigation measure, buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant
impacts related to fire services. Although limited roadway closures could occur during bikeway construction,
most improvements would occur within the ultimate right-of-way and minimum disruption with readily
accessible alternative routes is anticipated. Bikeways would be constructed in compliance with the existing
regulations and would have negligible impacts to the fire response times once the facilities are completed.
Updates to the 2004 Plan would improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility, including multi-modal
connectivity, therefore, better serve the City’s population. The Proposed Project would not create additional
demands for fire protection compared to the Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be
necessary.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project would not result additional growth or increase population in the City to create
additional demand for police. Impacts related to police was discussed in the Certified EIR, which concluded
that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan goals and policies, buildout of the
General Plan would not result in significant impacts. The Proposed Project would not change any of the
goals or policies related to police protection and the Proposed Project would not create a new significant
impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent
EIR would not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 82 PlaceWorks
c) Schools?
No Impact. Demand for school facilities depends on the numbers of households in the schools’ service
areas. The Proposed Project would not develop housing and would have no impact on demands for schools.
Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
d) Parks?
No Impact. Demands for parks depend on the population in the parks’ service areas. Project buildout would
not increase population and would have no impact on demands for parks. Preparation of a subsequent EIR
would not be necessary.
e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. Demands for libraries depend on the population in the libraries’ service areas. Project buildout
would not increase population and would have no impact on demands for libraries. Preparation of a
subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.14.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to public services from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Proposed
Project.
5.15 RECREATION
5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 concluded that buildout of the Update Project would cause increased demands for parks in the
City overall, and increased demands specifically in areas where residential uses would be permitted where no
such uses then existed.
Residential developments in the City are required to dedicate land for parkland and/or pay in-lieu fees to
offset impacts on demand for parks. Impacts were identified as less than significant after compliance with the
City’s park dedication ordinance.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
No additional significant recreation impacts were identified, as the Rezoning Project were determined to be
consistent with, and envisioned in, the Update Project.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 83
5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Comments:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Impacts to park and recreational facilities increase with population growth. The Proposed Project is not a
growth inducing project and would not result in population increase. Although improved bike path access and
connectivity to park system has potential to increase the park use, the park users are already being served by
the park and recreation system and it is an intended consequence of the Proposed Project. The Proposed
Project would not necessitate construction or expansion of parks and recreational facilities other than
analyzed by the Certified EIR. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would
not be necessary.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Bicycle facilities are considered both recreation and transportation facilities. Impacts to park and recreational
facilities increase with population growth. The Proposed Project is not a growth inducing project and would
not result in population increase. However, the Proposed Project involves construction of Class I bike paths
through existing parks or open space (i.e., Anaheim Coves Northern Extension (Bike ID 2), Nohl Ranch
Open Space Trail (Bike ID 21), Deer Canyon Park (Bike ID 11)) may require expansion of existing parks or
additional park improvements. Impacts related to development of Class I bicycle facilities would be
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 84 PlaceWorks
speculative at this time. Therefore, where construction of Class I Bike Paths would require new alignments
that pass through parklands and/or open space areas, additional project-specific CEQA analysis may be
required. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.15.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to recreation were outlined in the Certified EIR.
5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
EIR No. 330 identified significant traffic impacts of the Update Project buildout at seven intersections:
Dale/Lincoln
Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road
Sportstown/Katella
Tustin Avenue / La Palma Avenue
Tustin/SR-91 WB Ramps
Imperial Highway/Santa Ana Canyon Road
Weir Canyon/SR-91 EB Ramps
Improvements proposed in the Circulation Element of the Update Project reduced impacts at four of the
seven intersections to less than significant. After mitigation, traffic impacts at three of the intersections were
identified as significant and unavoidable:
Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road
Tustin Avenue / La Palma Avenue
Imperial Highway/Santa Ana Canyon Road
Impacts at one Congestion Management Program intersection, Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road, were
identified as significant and unavoidable. Buildout of the Update Project was not identified as significantly
impacting air traffic levels or air traffic patterns; roadway design hazards; emergency access; or parking
capacity.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
EIR No. 346 identified significant traffic impacts of the Proposed Project to 20 intersections. Impacts at
seven of the intersections were identified as significant and unavoidable due to physical constraints on
intersection widening, including buildings and mature trees.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 85
No significant impacts respecting roadway design hazards, emergency access, or alternative transportation
were identified.
5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
Comments:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 86 PlaceWorks
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The 2017 Plan conforms with State requirements for a Bicycle Transportation Plan (California Streets and
Highways Code Section 891.2) and would supersede the existing 2004 Plan. The Proposed Project would
improve multimodal connectivity to increase bicycling, especially for short trips, through a planned system of
on-street routes and off-street bike paths that will connect residents, visitors, and workers to their
destinations. As the 2017 Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle lanes,
and Class II and III bikeways would be implemented within the ultimate right-of-way as described in the
Circulation Element, and associated Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan), the
2017 Plan would not substantially decrease the performance of the existing roadways.
The Proposed Project would not change the adopted General Plan’s land use assumptions to change
development density and would not impact the growth projections under the City’s General Plan. In addition,
the Proposed Project would be consistent with regional plan strategies to reduce the number of vehicle trips
by increasing bicycle ridership. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not reduce effectiveness of any
applicable traffic-related plans, ordinances, or policies. The Proposed Project would not create a new
significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a
subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact. The Congestion Management Program in effect in Orange County is the 2015 Orange County
Congestion Management Program (CMP), which was issued by the Orange County Transportation Authority
in November 2015. The CMP requires analysis of traffic impacts to CMP roadways and intersections if a
project generates 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the
CMP highway system. Operation of the proposed bicycle facilities would not generate motor vehicle trips,
instead, the 2017 Plan is anticipated to promote a small shift from motor vehicles to bicycles, especially for
shorter trips. Proposed project buildout would not generate motor vehicle trips requiring traffic analysis of
CMP roadways and intersections, and no adverse impact would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR
would not be necessary.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would not change air traffic levels, and would not develop structures
requiring relocation of air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would
not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 87
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The designs of the proposed facilities conform to bikeway design specifications set forth in Chapter 1000 of
the California Highway Design Manual issued by the California Department of Transportation in December
2015. The proposed facilities would improve safety in several ways: Class I bike paths would be off-road
facilities; Class II bike lanes would provide bicycle lanes separate from vehicle travel lanes; and Class III
bicycle routes would provide signage alerting motorists of the bicycle routes. Proposed Project
implementation would improve safety and performance of the bikeways in the City and no new significant
impacts would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on emergency access. The City’s circulation system
would continue to provide emergency access during construction and alternative routes would be provided to
ensure limited disruption to the existing roadway system. The new bikeways would provide a comprehensive
and safer bicycle system without physically interfering with any emergency response or evacuation plan as
analyzed in the Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project would update the 2004 Plan to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility
without removing any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle lanes. Class II and III bikeways would be
implemented within the ultimate right-of-way as described in the Circulation Element and associated Planned
Roadway Network Map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan). The 2017 Plan has been prepared to meet the
California State requirements for a Bicycle Transportation Plan per Section 891.2 of the California Streets
and Highways Codes. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan, as fully
described in Appendix B of the 2017 Plan, and subsequent amendments to the Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan, Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Anaheim Resort, and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plans to
bring them into conformance with the Anaheim General Plan and to provide typical street cross-sections to
be consistent with the 2017 Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project is compatible with adopted policies, plans,
or programs concerning alternative modes of transportation and performance or safety of such facilities. No
new adverse impact would occur. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary
5.16.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to transportation and traffic from the Certified EIR are applicable to the
Proposed Project.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 88 PlaceWorks
5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR
EIR No. 330 for the Update Project
Water
Water demands by buildout of the Update Project were identified in EIR No. 330 as lower by nearly 10
percent, or about 10 million gallons per day (mgd), than buildout of the existing General Plan. Additional
water mains were identified as needed for fire flow requirements in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
Expansion Area. EIR No. 330 concluded that water supply impacts were less than significant after
implementation of mitigation.
Sewer
Several deficient sewers that would require expansion were identified in EIR No. 330, especially in the
Platinum Triangle and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area. Impacts of the Update Project
were identified as less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
EIR No. 330 concluded that the Update Project would generate slightly less wastewater than buildout of the
previous General Plan. Wastewater treatment impacts were identified as less than significant.
Solid Waste Disposal
EIR No. 330 concluded that solid waste generation by the Update Project would be slightly less than that by
buildout of the previous General Plan. Solid waste disposal impacts were determined to be less than
significant.
Storm Drainage Facilities
Existing drainage facilities in some parts of the City were identified as deficient. In addition, the eastern part
of the Hill and Canyon Area was then vacant, thus requiring construction of drainage facilities in that area to
serve future developments.
EIR No. 346 for the Rezoning Project
No additional significant impacts to utilities and service systems were identified in EIR No. 346.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 89
5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
c) 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?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X
Comments:
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The City of Anaheim is served by a comprehensive sanitary sewer system. The Proposed Project would not
create new wastewater discharged that would impact the quality of surface water or groundwater resources.
While some wastewater could be generated from the end-of-trip facilities, such as shower and locker facilities,
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 90 PlaceWorks
any demands generated from these facilities would be minor and would not result in exceedance of waste
water treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB).
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The 2017 Plan includes probable and proposed bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities, including shower
and locker facilities. Therefore, some increases in water and wastewater demands are anticipated. However,
these facilities would not impact the land uses and water use from shower and locker facilities would not
result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
c) 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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project would not require construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities. Most
proposed bikeways would be in the ultimate right-of-way and drainage for such facilities would be via existing
curbs, gutters, storm drains, and storm drain inlets. Although additional impervious roadway surfaces would
be created due to new Class I bike paths, as stated in the Certified EIR, the majority of the City is built out
and therefore runoff volumes are not expected to increase significantly. Although slight increase of
impermeable area could occur, as with the Approved Project, compliance with the existing flood control
plans, design standards, and regulations would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects in the Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) forecasts that there will be sufficient water supplies to
meet demands in its service area over the 2020-2040 planning period in normal-year and dry-year conditions
(APU 2016). The Proposed Project would not affect the growth projections in the City and would not change
any City-wide land use assumptions used in the City’s UWMP. The 2017 Plan does not involve activities that
would directly require consumption of additional water. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require
APU to obtain new or expanded water supplies. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant
impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Preparation of a subsequent
EIR would not be necessary.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 91
e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
See Response to Sections 5.17.2(a) and 5.17.2(b).
