Loading...
PC 2017/04/17 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, April 17, 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  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, April 13, 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 04-17-2017 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. 04-17-2017 Page 3 of 6 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05893 (DEV2016-00113) Location: 5635 East La Palma Avenue Request: To permit a new wall-mounted electronic readerboard sign for an existing movie theater (Cinema City). 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 11 (Accessory Structures) Categorical Exemption. This item was continued from the January 9, 2017 and March 6, 2017 Planning Commission meetings. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05912 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2017-00135 (DEV2017-00033) Location: 318 North Brookhurst Street Request: To upgrade an existing Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 (Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverages) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License and an associated Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit the off-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at an existing convenience market (Calimex 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. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho wcarvalho@anaheim.net 04-17-2017 Page 4 of 6 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246A (DEV2017-00028) Location: 1000 North Edward Court Request: The applicant requests to amend a previously- approved conditional use permit to modify conditions of approval to permit the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with an existing go-cart facility (K1 Speed). 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. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05888 VARIANCE NO. 2017-05088 (DEV2016-00075) Location: 1431 East La Palma Avenue Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to permit a bed and breakfast inn with outdoor events and entertainment, including the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, within an existing historic home, 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 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) Categorical Exemption. Request for continuance to May 1, 2017 Project Planner: Amy Vazquez avazquez@anaheim.net 04-17-2017 Page 5 of 6 ITEM NO. 6 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. This item was continued from the March 20, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Christine Saunders csaunders@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. 04-17-2017 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. April 12, 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. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: APRIL 17, 2017 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05893 LOCATION: 5635 East La Palma Avenue (Cinema City) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Dan Akarakian, representing the property owner, Starlight Cinemas. The agent is Stan Swede of California Marquee Signs. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to permit the installation of a wall-mounted electronic readerboard sign for an existing movie theater. 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 11, Accessory Structures) and approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2016- 05893. BACKGROUND: This 5.52-acre property is developed with an existing movie theater, commercial building, and drive through restaurant which are currently under construction. The property is located in the "SP 2015-1" Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan and the General Plan designates the property for General Commercial land uses. Surrounding land uses include a bank, church, and manufacturing use to the west, multi-family residential across a railroad track and Orangethorpe Avenue to the north, a commercial center and bank to the east, and a commercial center across La Palma Avenue to the south. This item was continued from the January 9 and March 6, 2017 Planning Commission meetings as requested by the applicant. In 1987, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 2905 to permit a movie theater complex. In 2009, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 2008-05372 and Variance No. 2009- 04796 to permit a 10,000 square foot commercial building on the property with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. In 2013, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the CUP and Variance allowing a 4,875 square foot retail building and a 3,900 square foot drive-through restaurant, both of which were recently constructed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05893 April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 4 In 2016, the Planning Commission approved the refurbishment of an existing freestanding pylon sign with a manual, static display to include a new electronic readerboard display. In addition, staff recently approved a channel letter wall sign on the east elevation, which is allowed by right and is shown on the plans attached to this staff report. In early 2017, staff received a complaint that the electronic readerboard display on the recently refurbished pylon sign was displaying rotating images of movie advertisements shown at the theater, rather than static movie names and times. The sign exhibits approved by the Planning Commission in 2016 and the narrative provided by the applicant indicated that the sign was to display static movie titles. Following the complaint, staff advised the operator that the display of movie advertisements was not permitted by the CUP approved in 2016 and would require approval of a CUP amendment by the Planning Commission to permit such imagery. Additionally, the applicant was informed that staff would not be supportive of the request to allow the subject wall mounted sign if the existing freestanding sign was used to display similar images. In response, the applicant indicated that they would no longer display movie images on the freestanding pylon sign adjacent to La Palma Avenue and would only use that sign to display movie tiles and show times, consistent with the CUP approved in 2016. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to install a wall-mounted LED electronic readerboard sign on the south-facing elevation of the movie theater building. The sign would be set back approximately 400 feet from La Palma Avenue. As illustrated below, there is an existing channel letter “Cinema City” sign which is proposed to remain on the south elevation. The proposed LED screen would be 10 feet tall and 25 feet wide and would feature a decorative aluminum frame with exposed neon tube lighting. Overall dimensions including the frame would be 18’-6” tall and 37-0” wide. The LED screen would display static images of movies shown at the theater, as well as movie show times. The sign is not intended to capture the attention of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways given its size and distance from La Palma Avenue. SOUTH ELEVATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05893 April 17, 2017 Page 3 of 4 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 Zoning Code allows “marquee” or “electronic readerboard” signs for certain types of uses, including theaters, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. However, the Code only includes provisions for freestanding electronic readerboard signs, with no provisions for wall- mounted electronic readerboard signs. If a use is not authorized or mentioned in any zone throughout the City, and the Director of Planning and Building has determined that the use does not fit into an existing use class, the use may be authorized by conditional use permit. The Director of Planning and Building has determined that the proposed wall-mounted electronic readerboard-type sign qualifies as an unlisted use, which can be allowed by conditional use permit. The sign is designed to enhance the movie-going experience of theater patrons. The electronic readerboard sign is designed to display movie images visible to movie theater patrons and customers of the recently constructed retail building and restaurants. The sign would not be readily visible to vehicular traffic on La Palma Avenue or any sensitive land uses. Staff also believes that the proposed size, scale and location are appropriate for the theater. The attached draft resolution includes conditions of approval which prohibits general advertising of goods and services on the sign. An additional condition of approval also limits use of the sign during those hours when the theater is open for business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05893 April 17, 2017 Page 4 of 4 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 11 – Accessory Structures) which consist of construction, or replacement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to on-premises signs, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15311 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 wall-mounted electronic readerboard sign for Cinema City would enhance the experience of the patrons of the center in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding business community. The proposed size and location of the sign would have limited visibility from La Palma Avenue and would be appropriate for the site. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor Jonathan E. Borrego Associate Planner Planning Services Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Plans 4. Photo Simulations 5. Site Photographs SP 2015-1CINEMACITYTHEATER SP 2015-1DA5SERVICE STATION SP 2015-1DA5RETAIL RM-4CANYONVILLAGEAPARTMENTS198 DU SP 2015-1DA5BANK SP 2015-1DA5VACANT SP 2015-1DA1RELIGIOUS USE SP 2015-1DA5RETAIL SP 2015-1DA1CANYONOFFICECENTER SP 2015-1DA1CANYONOFFICECENTER RM-4VINEYARDAPARTMENTS304 DU RM-4VINEYARDAPARTMENTS304 DU SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA5RETAIL SP 2015-1DA5RETAIL SP 2015-1DA5RETAIL E LA PALMA AVE N I M P E R I A L H W Y E ORANGETHORPE AVE ES P E R A N Z A RD N V I A B R E V E E. LA PALMA AVE N.IMPERIALH W Y E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D N . K E L L O G G D R E .L A P A L M A A V E E .S AN T A A N A CANYON RD 5 6 3 5 Ea st La Palma Ave nue D E V N o. 2016-00113 Subject Property APN: 346-281-03 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:Jun e 2 015 E LA PALMA AVE N I M P E R I A L H W Y E ORANGETHORPE AVE ES P E R A N Z A RD N V I A B R E V E E. LA PALMA AVE N.IMPERIALH W Y E .S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D N . K E L L O G G D R E .L A P A L M A A V E E .S AN T A A N A CANYON RD 5 6 3 5 Ea st La Palma Ave nue D E V N o. 2016-00113 Subject Property APN: 346-281-03 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:Jun e 2 015 [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. 2016-05893 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2016-00113) (5635 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05893 to permit a wall-mounted electronic readerboard sign for an existing movie theater (the "Proposed Project") located at 5635 East 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 5.52 acres in size and is currently developed with a commercial retail center and movie theater. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for General Commercal land uses. The Property is located within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (SP 2015-1, D.A 5 – General Commercial) area. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the “Code”); and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is a use not expressly authorized or permitted in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Area and is also not authorized or mentioned in any zone throughout the City. Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director by Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code and, specifically, paragraph .0201 of Subsection .020 (Unlisted Uses Permitted), the Planning Director has found and determined that the Proposed Project does not fit into an existing use class, as provided in subsection .020 (Inclusion of Specific Uses) of Section 18.36.020 (Classification of Uses), but may be authorized by conditional use permit until such time as the Code is amended to include such a use; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2017, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, following a continuation of this item from the January 9 and March 6, 2017 meetings, notice of the original January 9, 2017 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. 2016-05893, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and 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 11 – Accessory Structures) which consists of the construction, or replacement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to on-premise signs, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15311 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, - 2 - PC2017-*** 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. 2016-05893, does find and determine the following: 1. The proposed request to permit a wall-mounted "electronic readerboard" sign, as defined in Subsection .430 of Section 18.44.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs) of the Code, in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (SP 2015-1) area is an unlisted use for which a conditional use permit is authorized under .0201 of Subsection .020 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 of the Code. 2. The proposed request to permit a wall-mounted electronic readerboard sign for an existing movie theater 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 sign would not be readily visible to vehicular traffic on La Palma Avenue or any sensitive land uses. 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed electronic readerboard sign in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and general welfare of the public because the proposed size, scale and location are appropriate for the theater in relation to the overall commercial retail center. 4. The traffic generated by permitting the wall-mounted "electronic readerboard" sign 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 change and the proposed electronic readerboard sign will not increase traffic in the vicinity. 5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05893 under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The facility has operated in this location since 1987 and has proven to be a compatible use in the area. The addition of an electronic readerboard sign in the same location would be consistent and compatible with surrounding uses. 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. - 3 - PC2017-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. No. 2016-05893, 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 that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2016- 05893 is applicable 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. 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 April 17, 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 - 4 - 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 April 17, 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 17th day of April, 2017. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2017-*** - 6 - PC2017-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05893 (DEV2016-00113) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT SIGN CONDITIONS 1 The wall-mounted electronic readerboard sign display shall be limited to static displays of movies and showtimes, with a minimum 10 second duration of a static image. The sign shall not be used for general advertising of goods and services. