Loading...
RES-2010-004RESOLUTION NO 2010- 004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND DETERMINING ITS ADEQUACY TO SERVE AS THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim (the "City "), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans'), proposes to construct Gene Autry Way (West) between Haster Street and I -5 Freeway (the "Project "), which project includes construction of anew east /west roadway (Gene Autry Way); limited improvements to an existing north /south roadway (Raster Street); and, the widening of Haster Street from four to six lanes (the "Proposed Project "); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed improvements is to provide for efficient and effective transportation operations along I -5 Freeway; improve access across I -5 Freeway between the western and eastern portions of the City; and, provide westerly access to the I -5 HOV lanes; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ( "CEQA ") and the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "State Guidelines "); and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2003, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Resolution No. 2003R -174 approving and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") /Environmental Assessment for the Gene Autry Way (West) Improvement Project and adopting Statements of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and further adopting a Mitigation and Monitoring Program -Gene Autry Way (West) Highway Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, since approval of the Final EIR, some changes or additions to the Proposed Project have occurred that require the previously certified Final EIR to be updated and amended, including refinements to the project design; determinations regarding the height of the noise walls along adjacent residential properties; evaluation of changes associated with approval of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone; and, assessment of green house gas emissions ( "EIR Addendum "); and WHEREAS, the City has approved that Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, east of the Interstate 5 (I -5), which provides for redevelopment of 820 acres with residential, commercial, retail, and recreational uses; and -1- WHEREAS, the adopted Platinum Triangle MLUP /PTMU Overlay Zone provides for 10,266 residential units, approximately 2.25 million square feet of commercial uses, and approximately 5.1 million square feet of office; and WHEREAS, as of November 19, 2008, a total of 390 dwelling units and 24,884 square feet of new commercial space have been constructed within the Platinum Triangle, and 1,530 new dwelling units and 13,739 square feet of commercial space are under construction and another 6,445 dwelling units, 413,871 square feet of commercial uses, and 899,419 square feet of office are approved; and WHEREAS, the City is currently preparing Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 ( "DSEIR No. 339 ") to analyze the impacts of increased development intensities in the Platinum Triangle; and WHEREAS, based upon the analysis included in the attached EIR Addendum, the City has concluded that the Project will not result in new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Addendum addresses the environmental effects associated only with the changes in environmental setting or circumstances since certification of the Final EIR and the conclusions of the analysis in the Addendum are not substantially different from those made in the Final EIR and the same unavoidable significant impacts identified in the Final EIR remain and no new significant impacts will result and no substantial increase in severity of impacts will result from those previously identified in the Final EIR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Council, based upon a thorough review of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Gene Autry Way (West) High Improvement Project (SCH No. 99101036) and the evidence received to date, does determine as follows: 1. That the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Gene Autry Way (West) Highway Improvement Project (SCH No. 99101036) was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. 2. That as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum for all environmental issues, the Proposed Project will not result in new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required. -2- 3. That the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Gene Autry Way (West) Highway Improvement Project (SCH No. 99101036) is appropriate because some changes or additions are necessary. These changes include refinements to the roadway design, in particular the final determination of the height of the noise barriers along adjacent residential properties, evaluation of any changes associated with approval of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (IPTMU) Overlay Zone and the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred with respect to the Proposed Project. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 12`' day of January, 2010, by the following roll -call vote: AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Sidhu, Hernandez, Galloway, Kring � GMIR ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MA OR OF THE CTTY F ANAHEIM ATTES 4LERK CITY OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 75325.1/bmorley -3- Exhibit A ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ANAHEIM ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA L S A December 2009 ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ANAHEIM ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: City of Anaheim Department of Public Works P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 -4731 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. DMJ0802 LSA December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... -1 1.1 ............................1 BACKGROUND 1.2 ................................................................................. ............................1 -1 CHANGES TO THE EXISTING SETTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS SINCE FEIR CERTIFICATION ......................... ............................1 -2 1.3 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR ..................................... -2 1.4 ............................1 CONCLUSIONS 2.0 ................................................................................. ............................1 -3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 ........................................................................... ............................2 -1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING 2.2 ............................................ ............................2 -1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.0 ....................................................... ............................2 -1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4.0 .............................................................. ............................3 -1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST R ESPONSES................................................................................................. -1 4.1 ............................4 AESTHETICS 4.2 ..................................................................................... ............................4 -1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.3 ...................................................... ............................4 -2 AIR QUALITY 4.4 .................................................................................... ............................4 -2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.5 ............................................................. ............................4 -3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.6 ................................................................ ............................4 -3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4.7 .................................................................... ............................4 -5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................... ............................4 -5 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ......................................... -6 4.9 ............................4 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.10 ........................................................... ............................4 -8 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11 ................................................................... ............................4 -9 NOISE 4.12 .................................................................................................. ............................4 -9 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13 ....................................................... ...........................4 -10 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14 .......................................................................... ...........................4 -11 RECREATION 4.15 ................................................................................... ...........................4 -11 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC 4.16 ....................................................... ...........................4 -11 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17 ........................................... ...........................4 -12 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................ ...........................4 -12 4.18 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... ...........................4 -13 FIGURES Figure 2.1: Project Location Map ............................................................................ ............................2 -2 P:\DMJ0802 \Reevaluations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddenduml2072009.doc <<12/07/09>> i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIG HWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1.0 INTRODUCTION This environmental document is an Addendum to the Gene Autry Way (West) Highway Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). A joint FEIR/Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) was prepared for the project. The City of Anaheim (City) certified the FEIR in August 2003. The FONSI was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on May 22, 2003. Alternative 7 (Haster Street - East /Gene Autry Way -North) was identified as the Preferred Alternative in the FEIR because it would displace the fewest number of multifamily residential units and result in less extensive noise impacts and the lowest right -of -way (ROW) costs of any of the nine Build Alternatives. For the purposes of this Addendum, Alternative 7 (the Preferred Alternative) is referred to as the proposed project. 1.1 BACKGROUND The FEIR was prepared to address construction -level impacts of the proposed widening and realignment of Gene Autry Way (West). Nine alternatives were evaluated at equal detail in the FEIR and are listed as followed: • Alternative 1: Haster Street- East/Gene Autry Way- Center • Alternative 2: Haster Street - Center /Gene Autry Way- Center • Alternative 3: Haster Street -West /Gene Autry Way- Center • Alternative 4: Haster Street - East /Gene Autry Way -South • Alternative 5: Haster Street - Center /Gene Autry Way -South • Alternative 6: Haster Street- West/Gene Autry Way -South • Alternative 7: Haster Street - East /Gene Autry Way -North • Alternative 8: Haster Street - Center /Gene Autry Way -North • Alternative 9: Haster Street -West /Gene Autry Way -North Alternative 7 was selected for approval, and the FEIR was certified for the project (hereafter referred to as the Prior Approved Alternative). All impacts in the FEIR have been mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of one impact. Short-term air pollutant emissions during construction would remain significant after implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. Since certification of the FEIR, the design and scope of the proposed project remains the same as that evaluated in the FEIR. There have been changes to the environmental setting and regulatory requirements. These changes require reevaluation of the findings of the FEIR and are described below in Section 1.2 P:\DMJ0802 \Reevaluations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc u12 /07/09» 1 -1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1.2 CHANGES TO THE EXISTING SETTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS SINCE FEIR CERTIFICATION The following summarizes changes to the environmental and regulatory setting that have occurred since the certification of the FEIR that have the potential to affect the conclusions of the FEIR. 1.2.1 Platinum Triangle Since approval of the August 2003 FEIR, additional changes in development have occurred within the study area. The City of Anaheim has approved the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) and Platinum Triangle Mixed -Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, east of the Interstate 5 (I -5), which provides for redevelopment of 820 acres (ac) with residential, commercial, retail, and recreational uses. The Platinum Triangle is generally located east of 1 -5, west of the Santa Ana River channel and State Route 57 (SR -57), south of the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, and north of the City limits. The project study area is located to the west of the designated Platinum Triangle limits. The adopted Platinum Triangle MLUP /PTMU Overlay Zone provides for 10,266 residential units, approximately 2.26 million square feet (sf) of commercial uses, and approximately 5.1 million sf of office. As of November 19, 2008, a total of 390 dwelling units and 24,844 sf of new commercial space have been constructed within the Platinum Triangle, and 1,530 new dwelling units and 13,739 sf of commercial space are under construction. Another 6,445 dwelling units, 413,871 sf of commercial uses, and 899,419 sf of office are approved but not under construction. The City of Anaheim is currently preparing Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (DSEIR No. 339) to analyze the impacts of increased development intensities in the Platinum Triangle. Approval of the proposed amendments would result in maximum development intensities of 18,909 dwelling units, 14,340,522 sf of office uses, 4,909,682 sf of commercial uses, and 1,500,000 sf of institutional uses within the Platinum Triangle. In addition, changes in environmental circumstances, such as a new law or regulation, have occurred subsequent to approval of the FEIR. The following new regulations have been implemented and are addressed in the reevaluation: • Climate Change, per Executive Order (EO) S -3 -05 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1493. • Water Quality Permitting, per the most recent County Municipal Permit and statewide construction permit. 1.3 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR When a proposed project is changed or there are changes in environmental setting, a determination must be made by the Lead Agency as to whether an Addendum or Subsequent FEIR is prepared. Criteria, as set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, are used to assess which environmental document is appropriate. The criteria for determining whether an Addendum or Subsequent FEIR is prepared are outlined below. If the criteria below are true, then an Addendum is the appropriate document: P: \DMJ0802 \Reevaluations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc <<12/07/09>) 1 -2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT • No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures. • No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impact will occur. • No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible. Based upon the information provided in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this document, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in FEIR, and there are no previously infeasible alternatives that are now feasible. Therefore, an Addendum is appropriate to be prepared to address the potential effect on the FEIR conclusions associated with the changes to the environmental and regulatory setting. 1.4 CONCLUSIONS This Addendum addresses the environmental effects associated only with changes in environmental setting or circumstances since certification of the FEIR. The conclusions of the analysis in this Addendum are not substantially different from those made in the FEIR. The same unavoidable significant impacts identified in the FEIR remain. No new significant impacts will result and no substantial increase in severity of impacts will result from those previously identified in the FEIR. P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc a12 /07/09» 1-3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING A Gene Autry Way (West) extension between Haster Street and I -5 does not currently exist. Existing land uses along the proposed Gene Autry Way (West) extension include multifamily residences, three mobile home parks, a hotel, and light industrial land uses. Currently, there are existing property walls that range from 6 feet (ft) to 8 ft for the multifamily residences, mobile home parks, and hotel. All land uses within the project area are similar in elevation to I -5, Manchester Avenue, and Haster Street. I -5 is currently an eight -lane interstate highway (four mixed -flow lanes in each direction), with one high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and one auxiliary lane in each direction. The posted speed limit on I -5 is 65 miles per hour (mph). Manchester Avenue is a two -lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Haster Street is also a four -lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 mph (Figure 2.1). 