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The 2017 Plan implementation would not create substantial waste disposal needs during construction and
operation. The Proposed Project does not involve substantial building demolition or construction that could
generate large amount of construction waste. Considering the small scale and construction materials involved
in constructing Class I bike paths, bicycle parking, and end-of-trip facilities, no significant amount of
construction waste would be generated. The City would be required to recycle construction waste as
appropriate. Although Class I bike path development would include trash receptacles, such incremental
increases in solid waste generation, would be accommodated by the existing landfill capacity. In 2015, nearly
99 percent of the solid waste landfilled from Anaheim was disposed of at the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill
near the City of Brea, and the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill near the City of Irvine. The two landfills
combined have remaining disposal capacity of 239,200,000 cubic yards; maximum daily disposal capacity of
19,500 tons; actual disposal of about 13,501 tons per day; and residual daily disposal capacity of about 5,999
tons.9 The estimated closure dates for the two facilities are 2021 for the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, and
2053 for the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle 2016a CalRecycle 2016b; CalRecycle 2016c;
CalRecycle 2016d). There is sufficient solid waste disposal capacity in the region for the small amount of
construction and operational wastes that would be generated by the Proposed Project, and impacts would not
be substantially greater than the effects identified in the Certified EIR. Preparation of a subsequent EIR
would not be necessary.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. Recycling, reuse, and disposal of construction waste would comply with solid waste diversion
programs available in the City of Anaheim. There are no applicable federal, state, and local regulations related
to solid waste that apply to the Proposed Project during operation. No impact would occur and preparation
of a subsequent EIR would not be necessary.
5.17.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to utilities and services systems from the Certified EIR are applicable to the
Proposed Project.
9 Daily disposal is estimated using annual disposal amounts and 300 operating days per year; each landfill is open six days per week
except certain holidays.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 92 PlaceWorks
5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issues
Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions
Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions
New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Comments:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Implementation of the 2017 Plan would not substantially reduce the population, habitat, or range of a fish or
wildlife species or rare or endangered plant or animal species; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As
demonstrated in this Addendum, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts to
biological or cultural resources, nor would it substantially increase the severity of impacts evaluated and
determined in Certified EIR. Impacts related to development of Class I bicycle facilities that are not within
the ultimate right-of-way would be speculative at this time. Therefore, where construction of Class I Bike
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
February 2017 Page 93
Paths would require additional rights-of-way acquisition and/or new alignments that pass through parklands
and/or open space areas, and where bridges/crossings are proposed, additional project-specific CEQA
analysis may be required. Because the Proposed Project would not meet any of the criteria identified in
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an
Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate document type for the Proposed Project.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
The Proposed Project is citywide and cumulative in scope and analysis compared to the Approved Project.
The Proposed Project would not result in any new cumulatively considerable impacts or substantially increase
the severity of the cumulative effects previously disclosed in the Certified EIR, which included the 2004 Plan.
Impacts related to development of Class I bicycle facilities that are not within the ultimate right-of-way would
be speculative at this time. Therefore, where construction of Class I Bike Paths would require additional
rights-of-way acquisition and/or new alignments that pass through parklands and/or open space areas, and
where bridges/crossings are proposed, additional project-specific CEQA analysis may be required. Because
the Proposed Project would not meet any of the criteria identified in Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate
document type for the Proposed Project.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
As demonstrated in this Addendum, the Proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly, nor would it substantially increase the severity of impacts evaluated
and determined in the Certified EIR. Impacts related to development of Class I bicycle facilities that are not
within the ultimate right-of-way would be speculative at this time. Therefore, where construction of Class I
Bike Paths would require additional rights-of-way acquisition and/or new alignments that pass through
parklands and/or open space areas, and where bridges/crossings are proposed, additional project-specific
CEQA analysis may be required. Because the Proposed Project would not meet any of the criteria identified
in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, an Addendum to
the Certified EIR is the appropriate document type for the Proposed Project.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 94 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2017 Page 95
6. List of Preparers
6.1 CITY OF ANAHEIM
Planning and Building Department
David Belmer Director of Planning and Building
Jonathan E. Borrego, AICP Planning Services Manager
Susan Kim, AICP Principal Planner
Christine Saunders Associate Planner
Public Works Department
Rudy Emami Director of Public Works
Jamie Lai Traffic and Transportation Manager
Linda Johnson Principal Planner
Rafael Cobian, PE, LEED GA Principal Traffic Engineer
David Kennedy, PE Associate Transportation Planner
Shawn Azarhoosh Associate Engineer
Leticia Mercado Operations Contract Specialist
Community Services
Pamela Galera Principal Project Planner
Cynthia Hicks Supervising Librarian
Police Department
Mark Berger Police Officer – Planning and Research
Karla Santillan Traffic Office Administrator
Anaheim Fire & Rescue
Allen Hogue Deputy Fire Marshal
Community and Economic Development
Kevin Clausen Planner
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
6. List of Preparers
Page 96 PlaceWorks
Public Utilities
Aladdin Shaikh Principal Civil Engineer
Manny Soto Senior Electrical Systems Designer
Philip Bogdanoff Principal Civil Engineer
6.2 PLACEWORKS
William Halligan, Esq. Principal, Environmental Services
Nicole Vermilion Manager, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Noise
Elizabeth Kim Associate
Michael Milroy Project Planner
John Vang Project Planner
Natalie Foley Planner
Gina Froelich Senior Editor
Cary Nakama Graphic Artist
February 2017 Page 97
7. References
Airnav.com. Airport Information. 2016, September 17. http://www.airnav.com/airports/.
Anaheim, City of. 2016, August. Bicycle Master Plan: Public Review Draft.
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/12700.
Anaheim Public Utilities (APU). 2016, June. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/1841931998/FINAL%20Anaheim%20U
WMP%202016%2D06%2D30.pdf.
California Department of Education (CDE). 2013, September 27. California School Directory.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016, September 17. Solid Waste
Information System. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Files/SWFacilities/Directory/SWIS.xls.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2007. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 1994a. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Orange County.
Open File Report 94-15, Plate 1. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94-15/OFR_94-15_Plate_1.pdf.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 1994b. Designated Areas Urbanized: Santa Ana River and Lower
Santiago Creek Resource Areas. Open File Report 94-15, Plate 4. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94-15/OFR_94-15_Plate_4.pdf.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016, September 17. EnviroStor.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016, September 17. Groundwater Information Center Map
Interactive Map Application. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/.
National Park Service (NPS). 2012, July 5. National Register of Historic Places. https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466.
OC Public Works. 2016, September 13. Santa Ana River Project (SARP): Project Cost and Schedule. http://ocflood.com/sarp/cost.
Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). 2016, September 19. Mines Online.
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/mol-app.html.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
7. References
Page 98 PlaceWorks
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2005. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations. http://aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CO/CO.html.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April 7. Final 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility,
Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2016, September 17. GeoTracker.
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
US Census. 2017. American FactFinder. B08006, Sex of Workers By Means of Transportation to Work, 2011-
2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_B08006
&prodType=table
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2016, September 19. Mineral Resources Data System.
http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral-resources/mrds-us.html.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
February 2017
Appendix A 2017 Bicycle Master Plan
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
February 2017
Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
February 2017
Appendix A 2017 Bicycle Master Plan
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
February 2017
Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF ANAHEIM BICYCLE MASTER PLAN: EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle Miles Traveled1
Total Daily Weekday VMT Reduction:120,117 miles
Total Annual Weekday VMT Reduction:2 31,350,424 miles
1 Anaheim, City of. 2016, August. Bicycle Master Plan: Public Draft Review.
2 Based on the reduced daily weekday VMT multiplied by 261 days to account for the number of weekdays per year (Anaheim 2016).
Emissions Reductions
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Daily Reductions 3 16 104 1 14 6
1 Based on year 2035 EMFAC2014, v.1.0.7, emission factors.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Annual Reductions 7,809 0.13 0.08 7,837
Note: MTons = metric tons; CO 2e = carbon dioxide-equivalent.
2 Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) as follows:
N2 O = 298; CO2 =25; CH4 =21
pounds/day1
MTons/year1,2
1 Based on year 2035 EMFAC2014, v.1.0.7, emission factors. Includes Pavley + California Advanced Clean Car Standards, the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS), on-road diesel fleet rules, and the Smartway/Phase I Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulation.