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 2 The wall-mounted electronic readerboard sign display shall only be operated when the theater is open for business. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 3 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 4 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 5 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 and Building Department, Planning Services Division ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Si g n P r o p o s a l s Fo r At 56 3 5 E a s t L a P a l m a A v e . An a h e i m , C A C IT Y IN E M A C (1 ) 1 8 ’ 6 ” X 3 7 ’ 0 ” S / F N e o n W a l l S i g n w / 1 0 ’ x 2 5 ’ L E D S t a t i c D i s p l a y T H I S I S A N O R I G I N A L D R A W I N G P R E P A R E D E X C L U S I V E L Y F O R T H I S P R O J E C T . I T I S S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E A N D R E M A I N S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E . I T I S N O T T O B E S H O W N T O A N Y O N E O U T S I D E Y O U R O R G A N I Z A T I O N N O R I S I T T O B E U S E D , R E P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N . C A L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E E l e c t r i c a l & E l e c t r o n i c D i s p l a y s 4 3 0 S o u t h V a r n e y S t . B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 B u s ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 7 0 9 0 F a x ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 8 0 6 9 E m a i l : S t a n @ c a m a r q u e e . c o m W e b - s i t e : c a l i f o r n i a m a r q u e e . c o m Ci n e m a C i t y NT S Oc t 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 56 3 5 E L a P a l m a A v e An a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 SP E C I A L N O T E A. A l l w o r k t o c o m p l y w i t h 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e s a n d 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y S t a n d a r d s f o r s i g n l i g h t i n g . B. A l l o u t d o o r s i g n l i g h t i n g s h o u l d b e c o n t r o l l e d w i t h a p h o t o s e n s o r a n d a n a u t o m a t i c t i m e - s w i t c h o r a s t r o n o m i c a l t i m e s w i t c h c o n t r o l. C. O u t d o o r s i g n l i g h t s t h a t h a v e t o r e m a i n o n 2 4 h o u r s a d a y s h o u l d h a v e d i m m e r s c a p a b l e o f d i m m i n g l i g h t o u t p u t b y 6 5 % d u r i n g n i g h t hours. E x c e p t i o n : O u t d o o r s i g n s i n t u n n e l s a n d s i g n s i n l a r g e c o v e red areas t h a t a r e m e a n t t o b e l i t 2 4 h o u r s f o r 3 6 5 d a y s . AT T A C H M E N T NO. 3 Im p e r i a l H i g h w a y La Palma Ave.La Palma Ave Centerline SidewalkSidewalk Th e a t e r S t r i p M a l l St r i p M a l l R e s t a u r a n t N Si t e P l a n Ba n k 63’ 8 ’ 4 5 ’ 1 0 ’ 15 ’ 6 ” Dr i v e w a y To w e r P a r k i n g L o t S t r u c t u r e Pr o p e r t y L i n e Pr o p e r t y L i n e Ri g h t o f W a y L i n e 18 ’ 6 ” X 3 7 ’ 0 ” N E O N W A L L S I G N W/ 1 0 ’ X 2 5 ’ L E D D I S P L A Y B O A R D (1 ) 1 8 ’ 6 ” X 3 7 ’ 0 ” N E O N W A L L S I G N W / 1 0 ’ X 2 5 ’ L E D D I S P L A Y B O A R D TH I S I S A N O R I G I N A L D R A W I N G P R E P A R E D E X C L U S I V E L Y F O R T H I S PR O J E C T . I T I S S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E A N D R E M A I N S TH E P R O P E R T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E . I T I S N O T T O B E S H O W N TO A N Y O N E O U T S I D E Y O U R O R G A N I Z A T I O N N O R I S I T T O B E U S E D , RE P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N . CA L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E El e c t r i c a l & E l e c t r o n i c D i s p l a y s 4 3 0 S o u t h V a r n e y S t . B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 Bu s ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 7 0 9 0 F a x ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 8 0 6 9 E m a i l : S t a n @ c a m a r q u e e . c o m W e b - s i t e : c a l i f o r n i a m a r q u e e . c o m 53’ Ci n e m a C i t y NT S Oc t 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 56 3 5 E L a P a l m a A v e An a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 A B Fa b r i c a t e 3 ’ 6 ” & 3 ’ 0 ” n e o n c h a n n e l l e t t e r s , “ C I N E M A C I T Y ” , 3” m e t a l r e t u r n s p a i n t e d r e d . 30 m a t r a n s f o r m e r s m o u n t e d i n r a c e w a y s a n d f a s t e n w i t h 1 / 4 ” x 1 ” b o l t . Ch a n n e l l e t t e r s m o u n t e d o n ( 2 ) t r a n s f o r m e r r a c e w a y s ; 3 6 ” H x 7 ” D x 1 2 ’ L & 3 6 ” H x 7 ” x 7 ’ L w i t h 3 / 4 ” x # 8 T e k S c r e w s ; 6 t o 8 p e r l e t t e r . Tr a n s f o r m e r r a c e w a y s p a i n t e d t o m a t c h b u i l d i n g a n d m o u n t e d to b u i l d i n g w i t h ( 6 ) ½ ” x 6 ” w e d g e a n c h o r s . Al l l e t t e r s , “ C I N E M A C I T Y ” , 1 5 m m e x p o s e d r e d n e o n c h a n n e l l e t t er s wi t h c l e a r p l e x i g l a s c o v e r s . SP E C I F I C A T I O N S 3 ’ 6 ” 3’0” C IT Y I N E M A C 21 ’ 0 ” N e o n C h a n n e l L e t t e r s w i t h E x t e r n a l R a c e w a y Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s -L E D : ( 1 ) 1 0 ’ 0 ” x 2 5 ’ 0 ” e l e c t r o n i c o u t d o o r m e s s a g e d i s p l a y b o a r d. M u l t i p l e l i n e d i s p l a y s : 3 0 - 3 . 3 ” , 1 5 - 6 . 5 ” , o r 1 0 - 9 ” c h a r a c t e r s S o f t w a r e ( m e s s a g e e d i t i n g ) , t i m e a n d t e m p e r a t u r e d i s p l a y f u n c t io n . O u t p u t c o l o r : R G B f u l l c o l o r / o v e r 1 t r i l l i o n c o l o r s -C o m m u n i c a t i o n T y p e : D i r e c t C a b l e C a t 5 -S u p p o r t S t r u c t u r e : F a c t o r y f i n i s h ( 4 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” a n g l e i r on o n u n i t a n d ( 4 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” a n g l e i r o n m o u n t e d o n w a l l w i t h ( 3 2 ) 5 /8 ” x 6 ” H i l t i A n c h o r s . A B 10 ’ x 2 5 ’ L E D F u l l C o l o r D i s p l a y C IT Y IN E M A C C IT Y IN E M A C 3 ’ 0 ” 2 ’ 0 ” 3 1 ’ 6 ” 1 8 ’ 6 ” 1 1 ’ 6 ” 26 ’ 0 ” 70 ’ 0 ” 82 ’ 0 ” 37 ’ 0 ” 22 ’ 6 ” 22 ’ 6 ” 14” SO U T H E L E V A T I O N SIDE ELEVATION Ci n e m a C i t y NT S Oc t 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 56 3 5 E L a P a l m a A v e An a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 T H I S I S A N O R I G I N A L D R A W I N G P R E P A R E D E X C L U S I V E L Y F O R T H I S P R O J E C T . I T I S S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E A N D R E M A I N S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E . I T I S N O T TO BE SHOWN T O A N Y O N E O U T S I D E Y O U R O R G A N I Z A T I O N N O R I S I T T O B E U S E D , R E P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N . C A L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E El e c t r i c a l & E l e c t r o n i c D i s p l a y s 4 3 0 S o u t h V a r n e y S t . B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 B u s ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 7 0 9 0 F a x ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 8 0 6 9 E m a i l : S t a n @ c a m a r q u e e . c o m W e b - s i t e : c a l i f o r n i a m a r q u e e . c o m 82 ’ 0 ” 3 1 ’ 6 ” Ci n e m a C i t y NT S Oc t 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 56 3 5 E L a P a l m a A v e An a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 SP E C I A L N O T E A. A l l w o r k t o c o m p l y w i t h 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e s a n d 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y S t a n d a r d s f o r s i g n l i g h t i n g . B. A l l o u t d o o r s i g n l i g h t i n g s h o u l d b e c o n t r o l l e d w i t h a p h o t o s e n s o r a n d a n a u t o m a t i c t i m e - s w i t c h o r a s t r o n o m i c a l t i m e s w i t c h c o n t r o l . C. O u t d o o r s i g n l i g h t s t h a t h a v e t o r e m a i n o n 2 4 h o u r s a d a y s h o u l d h a v e d i m m e r s c a p a b l e o f d i m m i n g l i g h t o u t p u t b y 6 5 % d u r i n g n i g h t h o u r s . E x c e p t i o n : O u t d o o r s i g n s i n t u n n e l s a n d s i g n s i n l a r g e c o v e r e d a r e a s t h a t a r e m e a n t t o b e l i t 2 4 h o u r s f o r 3 6 5 d a y s . 4” 9” (8 ) 5 / 8 ” x 6 ” H i l t i A n c h o r s (8 ) 5 / 8 ” x 6 ” H i l t i A n c h o r s (8 ) 5 / 8 ” x 6 ” H i l t i A n c h o r s (8 ) 5 / 8 ” x 6 ” H i l t i A n c h o r s (2 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” St e e l A n g l e i r o n 1 / 4 ” T h i c k (2 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” St e e l A n g l e i r o n 1 / 4 ” T h i c k (2 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” St e e l A n g l e i r o n 1 / 4 ” T h i c k (2 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” St e e l A n g l e i r o n 1 / 4 ” T h i c k Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s -L E D : ( 1 ) 1 0 ’ 0 ” x 2 5 ’ 0 ” e l e c t r o n i c o u t d o o r m e s s a g e d i s p l a y b o a r d. M u l t i p l e l i n e d i s p l a y s : 3 0 - 3 . 3 ” , 1 5 - 6 . 5 ” , o r 1 0 - 9 ” c h a r a c t e r s S o f t w a r e ( m e s s a g e e d i t i n g ) , t i m e a n d t e m p e r a t u r e d i s p l a y f u n c t ion. O u t p u t c o l o r : R G B f u l l c o l o r / o v e r 1 t r i l l i o n c o l o r s -C o m m u n i c a t i o n T y p e : D i r e c t C a b l e C a t 5 -S u p p o r t S t r u c t u r e : F a c t o r y f i n i s h ( 4 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” a n g l e i r on on unit a n d ( 4 ) 3 ” x 3 ” x 1 9 ’ 0 ” a n g l e i r o n m o u n t e d o n w a l l w i t h ( 3 2 ) 5 /8” x 6” H i l t i A n c h o r s . 10 ’ x 2 5 ’ L E D F u l l C o l o r D i s p l a y 25 ’ 10’ Ci n d e r B l o c k Ci n e m a C i t y NT S Oc t 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 56 3 5 E L a P a l m a A v e An a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 L E D D I S P L A Y CI N D E R B L O C K 3’ 0 ” 1 5 M M N E O N U N I T 24 ” TH I S I S A N O R I G I N A L D R A W I N G P R E P A R E D E X C L U S I V E L Y F O R T H I S PR O J E C T . I T I S S U B M I T T E D F O R Y O U R P E R S O N A L U S E A N D R E M A I N S TH E P R O P E R T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E . I T I S N O T T O B E S H O W N TO A N Y O N E O U T S I D E Y O U R O R G A N I Z A T I O N N O R I S I T T O B E U S E D , RE P R O D U C E D , C O P I E D O R E X H I B I T E D I N A N Y F A S H I O N . CA L I F O R N I A M A R Q U E E El e c t r i c a l & E l e c t r o n i c D i s p l a y s 43 0 S o u t h V a r n e y S t . B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 Bu s ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 7 0 9 0 F a x ( 8 1 8 ) 8 4 0 - 8 0 6 9 Em a i l : S t a n @ c a m a r q u e e . c o m W e b - s i t e : c a l i f o r n i a m a r q u e e . c o m Ci n e m a C i t y NT S Oc t 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 56 3 5 E L a P a l m a A v e An a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 18 ’ 6 ” X 3 7 ’ 0 ” S / F N E O N C A B I N E T THIS IS AN ORIGINAL DRAWING PREPARED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THIS PROJECT. IT IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE AND REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF CALIFORNIA MARQUEE. IT IS NOT TO BE SHOWN TO ANYONE OUTSIDE YOUR ORGANIZATION NOR IS IT TO BE USED, REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION. CALIFORNIA MARQUEE Electrical & Electronic Displays 430 South Varney St. Burbank, CA 91502 Bus (818) 840-7090 Fax (818) 840-8069 Email: Stan@camarquee.com Web-site: californiamarquee.com Cinema City NTS Oct 28, 2016 5635 E La Palma Ave Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 BEFORE AFTER (1) 42” Exposed Neon Channel Letters; “Cinema City” (1) 18’6” X 37’0” S/F Neon Wall Sign w/ 10’ x 25’ LED Static Display C ITYINEMAC SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 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: APRIL 17, 2017 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05912 AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2017-00135 LOCATION: 318 North Brookhurst Street (Calimex Market) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Mandip Kaur represented by the agent, Navreet Thind. The property owner is Jad Harb. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to upgrade an existing “Type 20” Off-Sale Beer and Wine Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to a “Type 21” Off-Sale General license and a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption within an existing convenience market. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolutions, determining that this request is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912 and Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2017-00135. BACKGROUND: This 0.23-acre property is developed with a 3,295 square foot convenience market. The market currently includes the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption. The property is located in the “T” Transition zone and the General Plan designates this property O-L (Low Intensity Office). The property is surrounded by single family residential uses to the east and south, multiple-family (apartments) to the north across Catalina Avenue, and commercial and office uses to the west across Brookhurst Street. There are no existing zoning entitlements associated with this convenience market; therefore, the existing sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption is considered a legal-nonconforming use. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05912 AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2017-00135 April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 4 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to upgrade from the sales of beer and wine to full alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption within an existing 3,295 square foot convenience market. No modifications to the building’s exterior are proposed. The only modifications to the interior would be the installation of wall cabinets and shelving to store the alcohol. The convenience store would operate with a Type 21 (Off-Sale General) ABC license and would sell alcoholic beverages, packaged and prepared food items, sundries, tobacco products and lottery tickets. The store will continue to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., seven days a week with up to six employees. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: 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. Convenience stores with off-premise sales of alcoholic beverages require approval of a conditional use permit in this zone in order to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff believes that the proposed ABC license upgrade from beer and wine to alcoholic beverages would not adversely affect the surrounding land uses or the growth and development of the area if the business is operated in a responsible manner and in compliance with the recommended conditions of approval. These conditions include: prohibiting any exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages and requiring ABC LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) training for employees. The convenience market is currently operating without a conditional use permit, so the approval of this request provides the opportunity for alcohol- related operational conditions to be applied to the business. No increase in the parking requirement would occur since there is no expansion in floor area proposed. 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. 2017-05912 AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2017-00135 April 17, 2017 Page 3 of 4 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. In this case, the subject property is in an area that exceeds both the City’s average crime rate and over-concentration of ABC licenses. However, the law also states that such restrictions can be waived if the local jurisdiction makes a determination that the proposed outlet would serve a "public convenience or necessity." Since there is an over- concentration of off-sale licenses in the census tract and there is a crime rate that is above the city-wide average, a “determination of public convenience or necessity" is required. This property is located within Census Tract No. 871.02, which has a population of 5,816. This population allows for six on-sale ABC licenses and there is presently one license in the tract. It also allows for three off-sale licenses and there are presently four licenses in the tract. One of the four off-sale licenses belongs to the subject Calimex Market and this license would be upgraded, so the number of off-sale licenses would not be increased. The property is within Police Reporting District No. 1620, which has a crime rate that is 266 percent above the citywide average. According to the Police Department, the crime rate in this reporting area is above average due to the higher concentration of commercial uses along Brookhurst Street. There were three calls for service at this location in the last year and the calls consisted of 1 disturbance, 1 fight and 1 robbery. The Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rate within a one-quarter (1/4) mile radius of the subject site. Over the last year, the crime rate within a one-quarter mile radius of this property was 127 percent above the City-wide average based upon calls for service. The calls consisted of 43 drug abuse violations, 23 simple assaults, 14 acts of vandalism and 19 grand theft automobiles. According to ABC records, the convenience market has operated with a Type 20 off- sale beer and wine license since 1992 with different operators. The applicant has owned and operated the business since December of 2014 in compliance with all regulations pertaining to the sales of alcoholic beverages. ABC records indicate the applicant has not had any citations and has a current license that is eligible for the proposed upgrade. Staff conducted an inspection of the property and observed the site to have excessive number of temporary signs on the building including window signs. In addition, the landscape planter at the corner was not properly maintained. The draft resolutions include conditions of approval requiring that within 30 days of the conditional use permit approval, all illegal and unpermitted signs be removed and that the landscape planter be restored with new planting material and maintained in perpetuity. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05912 AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2017-00135 April 17, 2017 Page 4 of 4 The existing market is a long-standing neighborhood business that provides a convenient shopping location for area residents. As previously mentioned, the business has been operating responsibly over the years. Staff believes the proposed ABC license upgrade would be compatible with the neighborhood and would provide a convenience to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the market operates until 12:00 a.m. and the owner has no plans to extend the hours if the ABC license is upgraded. CONCLUSION: The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption is a compatible use with the surrounding area. The recommended conditions of approval would ensure that the sale of alcoholic beverages would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding land uses. Staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Wayne Carvalho Jonathan E. Borrego Contract Planner Planning Services Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2. Draft Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution 3. Letter of Request 4. Police Department Memorandum 5. Photographs 6. Site Plan 7. Floor Plan T-ZoneRETAIL RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4APARTMENTS4 DU PRDAD MILLERGOLF COURSE C-G OFFICES C-G VETERINARY CLINIC C-G KONA MOTEL C-G VACANT C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E T S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RM-4APARTMENTS8 DU RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4 (BCC)LINCOLN TERRACEAPTS170 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 DAYCARE TRETAIL T RETAIL C-GSFR C-GOFFICES C-GRETAIL C-G RETAIL TSINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE C-GRETAIL TRETAIL T SFR N B R O O K H U R S T S T N K A T H R Y N D R W CATALINA AVE W ALAMEDA AVE N V A L L E Y S T N L I N D S A Y S T N B I R C H E R S T N R A N C H I T O S T W BROWNWOOD AVE W WOOD LE Y AVE W S U N S E T A V E W HILBERS RD N V A L L E Y S T W. BROADWAY W. LA PALMA AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. N . M A G N O L I A A V E N . E U C L I D S T S . E U C L I D S T W.CRESCENT AVE N . L O A R A S T N . E U C L I D S T W. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE 3 1 8 North Brook hurst Street D E V N o. 2017-00033 Subject Property APN: 072-453-50 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 16 N B R O O K H U R S T S T N K A T H R Y N D R W CATALINA AVE W ALAMEDA AVE N V A L L E Y S T N L I N D S A Y S T N B I R C H E R S T N R A N C H I T O S T W BROWNWOOD AVE W WOOD LE Y AVE W S U N S E T A V E W HILBERS RD N V A L L E Y S T W. BROADWAY W. LA PALMA AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. N . M A G N O L I A A V E N . E U C L I D S T S . E U C L I D S T W.CRESCENT AVE N . L O A R A S T N . E U C L I D S T W. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE 3 1 8 North Brook hurst Street D E V N o. 2017-00033 Subject Property APN: 072-453-50 °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. 2017-05912 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2017-00033) (318 NORTH BROOKHURST STREET) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ("Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912 to permit an upgrade of an existing “Type 20” Off-Sale Beer and Wine Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to a “Type 21” Off-Sale General ABC license to permit the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for off-site consumption within a convenience market (Calimex Market), for certain real property located at 318 North Brookhurst 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 (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912 is proposed in conjunction with Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2017-00135, now pending, which, together with the Project, shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 0.23 acres, is developed with a 3,295 square foot convenience market. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for “O-L” Low Intensity Office land uses. The Property is located within the "T" Transition Zone. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 17, 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 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 Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (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, this 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 - 2 - PC2017-*** 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 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 pertaining to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed request to upgrade an existing “Type 20” Off-Sale Beer and Wine Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to a “Type 21” Off-Sale General ABC license to permit the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for off-site consumption within a convenience market is an allowable use within the "T" Transition Zone under Section 18.14.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose Zones) of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit and the zoning and development standards of the "T" Transition Zone. 2. The use proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912, under the conditions imposed, are compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912 are, under the conditions imposed, adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the convenience market on the Property will adhere to all required land use standards. 4. The traffic generated by the uses proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 2017- 05912 under the conditions imposed, will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not increase due to the upgrade of the ABC license. 5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area through conditions of approval for the use and is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 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. 2017-05912, contingent upon and subject to (i) approval of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2017-00135, now pending, and (ii) 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. 2017-05912 in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete - 3 - PC2017-*** 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. 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 April 17, 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 - 4 - 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 April 17, 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 17th day of April, 2017. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2017-*** - 6 - PC2017-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05912 (DEV2017-00033) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a 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 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 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. 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 The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control,as depicted. Police Department 8 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 9 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 businesses. Police Department - 7 - PC2017-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 10 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. Police Department 11 The Petitioner(s) shall post and maintain a professional quality sign facing the premises parking lot(s) that reads as follows: NO LOITERING, NO LITTERING NO DRINKING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO ARREST The sign shall be at least two feet square with two inch block lettering. The sign shall be in English and Spanish. Police Department 12 The convenience market shall be operated in accordance with the Statement of Operations submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation as described in that document shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 13 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area over which they have control in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance of the property, including landscaping and irrigation, and the removal of trash or debris. 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. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 14 All existing unpermitted wall and window signs shall be removed within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 15 Window signs shall comply with the maximum area allowed by the Zoning Code. At no time shall window signs exceed 20% of the window area. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 16 New landscape material (shrubs and ground cover) shall be replanted within the on-site landscape planter adjacent to the intersection within 30 days of the date of this resolution. The restored landscaping shall be provided with proper irrigation and maintained in perpetuity in compliance with Condition No. 13 above. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 8 - PC2017-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 17 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 18 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 19 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2017-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2017-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2017-00135 TO PERMIT A TYPE 21 (OFF SALE GENERAL) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2017-00033) (318 NORTH BROOKHURST STREET) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2017-00135 to upgrade an existing “Type 20” Off-Sale Beer and Wine Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to a “Type 21” Off-Sale General ABC license to permit the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for off-site consumption within a convenience market (Calimex Market) for certain real property located at 318 North Brookhurst 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 (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2017-00135 is proposed in conjunction with a request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912, now pending, which together with the Project, shall be referred to herein collectively as the “Proposed Project”; and WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 0.23 acres, is developed with a 3,295 square foot convenience market. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for “O-L” Low Intensity Office land uses. The Property is located within the "T" Transition Zone. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 17, 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 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 Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (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 - 2 - PC2017-*** WHEREAS, by the adoption of a separate resolution concurrently with but prior in time to this Resolution, this Planning Commission has heretofore found and determined, as the “lead agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), that the Proposed Project is 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 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. 2017-00135, 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 23958.4, "undue concentration" means the case in which the Property is located in an area where any of the following conditions exist: (a) The Property is located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimes than the average number of “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 Property is located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. (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 Property is located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county. - 3 - PC2017-*** 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. 5. The Property is located within Census Tract No. 871.02 with a population of 5,816 that allows for three off-sale ABC licenses. There are presently four off-sale ABC licenses in the tract. The Property is located in Police Reporting District No. 1620, which has a crime rate that is 266 percent above the City-wide average. The Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rate within a one-quarter mile radius of the Property for the subject site. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this Property is 127 percent above the City-wide average based upon calls for service. Since there is an overconcentration of off-sale licenses in the census tract and the crime rate is above the city-wide average, a determination of "public convenience or necessity" is required. 