B-1
CITY OF ANAHEIM BICYCLE MASTER PLAN: EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Based on EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7
Emission year Daily VMT
2035 120,117
Vehicle Type Percent of VMT
of SpeedBin ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
All Other Buses 0.05%0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01
LDA 48.05%0.37 2.10 33.52 0.18 5.78 2.34
LDT1 6.00%0.08 0.41 6.13 0.03 0.72 0.29
LDT2 20.53%0.24 1.32 21.57 0.11 2.48 1.00
LHD1 4.11%0.30 2.78 2.13 0.05 1.01 0.44
LHD2 0.57%0.04 0.12 0.21 0.01 0.16 0.07
MCY 0.30%1.41 0.79 11.73 0.00 0.01 0.01
MDV 16.00%0.29 1.55 21.34 0.12 1.93 0.79
MH 0.39%0.02 0.59 0.25 0.01 0.15 0.07
Motor Coach 0.05%0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.01
OBUS 0.04%0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01
SBUS 0.06%0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.05
T6 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 CAIRP Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 CAIRP Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00T6 Instate Construction Heavy 0.05%0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01
T6 Instate Construction Small 0.15%0.01 0.16 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.02
T6 Instate Heavy 0.28%0.02 0.35 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.05
T6 Instate Small 0.83%0.06 0.86 0.33 0.02 0.32 0.13
T6 OOS Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 OOS Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 Public 0.04%0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
T6 Utility 0.01%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6TS 0.31%0.01 0.08 0.21 0.01 0.12 0.05T7 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T7 CAIRP 0.25%0.05 0.52 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.03
T7 CAIRP Construction 0.02%0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
T7 NNOOS 0.29%0.05 0.47 0.27 0.01 0.08 0.03
T7 NOOS 0.09%0.02 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.01
T7 POLA 0.57%0.11 1.38 0.67 0.02 0.16 0.06
T7 Public 0.02%0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
T7 Single 0.14%0.02 0.25 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.01
T7 Single Construction 0.05%0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01
T7 SWCV 0.04%0.00 0.13 0.61 0.00 0.01 0.00
T7 Tractor 0.36%0.07 0.84 0.40 0.01 0.10 0.04
T7 Tractor Construction 0.04%0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00
T7 Utility 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T7IS 0.04%0.03 0.26 3.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
UBUS 0.28%0.02 0.64 1.07 0.00 0.37 0.16
TOTAL 3.25 16.49 104.42 0.65 13.95 5.72
lbs/day
Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin
B-2
CITY OF ANAHEIM BICYCLE MASTER PLAN: EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Based on EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7
Emission year Annual VMT GWP GWP GWP
2035 31,350,424 298 1 25
Vehicle Type Percent of VMT
of SpeedBin NOx N2O CO2 (Pavley)CH4 CO2e w/ Pavley
+ LCFS
All Other Buses 0.05%0.01 0.00 18.43 0.00 18.52
LDA 48.05%0.25 0.01 2,175.01 0.02 2,178.53
LDT1 6.00%0.05 0.00 352.73 0.00 353.43
LDT2 20.53%0.16 0.01 1,355.74 0.01 1,357.96
LHD1 4.11%0.33 0.01 636.56 0.00 640.71
LHD2 0.57%0.01 0.00 95.09 0.00 95.28
MCY 0.30%0.09 0.00 14.50 0.04 16.56
MDV 16.00%0.18 0.01 1,424.80 0.01 1,427.41
MH 0.39%0.07 0.00 124.17 0.00 125.05
Motor Coach 0.05%0.01 0.00 25.34 0.00 25.47
OBUS 0.04%0.00 0.00 14.34 0.00 14.36
SBUS 0.06%0.01 0.00 14.84 0.00 14.94
T6 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.53
T6 CAIRP Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33
T6 CAIRP Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 1.18 0.00 1.19
T6 Instate Construction Heavy 0.05%0.01 0.00 17.98 0.00 18.08
T6 Instate Construction Small 0.15%0.02 0.00 52.90 0.00 53.13
T6 Instate Heavy 0.28%0.04 0.00 94.86 0.00 95.37
T6 Instate Small 0.83%0.10 0.00 286.43 0.00 287.70
T6 OOS Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19
T6 OOS Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68
T6 Public 0.04%0.01 0.00 13.30 0.00 13.41
T6 Utility 0.01%0.00 0.00 2.28 0.00 2.28
T6TS 0.31%0.01 0.00 102.69 0.00 102.81
T7 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.88
T7 CAIRP 0.25%0.06 0.00 113.46 0.00 114.24
T7 CAIRP Construction 0.02%0.00 0.00 8.40 0.00 8.45
T7 NNOOS 0.29%0.06 0.00 127.30 0.00 128.00
T7 NOOS 0.09%0.02 0.00 41.32 0.00 41.61
T7 POLA 0.57%0.16 0.01 261.00 0.00 263.05
T7 Public 0.02%0.01 0.00 7.86 0.00 8.01
T7 Single 0.14%0.03 0.00 63.45 0.00 63.82
T7 Single Construction 0.05%0.01 0.00 22.04 0.00 22.17
T7 SWCV 0.04%0.02 0.00 37.43 0.02 38.14
T7 Tractor 0.36%0.10 0.00 161.15 0.00 162.39
T7 Tractor Construction 0.04%0.01 0.00 16.34 0.00 16.47
T7 Utility 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85
T7IS 0.04%0.03 0.00 18.37 0.00 18.79
UBUS 0.28%0.08 0.00 104.59 0.02 106.07
TOTAL 100%1.95 0.08 7,809.36 0.13 7,836.85
N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB for gas emissions in the 2014 Technical Support Document for California's 2000-2012 GHG EMissions inventory. The
off-model adjustment uses for every gram of NOx emitted from gasoline vehicles, an average of 0.0416 grams of N2O are emitted. (N2O = 0.0416 x NOx)
Daily weekday vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 261 days/year to account for the number of weekdays per year per the 2016 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan: Public Draft Review (Anaheim
2016).
Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin
B-3
CITY OF ANAHEIM BIC Orange County 2035 - all Model Years (40 MPH)*
DELET
THIS??? Why 2012?Sub Area Veh ROG_RUNEX NOx_RUNEX CO_RUNEX SOx_RUNEX PM10_RUN EX PM10_PMTW PM10_PMBW PM10_Total PM2.5_RUN EX PM2.5_PMTW PM2.5_PMBW PM2_5_Total CO2(Pavley+AACC)_RUNEX CH4_RUNEX
VMT from default EMFAC-SG %VMT
2012 Annual Orange (SC)All Other Buses 0.030626 0.452677 0.161207 0.010621 0.0031462 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.00301 0.003 0.05586 6.19E-02 1113.2357 0.001423 4892.0876 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDA 0.002907 0.016506 0.263423 0.001444 0.0006701 0.008 0.03675 4.54E-02 0.000617 0.002 0.01575 1.84E-02 144.38003 0.00116 4451514.1 48.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT1 0.00487 0.025759 0.386236 0.001878 0.000867 0.008 0.03675 4.56E-02 0.000797 0.002 0.01575 1.85E-02 187.60152 0.001966 555601.48 6.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT2 0.004396 0.024212 0.396803 0.002108 0.0007945 0.008 0.03675 4.55E-02 0.000731 0.002 0.01575 1.85E-02 210.62898 0.001768 1902007.1 20.53%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD1 0.027404 0.255728 0.195292 0.004811 0.0056926 0.010659106 0.07644 9.28E-02 0.005435 0.002664777 0.03276 4.09E-02 494.12312 0.001929 380676.94 4.11%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD2 0.023905 0.080001 0.141294 0.0052 0.0056931 0.010832232 0.08918 1.06E-01 0.005437 0.002708058 0.03822 4.64E-02 535.46208 0.001419 52477.596 0.57%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MCY 1.759825 0.984128 14.65818 0.001822 0.0018896 0.004 0.01176 1.76E-02 0.001762 0.001 0.00504 7.80E-03 153.02861 0.382286 28002.633 0.30%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MDV 0.00682 0.036518 0.503649 0.00284 0.0008701 0.008 0.03675 4.56E-02 0.000801 0.002 0.01575 1.86E-02 284.06856 0.002714 1482123.5 16.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MH 0.01653 0.580179 0.242212 0.010155 0.0076882 0.012899351 0.13034 1.51E-01 0.00733 0.003224838 0.05586 6.64E-02 1026.4556 0.00355 35745.107 0.39%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)Motor Coach 0.061097 0.648178 0.360764 0.015032 0.004738 0.012 0.13034 1.47E-01 0.004533 0.003 0.05586 6.34E-02 1575.6215 0.002838 4751.7573 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)OBUS 0.008127 0.083233 0.212282 0.010433 0.0009196 0.012 0.13034 1.43E-01 0.000846 0.003 0.05586 5.97E-02 1045.144 0.003284 4055.512 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)SBUS 0.022358 0.455013 0.164689 0.008275 0.0034355 0.010341232 0.7448 7.59E-01 0.003273 0.002585308 0.3192 3.25E-01 857.73504 0.002078 5113.4608 0.06%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Ag 0.035208 0.722558 0.185322 0.010832 0.0037194 0.012 0.13034 1.46E-01 0.003558 0.003 0.05586 6.24E-02 1135.4204 0.001635 136.86012 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Heavy 0.027521 0.354544 0.14486 0.010246 0.0027345 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002616 0.003 0.05586 6.15E-02 1073.9845 0.001278 91.785577 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Small 0.026049 0.320904 0.137112 0.010506 0.0025353 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002426 0.003 0.05586 6.13E-02 1101.1784 0.00121 317.7544 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Heavy 0.031406 0.483254 0.165232 0.010608 0.0032574 0.012 0.13034 1.46E-01 0.003117 0.003 0.05586 6.20E-02 1111.9399 0.001459 4778.7609 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Small 0.028702 0.389687 0.151001 0.010554 0.002903 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002777 0.003 0.05586 6.16E-02 1106.2139 0.001333 14129.895 0.15%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Heavy 0.030598 0.467206 0.161059 0.010318 0.0031381 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.003002 0.003 0.05586 6.19E-02 1081.4681 0.001421 25919.479 0.28%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Small 0.028719 0.391187 0.151166 0.01056 0.0028937 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002768 0.003 0.05586 6.16E-02 1106.8292 0.001334 76470.319 0.83%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Heavy 0.027542 0.355584 0.144973 0.010247 0.0027372 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002619 0.003 0.05586 6.15E-02 1074.0298 0.001279 52.622585 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Small 0.026049 0.320904 0.137112 0.010506 0.0025353 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002426 0.003 0.05586 6.13E-02 1101.1784 0.00121 182.17522 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Public 0.025292 0.717229 0.124611 0.01058 0.0040433 0.012 0.13034 1.46E-01 0.003868 0.003 0.05586 6.27E-02 1108.9082 0.001175 3544.7027 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Utility 0.021534 0.239205 0.113347 0.010513 0.0019185 0.012 0.13034 1.44E-01 0.001835 0.003 0.05586 6.07E-02 1101.9617 0.001 610.70194 0.01%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6TS 0.00915 0.093511 0.256109 0.01045 0.0009024 0.012 0.13034 1.43E-01 0.00083 0.003 0.05586 5.97E-02 1046.729 0.003697 28989.51 0.31%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Ag 0.082494 1.697166 0.487109 0.01499 0.0067767 0.036 0.06174 1.05E-01 0.006484 0.009 0.02646 4.19E-02 1571.2298 0.003832 162.37774 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP 0.068791 0.77816 0.406194 0.013553 0.0055391 0.036 0.06174 1.03E-01 0.005299 0.009 0.02646 4.08E-02 1420.5944 0.003195 23600.535 0.25%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP Construction 0.070421 0.790453 0.415701 0.013894 0.0057262 0.036 0.06174 1.03E-01 0.005478 0.009 0.02646 4.09E-02 1456.2914 0.003271 1703.4598 0.02%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NNOOS 0.060162 0.621929 0.355243 0.013518 0.0046437 0.036 0.06174 1.02E-01 0.004443 0.009 0.02646 3.99E-02 1416.8819 0.002794 26549.72 0.29%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NOOS 0.068832 0.780177 0.406439 0.013555 0.005543 0.036 0.06174 1.03E-01 0.005303 0.009 0.02646 4.08E-02 1420.748 0.003197 8594.7153 0.09%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 POLA 0.075319 0.919477 0.444743 0.013999 0.0062091 0.036 0.06174 1.04E-01 0.005941 0.009 0.02646 4.14E-02 1467.3196 0.003498 52562.312 0.57%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Public 0.054635 2.27798 0.287941 0.014433 0.0091826 0.036 0.06174 1.07E-01 0.008785 0.009 0.02646 4.42E-02 1512.8088 0.002538 1535.1149 0.02%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single 0.058044 0.689766 0.342737 0.01409 0.0043964 0.036 0.06174 1.02E-01 0.004206 0.009 0.02646 3.97E-02 1476.8705 0.002696 12695.797 0.14%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single Construction 0.058372 0.710257 0.344196 0.014102 0.0044842 0.036 0.06174 1.02E-01 0.00429 0.009 0.02646 3.98E-02 1478.0976 0.002711 4406.6264 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 SWCV 0.032924 1.135161 5.114592 0.002077 0.0030832 0.036 0.06174 1.01E-01 0.00295 0.009 0.02646 3.84E-02 2658.9082 1.448581 4159.4628 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor 0.071362 0.8786 0.421373 0.013644 0.0057904 0.036 0.06174 1.04E-01 0.00554 0.009 0.02646 4.10E-02 1430.0891 0.003315 33299.025 0.36%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor Construction 0.073413 0.907666 0.433295 0.014021 0.0060246 0.036 0.06174 1.04E-01 0.005764 0.009 0.02646 4.12E-02 1469.6173 0.00341 3285.4657 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Utility 0.04454 0.422053 0.262998 0.013991 0.003004 0.036 0.06174 1.01E-01 0.002874 0.009 0.02646 3.83E-02 1466.4815 0.002069 170.76096 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7IS 0.251842 2.652756 30.20104 0.015987 0.0009242 0.02 0.06174 8.27E-02 0.00085 0.005 0.02646 3.23E-02 1553.5278 0.101765 3494.6509 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)UBUS 0.028802 0.873661 1.465568 0.005304 0.0029602 0.012 0.49316657 5.08E-01 0.002816 0.003 0.2113571 2.17E-01 1210.0152 0.251249 25542.72 0.28%
9,263,949 100.00%
**The annual average temperature and humidity are based on data for years 2006 to 2016.
g/mile
*EMFAC2014v1.0.7 based on the average annual temperature 67F and humidity of 59% for Anaheim from Weather Underground accessed September 29, 2016.** Assumes an average 40 mph speed based on CalEEMod Users' Manual.
B-4
CITY OF ANAHEIM BIC Orange County 2035 - all Model Years (40 MPH)*
DELET
THIS??? Why 2012?Sub Area Veh
2012 Annual Orange (SC)All Other Buses
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MCY
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MDV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MH
2012 Annual Orange (SC)Motor Coach
2012 Annual Orange (SC)OBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)SBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6TS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NNOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 POLA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 SWCV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7IS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)UBUS
**The annual average temperature and humidity are based on data for years 20
*EMFAC2014v1.0.7 based on the average annual temperature 67F and humidity
2.205E-03
ROG_RUNEX NOx_RUNEX CO_RUNEX SOx_RUNEX PM10_RUN EX PM10_PMTW PM10_PMBW PM10_Total PM2.5_RUN EX PM2.5_PMTW PM2.5_PMBW PM2_5_Total CO2(Pavley+AACC)_RUNEX CH4_RUNEX
6.75E-05 9.98E-04 3.55E-04 2.34E-05 6.94E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.21E-04 6.64E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.45E+00 3.14E-06
6.41E-06 3.64E-05 5.81E-04 3.18E-06 1.48E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.00E-04 1.36E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.05E-05 3.18E-01 2.56E-06
1.07E-05 5.68E-05 8.51E-04 4.14E-06 1.91E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.01E-04 1.76E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.09E-05 4.14E-01 4.33E-06
9.69E-06 5.34E-05 8.75E-04 4.65E-06 1.75E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.00E-04 1.61E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.07E-05 4.64E-01 3.90E-06
6.04E-05 5.64E-04 4.31E-04 1.06E-05 1.25E-05 2.35E-05 1.69E-04 2.05E-04 1.20E-05 5.87E-06 7.22E-05 9.01E-05 1.09E+00 4.25E-06
5.27E-05 1.76E-04 3.11E-04 1.15E-05 1.26E-05 2.39E-05 1.97E-04 2.33E-04 1.20E-05 5.97E-06 8.43E-05 1.02E-04 1.18E+00 3.13E-06
3.88E-03 2.17E-03 3.23E-02 4.02E-06 4.17E-06 8.82E-06 2.59E-05 3.89E-05 3.88E-06 2.20E-06 1.11E-05 1.72E-05 3.37E-01 8.43E-04
1.50E-05 8.05E-05 1.11E-03 6.26E-06 1.92E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.01E-04 1.77E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.09E-05 6.26E-01 5.98E-06
3.64E-05 1.28E-03 5.34E-04 2.24E-05 1.69E-05 2.84E-05 2.87E-04 3.33E-04 1.62E-05 7.11E-06 1.23E-04 1.46E-04 2.26E+00 7.83E-06
1.35E-04 1.43E-03 7.95E-04 3.31E-05 1.04E-05 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.24E-04 9.99E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.40E-04 3.47E+00 6.26E-06
1.79E-05 1.83E-04 4.68E-04 2.30E-05 2.03E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.16E-04 1.86E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.32E-04 2.30E+00 7.24E-06
4.93E-05 1.00E-03 3.63E-04 1.82E-05 7.57E-06 2.28E-05 1.64E-03 1.67E-03 7.22E-06 5.70E-06 7.04E-04 7.17E-04 1.89E+00 4.58E-06
7.76E-05 1.59E-03 4.09E-04 2.39E-05 8.20E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.22E-04 7.84E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.38E-04 2.50E+00 3.61E-06
6.07E-05 7.82E-04 3.19E-04 2.26E-05 6.03E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 5.77E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.37E+00 2.82E-06
5.74E-05 7.07E-04 3.02E-04 2.32E-05 5.59E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.19E-04 5.35E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.35E-04 2.43E+00 2.67E-06
6.92E-05 1.07E-03 3.64E-04 2.34E-05 7.18E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.21E-04 6.87E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.37E-04 2.45E+00 3.22E-06
6.33E-05 8.59E-04 3.33E-04 2.33E-05 6.40E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 6.12E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.44E+00 2.94E-06
6.75E-05 1.03E-03 3.55E-04 2.27E-05 6.92E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.21E-04 6.62E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.38E+00 3.13E-06
6.33E-05 8.62E-04 3.33E-04 2.33E-05 6.38E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 6.10E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.44E+00 2.94E-06
6.07E-05 7.84E-04 3.20E-04 2.26E-05 6.03E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 5.77E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.37E+00 2.82E-06
5.74E-05 7.07E-04 3.02E-04 2.32E-05 5.59E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.19E-04 5.35E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.35E-04 2.43E+00 2.67E-06
5.58E-05 1.58E-03 2.75E-04 2.33E-05 8.91E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.23E-04 8.53E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.38E-04 2.44E+00 2.59E-06
4.75E-05 5.27E-04 2.50E-04 2.32E-05 4.23E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.18E-04 4.05E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.34E-04 2.43E+00 2.21E-06
2.02E-05 2.06E-04 5.65E-04 2.30E-05 1.99E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.16E-04 1.83E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.32E-04 2.31E+00 8.15E-06
1.82E-04 3.74E-03 1.07E-03 3.30E-05 1.49E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.30E-04 1.43E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.25E-05 3.46E+00 8.45E-06
1.52E-04 1.72E-03 8.95E-04 2.99E-05 1.22E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.17E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.99E-05 3.13E+00 7.04E-06
1.55E-04 1.74E-03 9.16E-04 3.06E-05 1.26E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.21E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.03E-05 3.21E+00 7.21E-06
1.33E-04 1.37E-03 7.83E-04 2.98E-05 1.02E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.26E-04 9.79E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.80E-05 3.12E+00 6.16E-06
1.52E-04 1.72E-03 8.96E-04 2.99E-05 1.22E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.17E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.99E-05 3.13E+00 7.05E-06
1.66E-04 2.03E-03 9.80E-04 3.09E-05 1.37E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.29E-04 1.31E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.13E-05 3.23E+00 7.71E-06
1.20E-04 5.02E-03 6.35E-04 3.18E-05 2.02E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.36E-04 1.94E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.75E-05 3.34E+00 5.59E-06
1.28E-04 1.52E-03 7.56E-04 3.11E-05 9.69E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.25E-04 9.27E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.74E-05 3.26E+00 5.94E-06
1.29E-04 1.57E-03 7.59E-04 3.11E-05 9.89E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.25E-04 9.46E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.76E-05 3.26E+00 5.98E-06
7.26E-05 2.50E-03 1.13E-02 4.58E-06 6.80E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.22E-04 6.50E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.47E-05 5.86E+00 3.19E-03
1.57E-04 1.94E-03 9.29E-04 3.01E-05 1.28E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.22E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.04E-05 3.15E+00 7.31E-06
1.62E-04 2.00E-03 9.55E-04 3.09E-05 1.33E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.29E-04 1.27E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.09E-05 3.24E+00 7.52E-06
9.82E-05 9.30E-04 5.80E-04 3.08E-05 6.62E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.22E-04 6.34E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.45E-05 3.23E+00 4.56E-06
5.55E-04 5.85E-03 6.66E-02 3.52E-05 2.04E-06 4.41E-05 1.36E-04 1.82E-04 1.87E-06 1.10E-05 5.83E-05 7.12E-05 3.42E+00 2.24E-04
6.35E-05 1.93E-03 3.23E-03 1.17E-05 6.53E-06 2.65E-05 1.09E-03 1.12E-03 6.21E-06 6.61E-06 4.66E-04 4.79E-04 2.67E+00 5.54E-04
lbs/Mile
B-5
CITY OF ANAHEIM BIC Orange County 2035 - all Model Years (40 MPH)*
DELET
THIS??? Why 2012?Sub Area Veh
2012 Annual Orange (SC)All Other Buses
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MCY
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MDV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MH
2012 Annual Orange (SC)Motor Coach
2012 Annual Orange (SC)OBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)SBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6TS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NNOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 POLA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 SWCV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7IS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)UBUS
**The annual average temperature and humidity are based on data for years 20
*EMFAC2014v1.0.7 based on the average annual temperature 67F and humidity
##
ROG_RUNEX NOx_RUNEX CO_RUNEX SOx_RUNEX PM10_RUN EX PM10_PMTW PM10_PMBW PM10_Total PM2.5_RUN EX PM2.5_PMTW PM2.5_PMBW PM2_5_Total CO2(Pavley+AACC)_RUNEX CH4_RUNEX
3.06E-08 4.53E-07 1.61E-07 1.06E-08 3.15E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 3.01E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.19E-08 1.11E-03 1.42E-09
2.91E-09 1.65E-08 2.63E-07 1.44E-09 6.70E-10 8.00E-09 3.68E-08 4.54E-08 6.17E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.84E-08 1.44E-04 1.16E-09
4.87E-09 2.58E-08 3.86E-07 1.88E-09 8.67E-10 8.00E-09 3.67E-08 4.56E-08 7.97E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.85E-08 1.88E-04 1.97E-09
4.40E-09 2.42E-08 3.97E-07 2.11E-09 7.94E-10 8.00E-09 3.68E-08 4.55E-08 7.31E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.85E-08 2.11E-04 1.77E-09
2.74E-08 2.56E-07 1.95E-07 4.81E-09 5.69E-09 1.07E-08 7.64E-08 9.28E-08 5.44E-09 2.66E-09 3.28E-08 4.09E-08 4.94E-04 1.93E-09
2.39E-08 8.00E-08 1.41E-07 5.20E-09 5.69E-09 1.08E-08 8.92E-08 1.06E-07 5.44E-09 2.71E-09 3.82E-08 4.64E-08 5.35E-04 1.42E-09
1.76E-06 9.84E-07 1.47E-05 1.82E-09 1.89E-09 4.00E-09 1.18E-08 1.76E-08 1.76E-09 1.00E-09 5.04E-09 7.80E-09 1.53E-04 3.82E-07
6.82E-09 3.65E-08 5.04E-07 2.84E-09 8.70E-10 8.00E-09 3.68E-08 4.56E-08 8.01E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.86E-08 2.84E-04 2.71E-09
1.65E-08 5.80E-07 2.42E-07 1.02E-08 7.69E-09 1.29E-08 1.30E-07 1.51E-07 7.33E-09 3.22E-09 5.59E-08 6.64E-08 1.03E-03 3.55E-09
6.11E-08 6.48E-07 3.61E-07 1.50E-08 4.74E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.47E-07 4.53E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.34E-08 1.58E-03 2.84E-09
8.13E-09 8.32E-08 2.12E-07 1.04E-08 9.20E-10 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.43E-07 8.46E-10 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 5.97E-08 1.05E-03 3.28E-09
2.24E-08 4.55E-07 1.65E-07 8.27E-09 3.44E-09 1.03E-08 7.45E-07 7.59E-07 3.27E-09 2.59E-09 3.19E-07 3.25E-07 8.58E-04 2.08E-09
3.52E-08 7.23E-07 1.85E-07 1.08E-08 3.72E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.46E-07 3.56E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.24E-08 1.14E-03 1.64E-09
2.75E-08 3.55E-07 1.45E-07 1.02E-08 2.73E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.62E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.15E-08 1.07E-03 1.28E-09
2.60E-08 3.21E-07 1.37E-07 1.05E-08 2.54E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.43E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.13E-08 1.10E-03 1.21E-09