6. The request to permit alcoholic beverage sales for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a convenience market 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 Property is currently developed with convenience market that sells beer and wine and the proposed use of the Premises at the Property is compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area; and 7. The determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" can be made based on the finding that the license requested is consistent with the Planning Commission guideline for such determinations and further that the granting of the determination of Public Convenience or Necessity, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 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. - 4 - PC2017-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2017-00135, contingent upon and subject to (i) approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05912, now pending, and (ii) 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 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(s), (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. 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 17th day of April, 2017. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC2017-*** - 7 - PC2017-*** EXHIBIT “B” DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2017-00135 (DEV2017-00033) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a 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 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 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. 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 The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control,as depicted. Police Department 8 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 9 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 businesses. Police Department 10 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. Police Department - 8 - PC2017-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 11 The Petitioner(s) shall post and maintain a professional quality sign facing the premises parking lot(s) that reads as follows: NO LOITERING, NO LITTERING NO DRINKING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO ARREST The sign shall be at least two feet square with two inch block lettering. The sign shall be in English and Spanish. Police Department 12 The convenience market shall be operated in accordance with the Statement of Operations submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation as described in that document shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 13 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area over which they have control in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance of the property, including landscaping and irrigation, and the removal of trash or debris. 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. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 14 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 15 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 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 9 - PC2017-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT with such proceeding. 16 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division ATTACHMENT NO. 3 City of Anaheim INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE To: Wayne G. Carvalho/Planning Department Case No.: DEV 2017-00033 Calimex Market 318 N. Brookhurst Street Date: March 22, 2017 From: Lieutenant Brian McElhaney 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 2017-00033. The applicant is requesting to upgrade an existing Type 20 off-sale beer and wine license to a Type 21 off-sale general Alcoholic Beverage Control license. The location is in Census Tract Number 871.02 which has a population of 5,816. This population allows for 6 on-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there is 1 license in the tract. It also allows for 3 off-sale licenses and there are 4 licenses in the tract. This location is within Reporting District 1620 which is 266% above the city average in crime. There have been 3 calls for service to this location in the last year and they consisted of: 1 disturbance, 1 fight and 1 robbery. Themile radius surrounding this location is 127% above the city average in crime. The calls for service primarily consisted of: 43 drug abuse violations, 23 simple assaults, 14 acts of vandalism and 19 grand theft autos. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Police Department requests the following conditions be placed on the Conditional Use Permit: ATTACHMENT NO. 4 No. Timing Condition Responsible Department 1. The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a 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. 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 4. Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5. The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. 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. The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, as depicted. Police Department 8. Managers I 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 9. 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 businesses. Police Department 10. Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. Police Department 11. The Petitioner(s) shall post and maintain a professional quality sign facing the premises parking lot(s) that reads as follows: NO LOITERING, NO LITIERING NO DRINKING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Police Department VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO ARREST The sign shall be at least two feet square with two inch block lettering. The sign shall be in English and Spanish. f:\home\mmirwin\CUP\2017-00033 DEV 318 N Brookhurst Calimex.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 5 A T T A C H M E N T N O . 6 A T T A C H M E N T N O . 7 200 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: APRIL 17, 2017 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246A LOCATION: 1000 North Edward Court (K1 Speed Anaheim) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant/agent is Paul Klukas with Planning Systems. The property owner is KDG Investments/Hearn Family Trust. REQUEST: The applicant requests to amend a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to modify conditions of approval to permit the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with an existing go-kart facility. 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. 2007-05246A. BACKGROUND: This 4.18-acre property is developed with an existing industrial building utilized as an indoor go-kart facility. The property is located in the Flex Development Area (DA 7) within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan and the General Plan designates the property for Mixed-Use Non-Residential land uses. Surrounding land uses include industrial uses to the north, east, and west, and multi-family residential uses to the south across the SR-91 Freeway. In 2007, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 2007-05246 to permit an indoor go-kart facility within an existing industrial building. The indoor go-kart facility has been operating at this location since the original approval and there are no open code enforcement cases for the property. Condition no. 7 of this permit prohibits the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages on-site; therefore, an amendment to the existing CUP to remove this condition is required. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246A April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 4 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption within an accessory restaurant area of the existing indoor go-kart facility. The proposed restaurant area within the facility was previously occupied with a concession stand; however, the applicant is proposing to upgrade the kitchen area to allow for the preparation and sale of food offerings such as cheese and charcuterie board, chicken wings, wrap sandwiches, salads, sliders, as well as other food options (see Attachment 7 for menu). Food would be available at all times and beer and wine sales would be confined to the upgraded café area at all times. The cafe would be open during the same hours of operation as the go-kart facility hours, which are Monday through Thursday 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Friday 11:00 a.m. to12:00 a.m., Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The business would operate with an On-Sale Beer and Wine-Eating Place (Type 41) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. The percentage of alcohol sales from the K1 Speed Anaheim total sales revenue is anticipated to be less than 5%. The percentage of alcohol sales from the food and beverage sales revenue is estimated to be approximately 20%. The applicant has indicated that similar beer and wine sales have been introduced into their other facilities in the state of Illinois, and they are in the process of securing the necessary permits/licenses to serve beer and wine at their other 35 go-kart locations nationwide. The applicant cites that the proposal to upgrade their existing facilities is in response to the requests and demands of their modern corporate clientele. In order to ensure that on-site consumption of beer and wine would not take place prior to go- kart racing, the applicant outlined in their letter of operation a business operational program that would be implemented if their application for beer and wine sales is approved. The program includes the following standard procedures: 1. Upon entering the facility, customers will be fitted with a plastic wristband allowing them to race. 2. Upon completion of their racing, if they are at least 21 years of age and purchase beer or wine in the cafe, the bracelet will be cut and removed, and replaced with a fluorescent hand stamp. 3. Customers without bracelets will not be able to race. In the event that a customer violates the rules by attempting an unauthorized re-entry to purchase a racing ticket, this customer's name will be triggered in the cashier computer as already having raced that day, and the hand stamp will identify this customer as having consumed beer or wine. This customer will be denied a racing ticket. 4. A breathalyzer will be available at the cashier counter to identify any arriving customers who appear to be intoxicated. 5. Beer and wine purchase and drinking will be confined to the cafe portion of the K1 Speed facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246A April 17, 2017 Page 3 of 4 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 subject property is located in the Flex Area (DA-7) of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP). The intent of the Flex Area is to provide locations for a wide range of industrial, office and commercial uses. This area allows flexibility in both the types of uses and development standards that are applied. Every use that is included in either “DA-1 (Industrial)” or “DA-5 (General Commercial)” can also be located within the Flex Area. In the event there is a conflict between the development standards of the two development areas, the least restrictive standard shall apply within the Flex Area. While the “DA-5” area permits on-sale consumption of alcoholic beverages by right, Condition no. 7 of the existing conditional use permit for the indoor go-kart facility prohibits the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages on-site; therefore, an amendment to the existing CUP to remove the condition is required. A determination of public convenience or necessity is not required for restaurants serving alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. The indoor go-kart facility is located within Census Tract No. 117.14, which has a population of 499 residents. The project site is located within Police Reporting District No. 1430, which is below the city average in crime. The crime rate within ¼ mile radius surrounding this location is below the city average in crime. The calls for service primarily consisted of 31 auto-related burglaries and thefts and 11 petty thefts. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246A April 17, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Staff believes the sale of beer and wine would be compatible with the surrounding area because this is a predominantly industrial area and the existing indoor go-kart facility has been in operation for 10 years without impact to the surrounding area. Additionally, Police Department staff have reviewed the proposed business operation to ensure safe on-site consumption of beer and wine and are satisfied with the proposed business plan. The recommended conditions of approval would ensure that the business is operated in a responsible manner. These conditions include a prohibition on any exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages, required ABC LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) training for employees, and requiring that the business display a sign in the café area alerting all patrons that racing shall be prohibited upon consumption of any alcoholic beverages. Staff conducted an inspection of the property and found it to be well maintained. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement violations associated with this business. Based on these factors, staff believes that the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area and recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit. 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 on-premises consumption within the upgraded café area is a compatible use within the K1 Speed Indoor go-kart facility and the surrounding industrial area. The recommended conditions of approval would ensure that the sale beer and wine would be handled responsibly and 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 Planning Services Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2. Letter of Request 3. Police Department Memorandum 4. Plans 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246 Resolution 6. Photographs 7. Restaurant Menu IndustrialGo Cart Racing SP 2015-1DA7VOIT L A PALMACORPORATE PARK TNURSERY RM-4LA RAMADAAPTS193 DU RM-4LA RAMADAAPTS193 DU RM-4EASTWOODAPARTMENTS108 DU RM-4FRONTERAWOODSAPARTMENTS26 DURM-4PARK MEADOWSAPARTMENTS54 DU SP 2015-1DA7INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA2INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA7INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA7INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA7INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA7VACANT SP 2015-1DA7VOIT LA PALMACORPORATE PARK SP 2015-1DA7VOIT L A PALMACORPORATE PARK 91 FREEWAY 9 1 F R E E W A Y E L A P A L M A A V E E F R O N T E R A S T E WHITE STAR AVE N A R M A N D O S TN E D W A R D C T E . L A P A L M A A V E E . M I R A L O M A A V E E. LINCOLN AVE N . B L U E G U M S T N . S U N K I S T S T N . R I O V I S T A S T 1 0 0 0 North Edward Court D E V N o. 2017-00028 Subject Property APN: 344-414-12 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 16 91 FREEWAY 9 1 F R E E W A Y E L A P A L M A A V E E F R O N T E R A S T E WHITE STAR AVE N A R M A N D O S TN E D W A R D C T E . L A P A L M A A V E E . M I R A L O M A A V E E. LINCOLN AVE N . B L U E G U M S T N . S U N K I S T S T N . R I O V I S T A S T 1 0 0 0 North Edward Court D E V N o. 2017-00028 Subject Property APN: 344-414-12 °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 AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2017-00028) (1000 NORTH EDWARD COURT) WHEREAS, on September 17, 2007, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Anaheim Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. PC2007-108, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246 to permit an indoor go-kart facility within an existing industrial building (the “Original Project”), located at 1000 North Edward Court in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246 (herein referred to as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246A”) to modify previously-approved conditions of approval to allow the sale and on-site consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with an existing indoor go-kart facility (the "Proposed Project"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 4.18-acres in size and is currently developed with an industrial building utilized as an indoor go-kart facility. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Mixed-Use Non-residential land uses. The Property is located within Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (the "SP 2015-1") and more particularly within the Flex Development Area (Development Area 7) thereof. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the "Code"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 17, 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) and Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence 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 Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (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 - 2 - PC2017-*** 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 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 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 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. 2007- 05246A, does find and determine the following: 1. That an amendment to the original Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246 is authorized under subsection .190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code. 2. That the proposed amendment to the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the subject property is not adjacent to residential uses, and the proposed conditions of approval contained herein will ensure that the existing indoor go- kart facility and associated restaurant with beer and wine operates responsibly. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the facility is developed as an industrial building surrounded by other industrial uses, and that no change in the primary land use, nor an expansion of the building floor area, will occur. 4. The traffic generated by the indoor go-kart facility will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by the addition of the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption to the existing indoor go-cart facility use will not increase the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding industrial uses in the area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, this 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. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. - 3 - PC2017-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246A contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Revised Conditions of Approval"). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective upon the effective date of this Resolution, the Revised Conditions of Approval hereby amend and replace the Previous Conditions of Approval in their entirety. All references to the conditions of approval for the Original CUP and Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246A shall be to the Revised Conditions of Approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, which shall control and govern the Original CUP, as amended by Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revised Conditions of Approval, as they relate to the uses permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246A, are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property 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 that relate to the uses permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246A 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. 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. - 4 - PC2017-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 17, 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 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 April 17, 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 17th day of April, 2017. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2017-*** - 6 - PC2017-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246A (DEV2017-00028) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1 An interior sign shall be posted near the café informing patrons that go- kart racing shall be prohibited after the consumption of any beer and wine. Planning and Building Department Police Department 2 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the business premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied or discovered by the business owner. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 3 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the business premises. Police Department 4 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Professions Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code). Police Department 5 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Police Department 6 Managers, owners, and wait staff shall call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Police Department obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training. The contact number is 714-558-4101. Police Department 7 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 8 That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police Department 9 At all times when the restaurant is open for business, the business premises shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a Police Department - 7 - PC2017-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. 10 The number of persons occupying the premises shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. (Section 25.114(a) Uniform Fire Code). Police Department 11 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. Police Department 12 The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation, as described in that document, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 13 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 14 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 15 The business premises shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner, which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division A T T A C H M E N T N O . 2 City of Anaheim INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE To: Lindsay H. Ortega/Planning Department Case No.: DEV 2017-00028/CUP 2007-05246 K1 Speed Kart Racing 1000 N. Edward Ct. Date: March 14, 2017 From: Lieutenant Brian McElhaney 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: The Police Department has received an I.D.C. Route Sheet for DEV 2017-00028/CUP 2007-05246. The applicant is requesting to amend an existing conditional use permit to remove a condition prohibiting alcoholic beverage sales. This location is within Census Tract Number 117.14 which has a population of 499. This population allows for 0 off-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there are presently 2 licenses in the tract. It also allows for 0 on-sale licenses and there are presently 5 licenses in the tract. This location is within Reporting District 1430 which is below the city average in crime. There have been 3 calls for service to this location in the last year and they consisted of: 1 reckless driving, 1disturbance and 1 vandalism. The ¼ mile radius surrounding this location is below the city average in crime. The calls for service primarily consisted of: 23 auto burglaries, 11 petty thefts and 8 thefts from vehicles. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Police Department requests the following conditions be placed on the Conditional Use Permit: 1. 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 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 2. Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police Department 3. Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 4. The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Police Department 5. Managers, owners, and wait staff need to call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training. The contact number is 714-558-4101. Police Department 6. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police Department 7. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police Department 8. At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Police Department 9. The number of persons shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load. Police Department 10. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. Police Department Concur: Office of Chief of Police f:\home\mmirwin\CUP\2017-00028 DEV 1000 N Edward K1.doc 5JGGV 5ECNG &CVG QH 5JGGVU     0   ' F Y C T F  % Q W T V   # P C J G K O   % #        -  5 R G G F  Ä  # P C J G K O   % # (N Q Q T  2 N C P (NQQT2NCP Floor Plan K1 SPEED   ÄÄ NORTH žÄ (.1142.#0 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" EXISTING RACE TRACK EXISTING RACE TRACK (Alcohol sales and consumption would occur) ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 A T T A C H M E N T N O . 7 200 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: APRIL 17, 2017 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016-05888 AND VARIANCE NO. 2016-05088 LOCATION: 1431 East La Palma Avenue APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is Wayne Coffey with Taharoa Tourism. The agent representing the applicant is Rachel Holborn with RE/MAX North Orange County. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to permit a bed and breakfast inn with outdoor events and entertainment, including the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, within an existing historic home with fewer spaces than required by the Zoning Code. BACKGROUND: The applicant submitted a request to continue this item to the May 1, 2017 meeting in order for staff to readvertise the item and modify the project description in response to concerns received from adjacent neighbors and City staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2016-05888 and Variance No. 2016- 05088 to the meeting of May 1, 2017 as requested by the applicant. Prepared by, Submitted by, Amy Vazquez Jonathan E. Borrego Contract Planner Planning Services Manager Lilley Planning Group Attachments: 1. Continuation Request RS-2SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE RM-4APTS6 DU RM-4DAY CARE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TRELIGIOUS USE RM-4TRIPLEX RM-4APTS9 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4WOODSTOCK TERRACEAPTS44 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4APTS7 DU RM-4APTS8 DU RM-4 APTS12 DU C-GRETAIL RM-4APTS6 DU RM-4LA CUESTACONDOMINIUM36 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TEDISON ELEMENTARYSCHOOL RM-4 ACACIA EMERALD APARTMENTS TRELIGIOUS USE R S - 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E C-GMEDICAL OFFICE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TRELIGIOUS USE E LA PALMA AVE N A C A C I A S TN L I B E R T Y L N N A N N A D R N W A N D A D R N H A W T H O R N S T N B O D E N D R N B U T T O N W O O D S T E W I L H E L M I N A S T E FOREST LN E DEL MAR LN E. LA PALMA AVE E .L I N C O L N A V E E. ORANGETHORPE AVE N . E A S T S T E . B R O A D W A Y N . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D N . A N A H E I M B L V D N . S U N K I S T S T 1 4 3 1 Ea st La Palma Ave nue D E V N o. 2016-00075 Subject Property APN: 073-333-37 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 16 E LA PALMA AVE N A C A C I A S T N L I B E R T Y L N N A N N A D R N W A N D A D R N H A W T H O R N S T N B O D E N D R N B U T T O N W O O D S T E W I L H E L M I N A S T E FOREST LN E DEL MAR LN E. LA PALMA AVE E .L I N C O L N A V E E. ORANGETHORPE AVE N . E A S T S T E . B R O A D W A Y N . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D N . A N A H E I M B L V D N . S U N K I S T S T 1 4 3 1 Ea st La Palma Ave nue D E V N o. 2016-00075 Subject Property APN: 073-333-37 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 16 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 200 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. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: APRIL 17, 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: On March, 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed 2017 Bicycle Master Plan (the “2017 Plan”) and associated General Plan Amendment. A copy of the March 20, 2017 staff report is attached. The staff report provides a detailed overview of the project’s background, the contents of the 2017 Plan, and the proposed General Plan Amendment. Prior to and at the March 20 meeting, members of the public raised concerns regarding the implementation of certain Class 1 Bike Paths, particularly related to the potential establishment of homeless encampments at these locations. These concerns included issues related to the existing and proposed Class 1 Bike Paths along the Santa Ana River and the Carbon Creek flood control channel. Following discussion and public comment, the Planning Commission continued the item for four weeks and asked staff to come back with a proposal to add language to the 2017 Plan to describe the process by which a Class 1 Bike Path would be implemented. PROPOSAL: Class I Bike Paths are typically implemented by either the City’s Community Services or Public Works Departments. The steps that the City takes to implement a Class I Bike Path are detailed on the next page. The process allows for several opportunities for public participation and input. Staff proposes to add this process to the 2017 Plan in Chapter 6.5: Implementation and Funding Opportunities. 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Process for Implementing a Class I Bike Path 1. If the City does not own the property on which the Class 1 Bike Path is planned, City staff will approach the property owner (e.g., other public agency, utility company, railroad operator, private property owner) and request to enter into a non-binding letter of interest for the proposed project. As applicable, the letter would generally identify: the type of proposed agreement, (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); its term; law enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing agreement; contingencies, etc. 2. City staff will collaborate with the surrounding community, through a community advisory working group, to identify potential issues and solutions related to the implementation of the Class 1 Bike Path. Outreach is typically initiated by mailing a notice to all addresses within a minimum of 300 feet of the project site. 3. City staff will pursue funding for the project, typically by applying for grants. City Council approval is required for acceptance of a grant in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211; and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1. 4. City staff will analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA outlines a public review process and requires that the City, as lead agency, to adopt or certify the environmental document(s) required by State law prior to construction of a proposed project. In addition, compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) would be required for projects that receive federal funding. 5. City staff and a design consultant (as applicable), in close coordination with the community advisory working group, would finalize the project design, including features of the built environment such as access control, fencing, lighting, amenities, parking, etc. City Council approval is required for design consultant contracts in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211; and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1. 6. The City will enter into formal agreements with the property owner(s) as described in the letter of interest that initiated the proposed project. These agreement(s) would identify the design of the project, as well as maintenance and enforcement responsibilities. The agreement(s) would require City Council approval, as well as approval and/or permits from the governing body of the property owner(s), if they are public agencies. 7. Once all agreements/permits are in place, proceed with the award of the construction contract in accordance with Administrative Regulation 105 (Council Agenda Items) and Administrative Regulation 110 (Administration of Contracts for City Improvements, Public Work Construction Projects). Staff also proposes to add design guidelines to Appendix G: Implementation Toolbox, to demonstrate the range of City Parks Construction Standards for fencing, walls, gates, and lighting related to park facilities that may be appropriate for installation on Class I Bike Paths. This appendix 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. The proposed revisions to the 2017 Plan are provided in Attachment 2. 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN April 17, 2017 Page 3 of 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendations for each requested Planning Commission Action: Revisions to the Bicycle Master Plan: The proposed revisions to the Bicycle Master Plan made following the March 20 Planning Commission meeting clarify the implementation process for Class I Bike Paths to address Planning Commission and community concerns regarding safety and access adjacent to residential properties. As described above, neighborhoods surrounding any proposed Class 1 Bike Path would be notified in advance of such a project and the community would have opportunities to participate in the decision-making process prior to its implementation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adopt the Bicycle Master Plan, as revised and illustrated in Attachment 2. 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, as revised. 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. 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 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN April 17, 2017 Page 4 of 4 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 for projects within the City’s Planned Roadway Network. As noted in the Addendum, 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. 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 with the revisions included in Attachment 2 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. Location Map 2. Proposed Revisions to the 2017 Bicycle Master Plan 3. Public Comments 4. March 20, 2017 Staff Report 5. Draft Resolution a. 2017 Bicycle Master Plan, Revised April 17, 2017 b. General Plan Map Amendments c. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 343 6. Addendum ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Bicycle Master Plan Revised Draft February 16April 17, 2017 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Draft February 16April 17, 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. The process for implementing a Class I Bike Path is outlined in Section 6.5, Implementation and Funding Opportunities. 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 16April 17, 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 G – 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, including Class I Bike Paths, and would be implemented on a case-by-case basis. Draft February 16April 17, 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 and Community Services Department (for Class I Bike Paths) 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 110 Bicycle Master Plan 6.5 Implementation and Funding Opportunities The City of Anaheim’s street networkPlanned Roadway 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. Class I Bike Paths that are located outside of the City’s Planned Roadway Network may require additional consideration prior to implementation. Bike Paths occur in a variety of settings and are generally co-located with the following types of facilities: flood control channel maintenance roads (Carbon Creek Channel Bike ID 164), abandoned railroad right-of-way (Union Pacific Railroad Bike ID 32), beneath overhead utility easement right-of-way (Edison Easement Bike ID 22), and within or between parks (Anaheim Coves Bike ID 1). Class I Bike Paths adjacent to residential areas may present unique situations that will be addressed with the property owner(s) and surrounding community through project planning, implementation, and maintenance. The process for implementing a Class I Bike Path that is outside of the City’s Planned Roadway Network is outlined below: 1. If the City does not own the property on which the Class 1 Bike Path is planned, City staff will approach the property owner (e.g., other public agency, utility company, railroad operator, private property owner) and request to enter into a non-binding letter of interest for the proposed project. As applicable, the letter would generally identify: the type of proposed agreement, (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); its term; law enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing agreement; contingencies, etc. 2. City staff will collaborate with the surrounding community, through a community advisory working group, to identify potential issues and solutions related to the implementation of the Class 1 Bike Path. Outreach is typically initiated by mailing a notice to all addresses within a minimum of 300 feet of the project site. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 111 Bicycle Master Plan 3. City staff will pursue funding for the project, typically by applying for grants. City Council approval is required for acceptance of a grant in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211; and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1. 4. City staff will analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA outlines a public review process and requires that the City, as lead agency, to adopt or certify the environmental document(s) required by State law prior to construction of a proposed project. In addition, compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) would be required for projects that receive federal funding. 5. City staff and a design consultant (as applicable), in close coordination with the community advisory working group, would finalize the project design, including features of the built environment such as access control, fencing, lighting, amenities, parking, etc. City Council approval is required for design consultant contracts in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211; and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1. 6. The City will enter into formal agreements with the property owner(s) as described in the letter of interest that initiated the proposed project. These agreement(s) would identify the design of the project, as well as maintenance and enforcement responsibilities. The agreement(s) would require City Council approval, as well as approval and/or permits from the governing body of the property owner(s), if they are public agencies in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211. 7. Once all agreements/permits are in place, proceed with the award of the construction contract in accordance with Administrative Regulation 105 (Council Agenda Items) and Administrative Regulation 110 (Administration of Contracts for City Improvements, Public Work Construction Projects). 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 16 – 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. 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.    Class I Bike Paths adjacent to residential areas may present unique situations that will be addressed with  the property owner(s) and surrounding community through project planning, implementation, and  maintenance. Appropriate fencing, walls, gates and lighting related to park facilities may be installed  according to City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual.  Examples of standards include:    Fences and Gates  Omega fencing per Parks Construction Standards  Manual Section 3.14.1.     Lighting  Security/pathway lighting per Parks Construction  Standards Manual Section 5.4 in coordination with  Anaheim Public Utilities Department.                                                                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  Walls    The walls along the North/South Edison Right‐of‐ Way (Bike ID 22) provide an example of the edge  treatment adjacent to residential areas.                   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.    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:  • City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual  • 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  1 Christine Saunders From:Jamie Lai Sent:Thursday, April 06, 2017 11:05 AM To:'sales@hornguys.com' Cc:Carlos Castellanos; 'markn@namm.org'; Guestsvs; 'jburress@visitanaheim.org'; 'nwells@visitanaheim.org'; 'bsipos@visitanaheim.org'; 'editor@ocbike.org'; 'bike@cicle.org'; 'info@la-bike.org'; Peggy Younggren Subject:FW: Bicycle facilities around Anaheim Convention Center   Hi Steve ‐ Thank you for sharing your experience.   We truly appreciate your detailed feedback as this will help us improve the cycling  experience through Anaheim.      Major residential development construction adjacent to Orangewood Avenue between the Santa Ana River and Interstate‐5 has  contributed to the road conditions you experienced. Upon completion, the road will be freshly paved and striped in this area.  In the  meantime, we will notify our construction inspectors to help keep the area as clean as possible.  Currently, the City is also working  on a design to widen Orangewood Avenue between the Santa Ana River and State College Boulevard. We are constantly looking for  opportunities to incorporate bike lanes into projects as reflexed in the Bike Master Plan.  Future work will also look to complete the  bike lanes between State College Boulevard and Mountain View Avenue, providing a direct route into The Anaheim Resort via  Orangewood Avenue.    Thank you for pointing out the route that Google Maps suggested.  This path is not recommended as it goes through private  property and through public alleys.  There are bike lanes on Orangewood Avenue between Mountain View Avenue and Harbor  Boulevard, and Google did not suggest using those, even though it would be more direct to the Convention Center.  We will work  with Visit Anaheim and the Convention Center to improve way finding for bike routes and facilities.    We are currently updating our Bicycle Master Plan to improve bicycle connectivity around the City of Anaheim.  Additionally, we are  looking to improve mobility through The Anaheim Resort that will in‐part look to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation in this  area.  The Bicycle Master Plan Update (slated for approval later this year) identifies this as an area of future study since it is a Specific  Plan area and requires additional analysis beyond what a Bicycle Master Plan would provide.     Bike sharing is also a program that the City has looked into in the past and we have had several discussions with bike sharing  companies.  We are also tracking the impacts of bike sharing in other cities.  We are aware of the advertising component; however,  there are details in those pro‐formas that still have impact to the City’s budget so we’re seeking a more balanced solution.     Thank you for expressing your concerns in this matter and appreciate you doing your part in reducing traffic and taking active  transportation.  If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.    Thank you,  Jamie        Jamie Lai, P.E. Traffic and Transportation Manager City of Anaheim Public Works Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office+ (714) 765-5049 E-mail+ JLai@anaheim.net   ATTACHMENT NO. 3 2 Begin forwarded message: From: The Horn Guys [mailto:sales@hornguys.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:18 PM To: Mark Newcomb; guestsvs@anaheim.net; pyounggreg@anaheim.net; jburress@visitanaheim.org; nwells@visitanaheim.org; bsipos@visitanaheim.org Cc: editor@ocbike.org; bike@cicle.org; info@la-bike.org Subject: Bicycle facilities around Anaheim Convention Center To: markn@namm.org, guestsvs@anaheim.net, pyounggreg@anaheim.net, jburress@visitanaheim.org, nwells@visitanaheim.org, bsipos@visitanaheim.org, editor@ocbike.org, bike@cicle.org, info@la-bike.org Re: Bicycle facilities around Anaheim Convention Center ___ Friends, I'm a retailer of musical instruments near Glendale, and today a representative of the NAMM organization just phoned me to encourage my membership renewal. We had a few moments to chat, and he suggested I write to you all with some ideas. I've CC'd everyone who may have some interest. I attended the NAMM music merchant show in Anaheim this January, and that day was forecast to be fairly stormy. I decided to commute via bicycle and train in order to avoid the normal traffic disasters that can occur. For me a bike commute makes a pleasant adventure as an alternative to the frustrating ordeal of driving in traffic. For those who haven't done it, bicycles are welcome on Metrolink trains any time, and they also travel for free on Amtrak trains with a reservation. So I did my little ride from Pasadena to downtown LA, caught the train, got off at Anaheim, then rode a few minutes to the convention center. Here's a Google map link to the route I tried to do: https://goo.gl/maps/EXrtzCwqi6t Friends, this little ride is crap. There's a path along the river by the homeless camp, then Orangewood Avenue is a mixed patchwork pavement and loose gravel, and the Disney folks say you can't really get through their parking lots (I didn't try, as their security people are stern), so I rode on the sidewalk on Katella and Harbor a bit. It was fine in the end, since I'm a cyclist who likes figuring these things out. The reverse was just Harbor to Orangewood. But really? This is the best you got? You're in one of the most congested urban areas anywhere, and your parking lots and streets are at (beyond?) capacity. What if, God forbid, you made things a little bit friendlier for those who want to bike in, whether to the convention center, the Disney property, or a local restaurant? A little re-striping of the road, paint 3 some sharrows, send the street sweeper by on occasion, add some signage, update your web pages with bike rack locations, be in touch with local cycling groups to design the route, update the Google route as necessary, talk to Disney so they're not defensive about the "through-the-parking-lot" route. What if one of the hotels added bicycle valet parking to their luggage storage? It's all super easy, and probably costs less than installing one extra parking space. Imagine if 100 people rode their bikes in to a show. That's 100 cars you don't have to direct into parking lots. It's the way of the future and it's past time to embrace this. The rest of the western world has passed you by in this respect long ago. There's even a restaurant and bar in the Anaheim train station. It's pretty nice traveling, except for the ride through Anaheim. And then next, what about a bike share program? Los Angeles even has one now, about 15 years after Paris and everyone else installed them. I recently used the bike share program in Salt Lake City, certainly no liberal bastion, and it's excellent. These programs generally cost the cities nothing. They are paid for by advertisers who stamp their name on the bikes and signage around town. Bike racks: I can't find any info about bicycle parking at the Anaheim convention center. I know where it is. It's in the Hilton parking garage, just north-east of the elevators. It's covered and is right next to the valet and luggage storage, so it's fine. You might consider getting the word out. Thanks for reading. I wish you success in your future developments. Please do something other than making everything exclusively car-centric, and you'll be embracing the future instead of trying to catch up later at greater expense. Please get to it. Best, Steve Ferguson CEO The Horn Guys Website: www.hornguys.com E-Mail: sales@hornguys.com Showroom & Shipping Hub 3704 Foothill Blvd. La Crescenta, CA 91214 USA Voice: 818 248 7550 Fax: 818 248 7548 Hours: Monday-Friday 10-5 Pacific time, Saturday 11-3, closed Sunday -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. 