3.14E-08 4.83E-07 1.65E-07 1.06E-08 3.26E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.46E-07 3.12E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.20E-08 1.11E-03 1.46E-09
2.87E-08 3.90E-07 1.51E-07 1.06E-08 2.90E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.78E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.16E-08 1.11E-03 1.33E-09
3.06E-08 4.67E-07 1.61E-07 1.03E-08 3.14E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 3.00E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.19E-08 1.08E-03 1.42E-09
2.87E-08 3.91E-07 1.51E-07 1.06E-08 2.89E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.77E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.16E-08 1.11E-03 1.33E-09
2.75E-08 3.56E-07 1.45E-07 1.02E-08 2.74E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.62E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.15E-08 1.07E-03 1.28E-09
2.60E-08 3.21E-07 1.37E-07 1.05E-08 2.54E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.43E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.13E-08 1.10E-03 1.21E-09
2.53E-08 7.17E-07 1.25E-07 1.06E-08 4.04E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.46E-07 3.87E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.27E-08 1.11E-03 1.17E-09
2.15E-08 2.39E-07 1.13E-07 1.05E-08 1.92E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.44E-07 1.84E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.07E-08 1.10E-03 1.00E-09
9.15E-09 9.35E-08 2.56E-07 1.04E-08 9.02E-10 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.43E-07 8.30E-10 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 5.97E-08 1.05E-03 3.70E-09
8.25E-08 1.70E-06 4.87E-07 1.50E-08 6.78E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.05E-07 6.48E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.19E-08 1.57E-03 3.83E-09
6.88E-08 7.78E-07 4.06E-07 1.36E-08 5.54E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.03E-07 5.30E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.08E-08 1.42E-03 3.20E-09
7.04E-08 7.90E-07 4.16E-07 1.39E-08 5.73E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.03E-07 5.48E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.09E-08 1.46E-03 3.27E-09
6.02E-08 6.22E-07 3.55E-07 1.35E-08 4.64E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.02E-07 4.44E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.99E-08 1.42E-03 2.79E-09
6.88E-08 7.80E-07 4.06E-07 1.36E-08 5.54E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.03E-07 5.30E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.08E-08 1.42E-03 3.20E-09
7.53E-08 9.19E-07 4.45E-07 1.40E-08 6.21E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.04E-07 5.94E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.14E-08 1.47E-03 3.50E-09
5.46E-08 2.28E-06 2.88E-07 1.44E-08 9.18E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.07E-07 8.79E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.42E-08 1.51E-03 2.54E-09
5.80E-08 6.90E-07 3.43E-07 1.41E-08 4.40E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.02E-07 4.21E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.97E-08 1.48E-03 2.70E-09
5.84E-08 7.10E-07 3.44E-07 1.41E-08 4.48E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.02E-07 4.29E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.98E-08 1.48E-03 2.71E-09
3.29E-08 1.14E-06 5.11E-06 2.08E-09 3.08E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.01E-07 2.95E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.84E-08 2.66E-03 1.45E-06
7.14E-08 8.79E-07 4.21E-07 1.36E-08 5.79E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.04E-07 5.54E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.10E-08 1.43E-03 3.31E-09
7.34E-08 9.08E-07 4.33E-07 1.40E-08 6.02E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.04E-07 5.76E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.12E-08 1.47E-03 3.41E-09
4.45E-08 4.22E-07 2.63E-07 1.40E-08 3.00E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.01E-07 2.87E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.83E-08 1.47E-03 2.07E-09
2.52E-07 2.65E-06 3.02E-05 1.60E-08 9.24E-10 2.00E-08 6.17E-08 8.27E-08 8.50E-10 5.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.23E-08 1.55E-03 1.02E-07
2.88E-08 8.74E-07 1.47E-06 5.30E-09 2.96E-09 1.20E-08 4.93E-07 5.08E-07 2.82E-09 3.00E-09 2.11E-07 2.17E-07 1.21E-03 2.51E-07
MTons/Mile
B-6
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
February 2017
Appendix A 2017 Bicycle Master Plan
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
February 2017
Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data
2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF ANAHEIM BICYCLE MASTER PLAN: EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle Miles Traveled1
Total Daily Weekday VMT Reduction:120,117 miles
Total Annual Weekday VMT Reduction:2 31,350,424 miles
1 Anaheim, City of. 2016, August. Bicycle Master Plan: Public Draft Review.
2 Based on the reduced daily weekday VMT multiplied by 261 days to account for the number of weekdays per year (Anaheim 2016).
Emissions Reductions
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Daily Reductions 3 16 104 1 14 6
1 Based on year 2035 EMFAC2014, v.1.0.7, emission factors.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Annual Reductions 7,809 0.13 0.08 7,837
Note: MTons = metric tons; CO 2e = carbon dioxide-equivalent.
2 Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) as follows:
N2 O = 298; CO2 =25; CH4 =21
pounds/day1
MTons/year1,2
1 Based on year 2035 EMFAC2014, v.1.0.7, emission factors. Includes Pavley + California Advanced Clean Car Standards, the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS), on-road diesel fleet rules, and the Smartway/Phase I Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulation.
B-1
CITY OF ANAHEIM BICYCLE MASTER PLAN: EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Based on EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7
Emission year Daily VMT
2035 120,117
Vehicle Type Percent of VMT
of SpeedBin ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
All Other Buses 0.05%0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01
LDA 48.05%0.37 2.10 33.52 0.18 5.78 2.34
LDT1 6.00%0.08 0.41 6.13 0.03 0.72 0.29
LDT2 20.53%0.24 1.32 21.57 0.11 2.48 1.00
LHD1 4.11%0.30 2.78 2.13 0.05 1.01 0.44
LHD2 0.57%0.04 0.12 0.21 0.01 0.16 0.07
MCY 0.30%1.41 0.79 11.73 0.00 0.01 0.01
MDV 16.00%0.29 1.55 21.34 0.12 1.93 0.79
MH 0.39%0.02 0.59 0.25 0.01 0.15 0.07
Motor Coach 0.05%0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.01
OBUS 0.04%0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01
SBUS 0.06%0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.05
T6 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 CAIRP Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 CAIRP Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00T6 Instate Construction Heavy 0.05%0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01
T6 Instate Construction Small 0.15%0.01 0.16 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.02
T6 Instate Heavy 0.28%0.02 0.35 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.05
T6 Instate Small 0.83%0.06 0.86 0.33 0.02 0.32 0.13
T6 OOS Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 OOS Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 Public 0.04%0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
T6 Utility 0.01%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6TS 0.31%0.01 0.08 0.21 0.01 0.12 0.05T7 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T7 CAIRP 0.25%0.05 0.52 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.03
T7 CAIRP Construction 0.02%0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
T7 NNOOS 0.29%0.05 0.47 0.27 0.01 0.08 0.03
T7 NOOS 0.09%0.02 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.01
T7 POLA 0.57%0.11 1.38 0.67 0.02 0.16 0.06
T7 Public 0.02%0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
T7 Single 0.14%0.02 0.25 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.01
T7 Single Construction 0.05%0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01
T7 SWCV 0.04%0.00 0.13 0.61 0.00 0.01 0.00
T7 Tractor 0.36%0.07 0.84 0.40 0.01 0.10 0.04
T7 Tractor Construction 0.04%0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00
T7 Utility 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T7IS 0.04%0.03 0.26 3.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
UBUS 0.28%0.02 0.64 1.07 0.00 0.37 0.16
TOTAL 3.25 16.49 104.42 0.65 13.95 5.72
lbs/day
Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin
B-2
CITY OF ANAHEIM BICYCLE MASTER PLAN: EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Based on EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7
Emission year Annual VMT GWP GWP GWP
2035 31,350,424 298 1 25
Vehicle Type Percent of VMT
of SpeedBin NOx N2O CO2 (Pavley)CH4 CO2e w/ Pavley
+ LCFS
All Other Buses 0.05%0.01 0.00 18.43 0.00 18.52
LDA 48.05%0.25 0.01 2,175.01 0.02 2,178.53
LDT1 6.00%0.05 0.00 352.73 0.00 353.43
LDT2 20.53%0.16 0.01 1,355.74 0.01 1,357.96
LHD1 4.11%0.33 0.01 636.56 0.00 640.71
LHD2 0.57%0.01 0.00 95.09 0.00 95.28
MCY 0.30%0.09 0.00 14.50 0.04 16.56
MDV 16.00%0.18 0.01 1,424.80 0.01 1,427.41
MH 0.39%0.07 0.00 124.17 0.00 125.05
Motor Coach 0.05%0.01 0.00 25.34 0.00 25.47
OBUS 0.04%0.00 0.00 14.34 0.00 14.36
SBUS 0.06%0.01 0.00 14.84 0.00 14.94
T6 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.53
T6 CAIRP Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33
T6 CAIRP Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 1.18 0.00 1.19
T6 Instate Construction Heavy 0.05%0.01 0.00 17.98 0.00 18.08
T6 Instate Construction Small 0.15%0.02 0.00 52.90 0.00 53.13
T6 Instate Heavy 0.28%0.04 0.00 94.86 0.00 95.37
T6 Instate Small 0.83%0.10 0.00 286.43 0.00 287.70
T6 OOS Heavy 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19
T6 OOS Small 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68
T6 Public 0.04%0.01 0.00 13.30 0.00 13.41
T6 Utility 0.01%0.00 0.00 2.28 0.00 2.28
T6TS 0.31%0.01 0.00 102.69 0.00 102.81
T7 Ag 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.88
T7 CAIRP 0.25%0.06 0.00 113.46 0.00 114.24
T7 CAIRP Construction 0.02%0.00 0.00 8.40 0.00 8.45
T7 NNOOS 0.29%0.06 0.00 127.30 0.00 128.00
T7 NOOS 0.09%0.02 0.00 41.32 0.00 41.61
T7 POLA 0.57%0.16 0.01 261.00 0.00 263.05
T7 Public 0.02%0.01 0.00 7.86 0.00 8.01
T7 Single 0.14%0.03 0.00 63.45 0.00 63.82
T7 Single Construction 0.05%0.01 0.00 22.04 0.00 22.17
T7 SWCV 0.04%0.02 0.00 37.43 0.02 38.14
T7 Tractor 0.36%0.10 0.00 161.15 0.00 162.39
T7 Tractor Construction 0.04%0.01 0.00 16.34 0.00 16.47
T7 Utility 0.00%0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85
T7IS 0.04%0.03 0.00 18.37 0.00 18.79
UBUS 0.28%0.08 0.00 104.59 0.02 106.07
TOTAL 100%1.95 0.08 7,809.36 0.13 7,836.85
N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB for gas emissions in the 2014 Technical Support Document for California's 2000-2012 GHG EMissions inventory. The
off-model adjustment uses for every gram of NOx emitted from gasoline vehicles, an average of 0.0416 grams of N2O are emitted. (N2O = 0.0416 x NOx)
Daily weekday vehicles miles traveled (VMT) multiplied by 261 days/year to account for the number of weekdays per year per the 2016 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan: Public Draft Review (Anaheim
2016).
Based on the emission factors for Orange County - South Coast Air Basin
B-3
CITY OF ANAHEIM BIC Orange County 2035 - all Model Years (40 MPH)*
DELET
THIS??? Why 2012?Sub Area Veh ROG_RUNEX NOx_RUNEX CO_RUNEX SOx_RUNEX PM10_RUN EX PM10_PMTW PM10_PMBW PM10_Total PM2.5_RUN EX PM2.5_PMTW PM2.5_PMBW PM2_5_Total CO2(Pavley+AACC)_RUNEX CH4_RUNEX
VMT from default EMFAC-SG %VMT
2012 Annual Orange (SC)All Other Buses 0.030626 0.452677 0.161207 0.010621 0.0031462 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.00301 0.003 0.05586 6.19E-02 1113.2357 0.001423 4892.0876 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDA 0.002907 0.016506 0.263423 0.001444 0.0006701 0.008 0.03675 4.54E-02 0.000617 0.002 0.01575 1.84E-02 144.38003 0.00116 4451514.1 48.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT1 0.00487 0.025759 0.386236 0.001878 0.000867 0.008 0.03675 4.56E-02 0.000797 0.002 0.01575 1.85E-02 187.60152 0.001966 555601.48 6.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT2 0.004396 0.024212 0.396803 0.002108 0.0007945 0.008 0.03675 4.55E-02 0.000731 0.002 0.01575 1.85E-02 210.62898 0.001768 1902007.1 20.53%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD1 0.027404 0.255728 0.195292 0.004811 0.0056926 0.010659106 0.07644 9.28E-02 0.005435 0.002664777 0.03276 4.09E-02 494.12312 0.001929 380676.94 4.11%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD2 0.023905 0.080001 0.141294 0.0052 0.0056931 0.010832232 0.08918 1.06E-01 0.005437 0.002708058 0.03822 4.64E-02 535.46208 0.001419 52477.596 0.57%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MCY 1.759825 0.984128 14.65818 0.001822 0.0018896 0.004 0.01176 1.76E-02 0.001762 0.001 0.00504 7.80E-03 153.02861 0.382286 28002.633 0.30%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MDV 0.00682 0.036518 0.503649 0.00284 0.0008701 0.008 0.03675 4.56E-02 0.000801 0.002 0.01575 1.86E-02 284.06856 0.002714 1482123.5 16.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MH 0.01653 0.580179 0.242212 0.010155 0.0076882 0.012899351 0.13034 1.51E-01 0.00733 0.003224838 0.05586 6.64E-02 1026.4556 0.00355 35745.107 0.39%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)Motor Coach 0.061097 0.648178 0.360764 0.015032 0.004738 0.012 0.13034 1.47E-01 0.004533 0.003 0.05586 6.34E-02 1575.6215 0.002838 4751.7573 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)OBUS 0.008127 0.083233 0.212282 0.010433 0.0009196 0.012 0.13034 1.43E-01 0.000846 0.003 0.05586 5.97E-02 1045.144 0.003284 4055.512 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)SBUS 0.022358 0.455013 0.164689 0.008275 0.0034355 0.010341232 0.7448 7.59E-01 0.003273 0.002585308 0.3192 3.25E-01 857.73504 0.002078 5113.4608 0.06%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Ag 0.035208 0.722558 0.185322 0.010832 0.0037194 0.012 0.13034 1.46E-01 0.003558 0.003 0.05586 6.24E-02 1135.4204 0.001635 136.86012 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Heavy 0.027521 0.354544 0.14486 0.010246 0.0027345 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002616 0.003 0.05586 6.15E-02 1073.9845 0.001278 91.785577 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Small 0.026049 0.320904 0.137112 0.010506 0.0025353 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002426 0.003 0.05586 6.13E-02 1101.1784 0.00121 317.7544 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Heavy 0.031406 0.483254 0.165232 0.010608 0.0032574 0.012 0.13034 1.46E-01 0.003117 0.003 0.05586 6.20E-02 1111.9399 0.001459 4778.7609 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Small 0.028702 0.389687 0.151001 0.010554 0.002903 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002777 0.003 0.05586 6.16E-02 1106.2139 0.001333 14129.895 0.15%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Heavy 0.030598 0.467206 0.161059 0.010318 0.0031381 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.003002 0.003 0.05586 6.19E-02 1081.4681 0.001421 25919.479 0.28%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Small 0.028719 0.391187 0.151166 0.01056 0.0028937 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002768 0.003 0.05586 6.16E-02 1106.8292 0.001334 76470.319 0.83%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Heavy 0.027542 0.355584 0.144973 0.010247 0.0027372 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002619 0.003 0.05586 6.15E-02 1074.0298 0.001279 52.622585 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Small 0.026049 0.320904 0.137112 0.010506 0.0025353 0.012 0.13034 1.45E-01 0.002426 0.003 0.05586 6.13E-02 1101.1784 0.00121 182.17522 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Public 0.025292 0.717229 0.124611 0.01058 0.0040433 0.012 0.13034 1.46E-01 0.003868 0.003 0.05586 6.27E-02 1108.9082 0.001175 3544.7027 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Utility 0.021534 0.239205 0.113347 0.010513 0.0019185 0.012 0.13034 1.44E-01 0.001835 0.003 0.05586 6.07E-02 1101.9617 0.001 610.70194 0.01%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6TS 0.00915 0.093511 0.256109 0.01045 0.0009024 0.012 0.13034 1.43E-01 0.00083 0.003 0.05586 5.97E-02 1046.729 0.003697 28989.51 0.31%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Ag 0.082494 1.697166 0.487109 0.01499 0.0067767 0.036 0.06174 1.05E-01 0.006484 0.009 0.02646 4.19E-02 1571.2298 0.003832 162.37774 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP 0.068791 0.77816 0.406194 0.013553 0.0055391 0.036 0.06174 1.03E-01 0.005299 0.009 0.02646 4.08E-02 1420.5944 0.003195 23600.535 0.25%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP Construction 0.070421 0.790453 0.415701 0.013894 0.0057262 0.036 0.06174 1.03E-01 0.005478 0.009 0.02646 4.09E-02 1456.2914 0.003271 1703.4598 0.02%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NNOOS 0.060162 0.621929 0.355243 0.013518 0.0046437 0.036 0.06174 1.02E-01 0.004443 0.009 0.02646 3.99E-02 1416.8819 0.002794 26549.72 0.29%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NOOS 0.068832 0.780177 0.406439 0.013555 0.005543 0.036 0.06174 1.03E-01 0.005303 0.009 0.02646 4.08E-02 1420.748 0.003197 8594.7153 0.09%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 POLA 0.075319 0.919477 0.444743 0.013999 0.0062091 0.036 0.06174 1.04E-01 0.005941 0.009 0.02646 4.14E-02 1467.3196 0.003498 52562.312 0.57%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Public 0.054635 2.27798 0.287941 0.014433 0.0091826 0.036 0.06174 1.07E-01 0.008785 0.009 0.02646 4.42E-02 1512.8088 0.002538 1535.1149 0.02%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single 0.058044 0.689766 0.342737 0.01409 0.0043964 0.036 0.06174 1.02E-01 0.004206 0.009 0.02646 3.97E-02 1476.8705 0.002696 12695.797 0.14%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single Construction 0.058372 0.710257 0.344196 0.014102 0.0044842 0.036 0.06174 1.02E-01 0.00429 0.009 0.02646 3.98E-02 1478.0976 0.002711 4406.6264 0.05%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 SWCV 0.032924 1.135161 5.114592 0.002077 0.0030832 0.036 0.06174 1.01E-01 0.00295 0.009 0.02646 3.84E-02 2658.9082 1.448581 4159.4628 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor 0.071362 0.8786 0.421373 0.013644 0.0057904 0.036 0.06174 1.04E-01 0.00554 0.009 0.02646 4.10E-02 1430.0891 0.003315 33299.025 0.36%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor Construction 0.073413 0.907666 0.433295 0.014021 0.0060246 0.036 0.06174 1.04E-01 0.005764 0.009 0.02646 4.12E-02 1469.6173 0.00341 3285.4657 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Utility 0.04454 0.422053 0.262998 0.013991 0.003004 0.036 0.06174 1.01E-01 0.002874 0.009 0.02646 3.83E-02 1466.4815 0.002069 170.76096 0.00%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7IS 0.251842 2.652756 30.20104 0.015987 0.0009242 0.02 0.06174 8.27E-02 0.00085 0.005 0.02646 3.23E-02 1553.5278 0.101765 3494.6509 0.04%
2012 Annual Orange (SC)UBUS 0.028802 0.873661 1.465568 0.005304 0.0029602 0.012 0.49316657 5.08E-01 0.002816 0.003 0.2113571 2.17E-01 1210.0152 0.251249 25542.72 0.28%
9,263,949 100.00%
**The annual average temperature and humidity are based on data for years 2006 to 2016.
g/mile
*EMFAC2014v1.0.7 based on the average annual temperature 67F and humidity of 59% for Anaheim from Weather Underground accessed September 29, 2016.** Assumes an average 40 mph speed based on CalEEMod Users' Manual.