1 Christine Saunders From:Charlene Arellano <ionsparrow@att.net> Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:28 PM To:Christine Saunders Subject:Proposed Bicycle Master Plan 2017 Dear Ms. Christine Saunders, I live in the Lomita/Claredge neighborhood which is between the 1100 block of West La Palma (opposite the Anaheim Regional Medical Center/Medical Building) and the Carbon Creek Channel (opposite Sage Park). Some of our homes on Lomita Street have backyards up against the channel. In August 2016 I emailed to Jamie Lai my opposition to a bike path being placed along this channel. My position has not changed. Homelessness is an ever increasing problem. In my previous email I expressed concern that what was happening in the Santa Ana River would spread to the Carbon Creek Channel. I have since learned that five of the ten or eleven "hot spots" of homeless encampments in the county are in the Carbon Creek Channel! (See Susan Price"s "An Assessment of Homeless Services in Orange County", October 18,2016, ocgovdotcom.) I have visited these locations and seen them first hand. I am very concerned that opening it up to the public will draw the attention of the homeless, and will make possible the spreading of encampments along the channel behind our homes and at Sage Park. I believe this is a legitimate concern. Also, in times of heavy rain the channel floods it"s south bank near our neighborhood. For people to have access to this dangerous place during such flooding is a disaster in the making. Also, Sage Park has a reputation of being unsafe. Drug deals are not uncommon. Our neighborhood is surrounded on three sides by gangs, and the only thing that separates us from Sage Park is the channel. Opening up the channel to the public will give easier access to our neighborhood and will be an invitation to trouble for us. As I stated in my previous email, better to keep the channel closed and thus prevent problems from occurring in the first place, rather than having to deal with major problems, unsanitary conditions, biohazards, costly fixes, and unsafe/dangerous situations that will most likely occur if it is opened. Please, don't open up "Pandora's box". Instead, protect our neighborhood and those neighborhoods like ours, by not opening up the channel to the public. Sincerely, Charlene Arellano 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 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. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 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. 5 -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; and 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, at the public hearing, four pieces of written correspondence were received expressing opposition and concerns relating to the request and three persons spoke expressing opposition and concerns relating to the proposed request; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, a piece of written correspondence was received expressing support of the request, and two persons spoke expressing support of the proposed request; WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and directed staff to incorporate a process by which a Class 1 Bike Path would be installed, particularly along flood control channels; and WHEREAS, based on public input and the Planning Commission’s direction, staff has proposed revisions to the 2017 Plan, which outline the process to approve a Class I Bike Path; and -3- PC2017-*** WHEREAS, on April 17, 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 Chapters 18.60 and 18.68 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 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. -4- PC2017-*** 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. ; and 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. ; and 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: -5- PC2017-*** 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. ; 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 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. -6- PC2017-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 17, 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 April 17, 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 17th day of April, 2017. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 118532 -7- PC2017-*** EXHIBIT "A" Bicycle Master Plan Revised Draft April 17, 2017 This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 ......................................................................................... 111 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 6 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 Plan 1 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 14 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 15 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 2 – Existing Land Use (West) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 16 Bicycle Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 17 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 3 – Existing Land Use (East) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 18 Bicycle Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 19 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use Designations (West) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 20 Bicycle Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 21 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 5 – General Plan Land Use Designations (East) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 22 Bicycle Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. Draft April 17, 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 2014 2, 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 G, 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 C – 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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. The process for implementing a Class I Bike Path is outlined in Section 6.5, Implementation and Funding Opportunities. 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 G - Implementation Toolbox. There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes, and 71.13 new miles are proposed in the Plan. Draft April 17, 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 G. There are 1.28 miles of existing and 19.13 miles of planned Class III bike routes in the City. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 30 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 31 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 6 – Bikeway Network (West) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 32 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 33 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 7 – Bikeway Network (East) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 34 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 36 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 37 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 8 – Existing Bikeways (West) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 38 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 39 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 9 – Existing Bikeways (East) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 40 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 46 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 47 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 10 – Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End-Of-Trip Facilities Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 48 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 51 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 11 – Multi-Modal Connections Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 52 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 2202 7 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 April 17, 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” program 9 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 Strategy 12, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 Line 13 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 66 Bicycle Master Plan OCTA Bikeways Strategies OCTA Bikeways Strategies 14 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 Loop 15 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 Plan 16 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 68 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 estimates 18, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 planning 20. 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 April 17, 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 D - 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 April 17, 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 E – 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 Spring, 2017. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 76 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 78 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 84 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 85 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network (West) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 86 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 87 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 14 – Proposed Bikeway Network (East) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 88 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 G – 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, including Class I Bike Paths, and would be implemented on a case-by-case basis. Draft April 17, 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 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. 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 and Community Services Department (for Class I Bike Paths) 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 97 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 15 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 98 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 99 Bicycle Master Plan Figure 16 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East) Draft April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 100 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 tool 22 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 104 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 Administration 23. 23 www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 108 Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. Draft April 17, 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 April 17, 2017  www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 110 Bicycle Master Plan 6.5 Implementation and Funding Opportunities    The City of Anaheim’s Planned Roadway 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.     Class I Bike Paths that are located outside of the City’s Planned Roadway Network may require  additional consideration prior to implementation. Bike Paths occur in a variety of settings and are  generally co‐located with the following types of facilities: flood control channel maintenance roads  (Carbon Creek Channel Bike ID 164), abandoned railroad right‐of‐way (Union Pacific Railroad Bike ID 32),  beneath overhead utility easement right‐of‐way (Edison Easement Bike ID 22), and within or between  parks (Anaheim Coves Bike ID 1).     Class I Bike Paths adjacent to residential areas may present unique situations that will be addressed with  the property owner(s) and surrounding community through project planning, implementation, and  maintenance. The process for implementing a Class I Bike Path that is outside of the City’s Planned  Roadway Network is outlined below:    1. If the City does not own the property on which the Class 1 Bike Path is planned, City staff will  approach the property owner (e.g., other public agency, utility company, railroad operator,  private property owner) and request to enter into a non‐binding letter of interest for the  proposed project. As applicable, the letter would generally identify: the type of proposed  agreement, (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); its term; law enforcement  jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing  agreement; contingencies, etc.    2. City staff will collaborate with the surrounding community, through a community advisory  working group, to identify potential issues and solutions related to the implementation of the  Class 1 Bike Path. Outreach is typically initiated by mailing a notice to all addresses within a  minimum of 300 feet of the project site.    Draft April 17, 2017  www.anaheim.net/bike Page | 111 Bicycle Master Plan 3. City staff will pursue funding for the project, typically by applying for grants. City Council  approval is required for acceptance of a grant in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211;  and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1.  4. City staff will analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA outlines a public review process and requires  that the City, as lead agency, to adopt or certify the environmental document(s) required by  State law prior to construction of a proposed project. In addition, compliance with the National  Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) would be required for projects that receive federal  funding.  5. City staff and a design consultant (as applicable), in close coordination with the community  advisory working group, would finalize the project design, including features of the built  environment such as access control, fencing, lighting, amenities, parking, etc. City Council  approval is required for design consultant contracts in accordance with City Charter Section 518,  1211; and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1.  6. The City will enter into formal agreements with the property owner(s) as described in the letter  of interest that initiated the proposed project. These agreement(s) would identify the design of  the project, as well as maintenance and enforcement responsibilities. The agreement(s) would  require City Council approval, as well as approval and/or permits from the governing body of the  property owner(s), if they are public agencies in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211.   7. Once all agreements/permits are in place, proceed with the award of the construction contract  in accordance with Administrative Regulation 105 (Council Agenda Items) and Administrative  Regulation 110 (Administration of Contracts for City Improvements, Public Work Construction  Projects).  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 16 – 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 Details 3. 