B-4
CITY OF ANAHEIM BIC Orange County 2035 - all Model Years (40 MPH)*
DELET
THIS??? Why 2012?Sub Area Veh
2012 Annual Orange (SC)All Other Buses
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MCY
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MDV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MH
2012 Annual Orange (SC)Motor Coach
2012 Annual Orange (SC)OBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)SBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6TS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NNOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 POLA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 SWCV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7IS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)UBUS
**The annual average temperature and humidity are based on data for years 20
*EMFAC2014v1.0.7 based on the average annual temperature 67F and humidity
2.205E-03
ROG_RUNEX NOx_RUNEX CO_RUNEX SOx_RUNEX PM10_RUN EX PM10_PMTW PM10_PMBW PM10_Total PM2.5_RUN EX PM2.5_PMTW PM2.5_PMBW PM2_5_Total CO2(Pavley+AACC)_RUNEX CH4_RUNEX
6.75E-05 9.98E-04 3.55E-04 2.34E-05 6.94E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.21E-04 6.64E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.45E+00 3.14E-06
6.41E-06 3.64E-05 5.81E-04 3.18E-06 1.48E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.00E-04 1.36E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.05E-05 3.18E-01 2.56E-06
1.07E-05 5.68E-05 8.51E-04 4.14E-06 1.91E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.01E-04 1.76E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.09E-05 4.14E-01 4.33E-06
9.69E-06 5.34E-05 8.75E-04 4.65E-06 1.75E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.00E-04 1.61E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.07E-05 4.64E-01 3.90E-06
6.04E-05 5.64E-04 4.31E-04 1.06E-05 1.25E-05 2.35E-05 1.69E-04 2.05E-04 1.20E-05 5.87E-06 7.22E-05 9.01E-05 1.09E+00 4.25E-06
5.27E-05 1.76E-04 3.11E-04 1.15E-05 1.26E-05 2.39E-05 1.97E-04 2.33E-04 1.20E-05 5.97E-06 8.43E-05 1.02E-04 1.18E+00 3.13E-06
3.88E-03 2.17E-03 3.23E-02 4.02E-06 4.17E-06 8.82E-06 2.59E-05 3.89E-05 3.88E-06 2.20E-06 1.11E-05 1.72E-05 3.37E-01 8.43E-04
1.50E-05 8.05E-05 1.11E-03 6.26E-06 1.92E-06 1.76E-05 8.10E-05 1.01E-04 1.77E-06 4.41E-06 3.47E-05 4.09E-05 6.26E-01 5.98E-06
3.64E-05 1.28E-03 5.34E-04 2.24E-05 1.69E-05 2.84E-05 2.87E-04 3.33E-04 1.62E-05 7.11E-06 1.23E-04 1.46E-04 2.26E+00 7.83E-06
1.35E-04 1.43E-03 7.95E-04 3.31E-05 1.04E-05 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.24E-04 9.99E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.40E-04 3.47E+00 6.26E-06
1.79E-05 1.83E-04 4.68E-04 2.30E-05 2.03E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.16E-04 1.86E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.32E-04 2.30E+00 7.24E-06
4.93E-05 1.00E-03 3.63E-04 1.82E-05 7.57E-06 2.28E-05 1.64E-03 1.67E-03 7.22E-06 5.70E-06 7.04E-04 7.17E-04 1.89E+00 4.58E-06
7.76E-05 1.59E-03 4.09E-04 2.39E-05 8.20E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.22E-04 7.84E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.38E-04 2.50E+00 3.61E-06
6.07E-05 7.82E-04 3.19E-04 2.26E-05 6.03E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 5.77E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.37E+00 2.82E-06
5.74E-05 7.07E-04 3.02E-04 2.32E-05 5.59E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.19E-04 5.35E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.35E-04 2.43E+00 2.67E-06
6.92E-05 1.07E-03 3.64E-04 2.34E-05 7.18E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.21E-04 6.87E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.37E-04 2.45E+00 3.22E-06
6.33E-05 8.59E-04 3.33E-04 2.33E-05 6.40E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 6.12E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.44E+00 2.94E-06
6.75E-05 1.03E-03 3.55E-04 2.27E-05 6.92E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.21E-04 6.62E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.38E+00 3.13E-06
6.33E-05 8.62E-04 3.33E-04 2.33E-05 6.38E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 6.10E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.44E+00 2.94E-06
6.07E-05 7.84E-04 3.20E-04 2.26E-05 6.03E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.20E-04 5.77E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.36E-04 2.37E+00 2.82E-06
5.74E-05 7.07E-04 3.02E-04 2.32E-05 5.59E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.19E-04 5.35E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.35E-04 2.43E+00 2.67E-06
5.58E-05 1.58E-03 2.75E-04 2.33E-05 8.91E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.23E-04 8.53E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.38E-04 2.44E+00 2.59E-06
4.75E-05 5.27E-04 2.50E-04 2.32E-05 4.23E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.18E-04 4.05E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.34E-04 2.43E+00 2.21E-06
2.02E-05 2.06E-04 5.65E-04 2.30E-05 1.99E-06 2.65E-05 2.87E-04 3.16E-04 1.83E-06 6.61E-06 1.23E-04 1.32E-04 2.31E+00 8.15E-06
1.82E-04 3.74E-03 1.07E-03 3.30E-05 1.49E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.30E-04 1.43E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.25E-05 3.46E+00 8.45E-06
1.52E-04 1.72E-03 8.95E-04 2.99E-05 1.22E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.17E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.99E-05 3.13E+00 7.04E-06
1.55E-04 1.74E-03 9.16E-04 3.06E-05 1.26E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.21E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.03E-05 3.21E+00 7.21E-06
1.33E-04 1.37E-03 7.83E-04 2.98E-05 1.02E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.26E-04 9.79E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.80E-05 3.12E+00 6.16E-06
1.52E-04 1.72E-03 8.96E-04 2.99E-05 1.22E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.17E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.99E-05 3.13E+00 7.05E-06
1.66E-04 2.03E-03 9.80E-04 3.09E-05 1.37E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.29E-04 1.31E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.13E-05 3.23E+00 7.71E-06
1.20E-04 5.02E-03 6.35E-04 3.18E-05 2.02E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.36E-04 1.94E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.75E-05 3.34E+00 5.59E-06
1.28E-04 1.52E-03 7.56E-04 3.11E-05 9.69E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.25E-04 9.27E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.74E-05 3.26E+00 5.94E-06
1.29E-04 1.57E-03 7.59E-04 3.11E-05 9.89E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.25E-04 9.46E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.76E-05 3.26E+00 5.98E-06
7.26E-05 2.50E-03 1.13E-02 4.58E-06 6.80E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.22E-04 6.50E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.47E-05 5.86E+00 3.19E-03
1.57E-04 1.94E-03 9.29E-04 3.01E-05 1.28E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.28E-04 1.22E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.04E-05 3.15E+00 7.31E-06
1.62E-04 2.00E-03 9.55E-04 3.09E-05 1.33E-05 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.29E-04 1.27E-05 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 9.09E-05 3.24E+00 7.52E-06
9.82E-05 9.30E-04 5.80E-04 3.08E-05 6.62E-06 7.94E-05 1.36E-04 2.22E-04 6.34E-06 1.98E-05 5.83E-05 8.45E-05 3.23E+00 4.56E-06
5.55E-04 5.85E-03 6.66E-02 3.52E-05 2.04E-06 4.41E-05 1.36E-04 1.82E-04 1.87E-06 1.10E-05 5.83E-05 7.12E-05 3.42E+00 2.24E-04
6.35E-05 1.93E-03 3.23E-03 1.17E-05 6.53E-06 2.65E-05 1.09E-03 1.12E-03 6.21E-06 6.61E-06 4.66E-04 4.79E-04 2.67E+00 5.54E-04
lbs/Mile
B-5
CITY OF ANAHEIM BIC Orange County 2035 - all Model Years (40 MPH)*
DELET
THIS??? Why 2012?Sub Area Veh
2012 Annual Orange (SC)All Other Buses
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LDT2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD1
2012 Annual Orange (SC)LHD2
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MCY
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MDV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)MH
2012 Annual Orange (SC)Motor Coach
2012 Annual Orange (SC)OBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)SBUS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 CAIRP Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Construction Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Instate Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Heavy
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 OOS Small
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T6TS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Ag
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 CAIRP Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NNOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 NOOS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 POLA
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Public
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Single Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 SWCV
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Tractor Construction
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7 Utility
2012 Annual Orange (SC)T7IS
2012 Annual Orange (SC)UBUS
**The annual average temperature and humidity are based on data for years 20
*EMFAC2014v1.0.7 based on the average annual temperature 67F and humidity
##
ROG_RUNEX NOx_RUNEX CO_RUNEX SOx_RUNEX PM10_RUN EX PM10_PMTW PM10_PMBW PM10_Total PM2.5_RUN EX PM2.5_PMTW PM2.5_PMBW PM2_5_Total CO2(Pavley+AACC)_RUNEX CH4_RUNEX
3.06E-08 4.53E-07 1.61E-07 1.06E-08 3.15E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 3.01E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.19E-08 1.11E-03 1.42E-09
2.91E-09 1.65E-08 2.63E-07 1.44E-09 6.70E-10 8.00E-09 3.68E-08 4.54E-08 6.17E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.84E-08 1.44E-04 1.16E-09
4.87E-09 2.58E-08 3.86E-07 1.88E-09 8.67E-10 8.00E-09 3.67E-08 4.56E-08 7.97E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.85E-08 1.88E-04 1.97E-09
4.40E-09 2.42E-08 3.97E-07 2.11E-09 7.94E-10 8.00E-09 3.68E-08 4.55E-08 7.31E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.85E-08 2.11E-04 1.77E-09
2.74E-08 2.56E-07 1.95E-07 4.81E-09 5.69E-09 1.07E-08 7.64E-08 9.28E-08 5.44E-09 2.66E-09 3.28E-08 4.09E-08 4.94E-04 1.93E-09
2.39E-08 8.00E-08 1.41E-07 5.20E-09 5.69E-09 1.08E-08 8.92E-08 1.06E-07 5.44E-09 2.71E-09 3.82E-08 4.64E-08 5.35E-04 1.42E-09
1.76E-06 9.84E-07 1.47E-05 1.82E-09 1.89E-09 4.00E-09 1.18E-08 1.76E-08 1.76E-09 1.00E-09 5.04E-09 7.80E-09 1.53E-04 3.82E-07
6.82E-09 3.65E-08 5.04E-07 2.84E-09 8.70E-10 8.00E-09 3.68E-08 4.56E-08 8.01E-10 2.00E-09 1.58E-08 1.86E-08 2.84E-04 2.71E-09
1.65E-08 5.80E-07 2.42E-07 1.02E-08 7.69E-09 1.29E-08 1.30E-07 1.51E-07 7.33E-09 3.22E-09 5.59E-08 6.64E-08 1.03E-03 3.55E-09
6.11E-08 6.48E-07 3.61E-07 1.50E-08 4.74E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.47E-07 4.53E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.34E-08 1.58E-03 2.84E-09
8.13E-09 8.32E-08 2.12E-07 1.04E-08 9.20E-10 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.43E-07 8.46E-10 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 5.97E-08 1.05E-03 3.28E-09