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. Class I Bike Paths adjacent to residential areas may present unique situations that will be addressed with the property owner(s) and surrounding community through project planning, implementation, and maintenance. Appropriate fencing, walls, gates and lighting related to park facilities may be installed according to City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual. Examples of standards include: Fences and Gates Omega fencing per Parks Construction Standards Manual Section 3.14.1. Lighting Security/pathway lighting per Parks Construction Standards Manual Section 5.4 in coordination with Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 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 Walls The walls along the North/South Edison Right-of-Way (Bike ID 22) provide an example of the edge treatment adjacent to residential areas. 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. 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: • City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual • 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 Appendix G Implementation Toolbox 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. 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. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox 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. 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. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox 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. 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 Appendix G Implementation Toolbox 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. 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. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox • 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 -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 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 9t h 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 tS o u t h S t V e r m o n t A v e S a n t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve S y c a m o r e 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 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 Crowther Ave O r a n g e t h o r p e A v e M i r a l o m a A v 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 ustinA 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 Esperan z a R dOrangethorpeAve La Palma Ave ImperialHwy S a n t i a g o B l M e a t s A v e I m p e r i a l H w y NohlRanch R d Santa Ana Canyon Rd Fair m ontBlvd C a n y o n RimRd S e r r a n o A v e W eir C a n yonRd O a k C a nyon D r M e t r o l i n k B l u e G u m S t Cerritos A v e |ÿ241 |ÿ91|ÿ90 |ÿ55 |ÿ57 |ÿ91 §¨¦5 Romneya Dr A n a h e i m H ill s 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 Bikeway Proposed 2nd PriorityClass II BikewayProposed 3rd PiorityClass II Bikeway Proposed Top PriorityClass III Bikeway Proposed 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 Bikeway Proposed 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 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 9t h 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 tS o u t h S t V e r m o n t A v e S a n t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve S y c a m o r e 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 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 Crowther Ave O r a n g e t h o r p e A v e M i r a l o m a A v 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 ustinA 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 Esperan z a R dOrangethorpeAve La Palma Ave ImperialHwy S a n t i a g o B l M e a t s A v e I m p e r i a l H w y NohlRanch R d Santa Ana Canyon Rd Fair m ontBlvd C a n y o n RimRd S e r r a n o A v e W eir C a n yonRd O a k C a nyon D r M e t r o l i n k B l u e G u m S t Cerritos A v e |ÿ241 |ÿ91|ÿ90 |ÿ55 |ÿ57 |ÿ91 §¨¦5 Romneya Dr A n a h e i m H ill s 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 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 9t h 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 tS o u t h S t V e r m o n t A v e S a n t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve S y c a m o r e 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 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 Crowther Ave O r a n g e t h o r p e A v e M i r a l o m a A v 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 TustinA 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 Esperan z a R dOrangethorpeAve La Palma Ave ImperialHwy S a n t i a g o B l M e a t s A v e I m p e r i a l H w y NohlRanch R d Santa Ana Canyon Rd Fair m ontBlvd C a n y o n RimRd S e r r a n o A v e W eir C a n yonRd O a k C a nyon D r M e t r o li n k B l u e G u m S t Cerritos A v e |ÿ241 |ÿ91|ÿ90 |ÿ55 |ÿ57 |ÿ91 §¨¦5 Romneya Dr A n a h e i m H ill s R d ")!(SP Green Plan City of Anaheim General Plan Program Figure 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 $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ Ho l d e r S t Kn o t t A v e We s t e r n A v e Be a c h B l v d Da l e S t Ma g n o l i a A v e Gi l b e r t S t Br o o k h u r s t S t Mu l l e r S t La Palma Ave Crescent Ave Lincoln Ave Broadway Orange Ave Ball Rd Cerritos Ave Katella Ave Orangewood Ave Chapman Ave Eu c l i d S t Nu t w o o d S t 9t h S t Wa l n u t S t Di s n e y l a n d D r Ha r b o r B l v d Le w i s S t Lo a r a S t St a t e C o l l e g e B l v d Do u g l a s s R d S H a s t e r S t Disney Way Gene Autry Way W e s t S t H a r b o r B l v d A n a h e i m B l v d O li v e S t E a s t S tS o u t h S t V e r m o n t A v e S a n t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve S y c a m o r e S tNorthSt Ball Rd Wagner Ave South St La Palma Ave Romneya Dr Orangethorpe Ave Eu c l i d S t Le m o n S t Ra y m o n d A v e Ha r b o r B l v d Ac a c i a A v e St a t e C o l l e g e B l v d P l a c e n t i a A v e Su n k i s t S t Ri o V i s t a S t Crowther Ave O r a n g e t h o r p e A v e M i r a l o m a A v e L a P a l m a A v e R e d G u m S t K r a e m e r B l v d M ill e r S t TustinA ve Va n B u r e n S t N L a k e v i e w A v e Ke l l o g g D r Esperan z a R dOrangethorpeAve La Palma Ave ImperialHwy S a n t i a g o B l M e a t s A v e I m p e r i a l H w y NohlRanch R d Santa Ana Canyon Rd Fair m ontBlvd C a n y o n RimRd S e r r a n o A v e W eir C a n yonRd O a k C a nyon D r M e t r o li n k B l u e G u m S t Cerritos A v e |ÿ241 |ÿ91|ÿ90 |ÿ55 |ÿ57 |ÿ91 §¨¦5 Romneya Dr A n a h e i m H ill s R d ")!(SP Green Plan City of Anaheim General Plan Program Figure G-1 Page G-5 0 1 20.5 Miles *Residential areas outside half-mile radius of Neighborhood or Community Park or quarter- mile radius of a Mini Park. Public Parks Open Space Golf Course Public Schools Water Uses Groundwater Protection Zone City Boundary Sphere-of-Influence Riding/Hiking, Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail Park Deficiency Areas* General Park Location(P General School Location)S Cultural Facilities$ 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. 6 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 BACKGROU ND .................................................................................................................................................. 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 Angeles County Riverside County San Bernardino County Orange County |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 A A N A A N A H E I M L A G U N A N 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 A M E S A F O U N T A I N V A L L E Y P L A C E N T I A D A N A P O I N T S E A L B E A C H L O S A L A M I T O S Y O R B A L I N D A G A R D E N G R O V E L A H A B R A L A G U N A B E A C H S A N J U A N C A P I S T R A N O A L I S O V I E J O L A G U N A H I L L S I R V I N E M I S S I O N V I E J O V I L L A P A R K H U N T I N G T O N B E A C H L A P A L M A B U E N A P 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 T B E A C H O R A N G E B R E A L A K E F O R E S T R A N C H O S A N T AM A R G A R I T A ±0 42 Miles 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 ADDENDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM Base Map Source: City of Anaheim, 2017 0 Scale (Miles) 4 Unincorporated County 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 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 9t h 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 l i v e S t E a s t S t S o u t h S t V e r m o n t A v e S a n t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve S y c a m o r e S t N o r t 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 Ri o V i s t a S t Crowther Ave O r a n ge t h o r p e A v e M i r al o m a A v 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 i l l e r S t T u stin A ve B l u e G u m S t |ÿ57 |ÿ91 §¨¦5 Romneya Dr Cerritos Ave Crone Ave W e s t m o n t D r 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 Sa n t a A n a R i v e r Carbo n 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 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 A S A N T A A N A A 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 A Y O R B A L I N D A G A R D E N G A R D E N G R O V E G R O V E B U E N A B U E N A P A R K P A R K S T A N T O N S 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 E O 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 ADDENDUM CITY 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 i l l e r S t T u stin 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 Esp e r an z a R d Orangethorpe Ave La Palma Ave ImperialHwy M e a t s A v e I m p 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 n t Blvd C a n y o n R im Rd S e r r a n o A v e W e ir C a n y onRd O a k C a nyon D r |ÿ241 |ÿ91 |ÿ90 |ÿ55 A n a h e i m H i ll 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 Miralom a Ave G e r d a D r G y p s u m C a n y o n R d Sa n 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 A P 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 A S A N T A A N A A N A P L A C E N T I A P 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 N G A R D E N G R O V E G R O V E B U E N AB U E N A P 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 E O 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 ADDENDUM CITY 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 Manual 1, 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. 3 46 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 4 170 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 9t h 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 l i v e S t E a s t S t S o u t h S t V e r m o n t A v e S a n t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve S y c a m o r e S t N o r t 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 Ri o V i s t a S t Crowther Ave O r a n ge t h o r p e A v e M i r al o m a A v 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 i l l e r S t T u stin A ve B l u e G u m S t |ÿ57 |ÿ91 §¨¦5 Romneya Dr Cerritos Ave Crone Ave W e s t m o n t D r 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 Sa n t a A n a R i v e r Carbo n 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 C YP 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 A A N A A 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 A Y O R B A L I N D A G A R D E NG A R D E N G R O V E G R O V E B U E N A B U E N A P A R K P A R K S T A N T O N S T A N T O N F U L L E R T O N F U L L E R T O N O R A N G E O 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 ADDENDUM CITY 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 85 B 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 i l l e r S t T u stin 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 Esp e r a n z a R d OrangethorpeAve La Palma Ave ImperialH wy M e a t s A v e I m p 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 a ir m o nt Blvd C a n y o n R im Rd S e r r a n o A v e W e ir C a n y onRd O a k C a nyon D r |ÿ241 |ÿ91 |ÿ90 |ÿ55 A n a h e i m H i ll 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 Sa n 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 r d 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 A L 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 T u s t i n Riverdale Ri c h f i e l d Je f f e r s o n Miraloma L a P a l m a 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 A A N AA N A P L A C E N T I A P 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 N G A R D E N G R O V E G R O V E B U E N A B U E N A P A R K P 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 E O 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 ADDENDUM CITY 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 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 9t h 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 l i v e S t E a s t S t S o u t h S t V e r m o n t A v e S a n t a A n a S tBroadwayLincolnAve S y c a m o r e S t N o r t 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 Ri o V i s t a S t Crowther Ave O r a n ge t h o r p e A v e M i r al o m a A v 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 i l l e r S t T u stin A v e B l u e G u m S t |ÿ57 |ÿ91 §¨¦5 Romneya Dr Cerritos Ave Crone Ave W e s t m o n t D r 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 Sa n t a A n a R i v e r Carbo n 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 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 A S A N T A A N A A N A P L A C E N T I A P 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 N G A R D E N G R O V E G R O V E B U E N AB U E N A P 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 E O R A N G E REGIONAL INSET 3644 ±0 10.5 Miles Last Revised: 11/9/2016 Amendment Type Proposed projects not identified in 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 ADDENDUM CITY 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 i l l e r S t T u stin 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 Esp e r a n z a R d OrangethorpeAve La Palma Ave Im perialH wy M e a t s A v e I m p 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 n t Blvd C a n y o n R im Rd S e r r a n o A v e W e ir C a n y onRd O a k C a nyon D r |ÿ241 |ÿ91 |ÿ90 |ÿ55 A n a h e i m H i ll 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 e r d 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 Sa n 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 A P 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 A S A N T A A N A A N A P L A C E N T I A P 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 N G A R D E N G R O V EG R O V E B U E N A B U E N A P A R KP A R K S T A N T O N S 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 identified in 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 ADDENDUM CITY 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 Conser vation; 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 trips 2 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 Woul d 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 proper ty 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 equivalent 5 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 str uctures 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. 3 30 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 disr uption 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: N 2 O = 298; CO 2 =25; CH 4 =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 0.00 T6 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 0.05 T7 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+AA CC)_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+AA CC)_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+AA CC)_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: N 2 O = 298; CO 2 =25; CH 4 =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 0.00 T6 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 0.05 T7 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+AA CC)_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+AA CC)_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+AA CC)_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-6 200 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.