2.24E-08 4.55E-07 1.65E-07 8.27E-09 3.44E-09 1.03E-08 7.45E-07 7.59E-07 3.27E-09 2.59E-09 3.19E-07 3.25E-07 8.58E-04 2.08E-09
3.52E-08 7.23E-07 1.85E-07 1.08E-08 3.72E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.46E-07 3.56E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.24E-08 1.14E-03 1.64E-09
2.75E-08 3.55E-07 1.45E-07 1.02E-08 2.73E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.62E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.15E-08 1.07E-03 1.28E-09
2.60E-08 3.21E-07 1.37E-07 1.05E-08 2.54E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.43E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.13E-08 1.10E-03 1.21E-09
3.14E-08 4.83E-07 1.65E-07 1.06E-08 3.26E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.46E-07 3.12E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.20E-08 1.11E-03 1.46E-09
2.87E-08 3.90E-07 1.51E-07 1.06E-08 2.90E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.78E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.16E-08 1.11E-03 1.33E-09
3.06E-08 4.67E-07 1.61E-07 1.03E-08 3.14E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 3.00E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.19E-08 1.08E-03 1.42E-09
2.87E-08 3.91E-07 1.51E-07 1.06E-08 2.89E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.77E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.16E-08 1.11E-03 1.33E-09
2.75E-08 3.56E-07 1.45E-07 1.02E-08 2.74E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.62E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.15E-08 1.07E-03 1.28E-09
2.60E-08 3.21E-07 1.37E-07 1.05E-08 2.54E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.45E-07 2.43E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.13E-08 1.10E-03 1.21E-09
2.53E-08 7.17E-07 1.25E-07 1.06E-08 4.04E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.46E-07 3.87E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.27E-08 1.11E-03 1.17E-09
2.15E-08 2.39E-07 1.13E-07 1.05E-08 1.92E-09 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.44E-07 1.84E-09 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 6.07E-08 1.10E-03 1.00E-09
9.15E-09 9.35E-08 2.56E-07 1.04E-08 9.02E-10 1.20E-08 1.30E-07 1.43E-07 8.30E-10 3.00E-09 5.59E-08 5.97E-08 1.05E-03 3.70E-09
8.25E-08 1.70E-06 4.87E-07 1.50E-08 6.78E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.05E-07 6.48E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.19E-08 1.57E-03 3.83E-09
6.88E-08 7.78E-07 4.06E-07 1.36E-08 5.54E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.03E-07 5.30E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.08E-08 1.42E-03 3.20E-09
7.04E-08 7.90E-07 4.16E-07 1.39E-08 5.73E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.03E-07 5.48E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.09E-08 1.46E-03 3.27E-09
6.02E-08 6.22E-07 3.55E-07 1.35E-08 4.64E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.02E-07 4.44E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.99E-08 1.42E-03 2.79E-09
6.88E-08 7.80E-07 4.06E-07 1.36E-08 5.54E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.03E-07 5.30E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.08E-08 1.42E-03 3.20E-09
7.53E-08 9.19E-07 4.45E-07 1.40E-08 6.21E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.04E-07 5.94E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.14E-08 1.47E-03 3.50E-09
5.46E-08 2.28E-06 2.88E-07 1.44E-08 9.18E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.07E-07 8.79E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.42E-08 1.51E-03 2.54E-09
5.80E-08 6.90E-07 3.43E-07 1.41E-08 4.40E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.02E-07 4.21E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.97E-08 1.48E-03 2.70E-09
5.84E-08 7.10E-07 3.44E-07 1.41E-08 4.48E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.02E-07 4.29E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.98E-08 1.48E-03 2.71E-09
3.29E-08 1.14E-06 5.11E-06 2.08E-09 3.08E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.01E-07 2.95E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.84E-08 2.66E-03 1.45E-06
7.14E-08 8.79E-07 4.21E-07 1.36E-08 5.79E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.04E-07 5.54E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.10E-08 1.43E-03 3.31E-09
7.34E-08 9.08E-07 4.33E-07 1.40E-08 6.02E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.04E-07 5.76E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 4.12E-08 1.47E-03 3.41E-09
4.45E-08 4.22E-07 2.63E-07 1.40E-08 3.00E-09 3.60E-08 6.17E-08 1.01E-07 2.87E-09 9.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.83E-08 1.47E-03 2.07E-09
2.52E-07 2.65E-06 3.02E-05 1.60E-08 9.24E-10 2.00E-08 6.17E-08 8.27E-08 8.50E-10 5.00E-09 2.65E-08 3.23E-08 1.55E-03 1.02E-07
2.88E-08 8.74E-07 1.47E-06 5.30E-09 2.96E-09 1.20E-08 4.93E-07 5.08E-07 2.82E-09 3.00E-09 2.11E-07 2.17E-07 1.21E-03 2.51E-07
MTons/Mile
B-6
1
Christine Saunders
From:agaperanch6640 <agaperanch6640@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:30 PM
To:Christine Saunders
Subject:Carbon creek bike path
Ms. Saunders,
I am vehemently against the proposed bike path in carbon creek for many reasons not the least of which is the
increase in homeless encampmenrs and crime.
Thank you,
Carol Rhodes-Rice
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO. 5
1
Christine Saunders
From:beiter9266@roadrunner.com
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2017 8:27 PM
To:Kathy Nguyen; Dave
Subject:parking vs bike lanes
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello Kathy,
I spoke to you after the February 22nd meeting at the Sunkist Library regarding parking and bike lanes.
I live at 145 S. Beth Circle and we have a terribly crowded parking situation on S. Beth Circle, S. Connie Circle, and E.
Hempstead Road. This is due to the residents of the large apartment complex on the west side of S. Rio Vista Street
which is just north of E. Lincoln. They do not have enough parking availability on S. Rio Vista Street so they park in our
neighborhood. I don't blame them. I would do the same if I was in their situation. But I feel the root of the problem is
that there are bicycle lanes on both sides of S. Rio Vista Street which eliminates parking on the east side of Rio Vista
Street. Parking is only allowed on the west side of S. Rio Vista Street. The east side of Rio Vista Street, from Hempstead
Road to Dutch Ave., has the potential for many valuable parking spaces for these working people.
I see this same situation on E. Frontera Street from North Rio Vista Street to North Park Vista Street ‐ two bike lanes on
E. Frontera Street and parking only allowed on the south side of E. Frontera Street.
It's hard for me to accept that rarely used bike lanes take priority over parking spaces that working people need.
Additionally, of the few people I see riding their bikes, I see more of them riding on the sidewalk on S. Rio Vista Street
than I see riding in the bike lanes. Why? Because they feel safer.
It's also worth mentioning that the severity of this problem can only be observed at night after everyone has returned
from their jobs.
When I brought this up in the past, I never got very far because I was told, by more than one person, that federal
funding was involved.
David E. Beiter
1
Christine Saunders
From:Cawthon, James <James.Cawthon@disney.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:27 AM
To:Bike
Subject:Bike lanes
I want to thank Anaheim for expanding its bike lane program.
I live in Garden Grove, work at the Disneyland Resort, and bike to work every day.
I have close calls with motor vehicle traffic around the Resort almost once a week.
I would encourage improving bike access in that area.
I also ride for recreation on many roads in Anaheim/Anaheim Hills, and also commend the City for efforts at improving
bike lanes over all.
Bicycling can help societal mobility and health in so many ways, please continue to grow your program, and be an
example to other North County Cities!
James Cawthon.
11202 Dallas Drive
Garden Grove, CA 92840
1
Christine Saunders
From:joseph lasecki <josephlasecki@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 5:25 PM
To:Christine Saunders
Subject:Fw: Carbon Creek Bike Path Additional Pics for record
Attachments:schweiter park bike path 6.jpeg; loarast2.jpeg; sage1.jpeg; sage2.jpeg; sage3.jpeg;
sage4.jpg
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:44 PM, joseph lasecki <josephlasecki@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Christine -
Thanks for taking the time to chat with me regarding the part of the
Master Plan to include the proposed Class One Bike Paths along
Carbon Creek channel.
As Carbon Creek travels east to west between West St & Loara St,
Our neighborhood is directly north of the channel. Some of the
homes back up the the channel boundary fence. While not opposed
to a bike path, in fact to the contrary, the idea of having places for
people to exercise & have a family activity is fantastic. With the
opening of areas that have historically been inaccessible (locked
gates & posted no trespassing), the opening of these areas will
certainly bring elements of people that may utilize the newly
opened areas for activities other than the friendly bike ride.
Attached are several pictures & took on March 14, 2017. They are
shots of different areas along the Carbon Creek channel. The
attached are pics from West St., Loara St, Sage Park, Valley St
(east of Brookhurst), the "Staples" parking lot which backs up to the
channel, the already Class One path between Schweitzer Park &
Beach Blvd.
Some of the conditions along these areas (some which are
"supposedly" "no trespassing" are not acceptable to me.
2
The fence & gate heights at many of the crossroads & in particular
the fencing that separates the homes between West St & Loara St.
are in disrepair and only 4 to 5 feet high in some instances. Not
acceptable for the security of the residents (including a senior
housing center) if the channel access is opened. Part of the city
plan needs to assure budgeting for improved, adequate fencing
certainly where ever the proposed Class One paths will be adjacent
to residences & parks. If these cannot be guaranteed, then I must
urge for a no vote on proceeding with the Class One paths along
the channel.
In the attached pictures, there are currently homeless persons
living on the area where the path would be constructed. Also
homeless at the western end of the existing Schweitzer Park bike
path (near Beach Blvd. Again, if this is what's to be expected along
the newly proposed stretches of Bike Path, then I would have to
urge a no vote on proceeding with the Class One path's along the
Carbon Creek Channel.
As with many things in life, the devil is in the details. While wanting
to support zones for families to exercise & engage in healthy family
activity My concerns for the details - not alarmist concerns, but
documented concerns of what unacceptable conditions exist
currently. If these details are not specifically addressed, solutions
found AND budgeted for, then again, I must respectfully insist on a
no vote on this aspect of the Master Plan.
If you would like to contact me, feel free.
Joe Lasecki
1028 N. Laguna St
Anaheim CA 92801
714 943 0771