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The City of Anaheim, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12, proposes to construct Gene Autry Way (West) between Haster Street and I -5. The project includes constructing a new east /west roadway (Gene Autry Way [West]) and limited improvements to an existing north /south roadway ( Haster Street) within the City of Anaheim. Gene Autry Way (West) would be constructed as a six -lane (three lanes in each direction) highway extending from Haster Street to a point approximately 2,400 ft to the east. In order to accommodate the additional traffic from the new roadway, the proposed project also includes widening Haster Street from four to six through lanes with a center turn lane from approximately 520 ft south of Katella Avenue to approximately 600 ft north of Orangewood Avenue. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to provide efficient and effective transportation operations along I -5, improve access across I -5 between the western and eastern portions of the City of Anaheim, and provide westerly access to the I -5 HOV lanes. In particular, this project would reduce traffic volumes along Katella Avenue to the north and facilitate overall mobility within the City of Anaheim. P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc <<12/07/09, 2 -1 FIGURE 2.1 Gene Autry Way (West) Project Location Map LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following pages contain the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist (Checklist). The Environmental Checklist has been completed. As explained in Chapter 1.0, this has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Sections 15162 and 15164 to provide the City with a factual basis for determining whether any changes in circumstances or any new information since the FEIR was certified require preparation of a subsequent or Supplemental EIR or whether adoption of an Addendum to the EIR is appropriate. The basis for each of the findings listed in the Checklist is explained in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis and Explanation of Checklist Responses. P:\DMJ0802 \Reevaluations \Gene Autry Way West\GAWAddendum I 2072009.doc «12/07/09» 3 -1 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM • Dag FORM REVISION DATE: 3/6/2009 CASE NO.: SITE ADDRESS: 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. • Aesthetic /Visual ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality • Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils • 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 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City) 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. PA\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 3-2 Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date Printed Name /Title Phone No. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of "Supporting Information Sources" must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions: a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact ". The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. d) 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). 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc u12 /07/09» 3 -3 standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. 1) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 2) 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. P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc <(12/07/09>> 3 -4 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation y a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ Q ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Narrative Summary: 3 A l a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ [•� contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ❑ ❑ ❑ Q location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Narrative Summary: E IIN f Vlth . evaileble $ ri a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ Q ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ Q ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West\GAWAddendum 1 2072009.doc <<12/07/09>> 3-5 P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West\GAWAddendum 1 2072009.doc 02/07/09» 3 -6 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Narrative Summary: R a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Q modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑ Q sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as ❑ ❑ ❑ Q defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ .[�( resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Narrative Summary: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ Q ❑ ❑ resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and /or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ Q ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site ❑ ❑ Q ❑ or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑ Q cemeteries? Narrative Summary: P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West\GAWAddendum 1 2072009.doc 02/07/09» 3 -6 P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc <<12/07/09>> 3 -7 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ Q ❑ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Narrative Summary: YII h ►�..;.,w A`+ doiLI S. TE3 L.5 W Id a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ Q ❑ the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ Q ❑ reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ Q materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials ❑ ❑ ❑ Q sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc <<12/07/09>> 3 -7 P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doe e12 /07/09» 3 -8 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ Q ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Narrative Summary: f Y* « Y r a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ Q ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of ❑ ❑ Q ❑ existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ Q impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ Q involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doe e12 /07/09» 3 -8 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from ❑ ❑ Q ❑ areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous ❑ ❑ Q ❑ materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 1) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or ❑ Q ❑ ❑ downstream waters? a) Physically divide an established community? 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 or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ Q ❑ ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ Q ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels ❑ Q ❑ ❑ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West\GAWAddendum 1 2072009.doc «12/07/09» 3 -9 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Police protection? Impact with Impact ❑ Schools? ❑ Mitigation 0 ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the ❑ ❑ ❑ [� project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Narrative Summa a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for El E] Q ❑ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Narrative Summary: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� a) 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? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion ❑ ❑ ❑ [� of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc u12 /07/09» 3 -10 P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendurn12072009.doc «12/07/09u 3-11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Narrative Summary: �r P M ` Wou1d rject� a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard ❑ ❑ Q ❑ established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase ❑ ❑ ❑ Q in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ Q ❑ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ Q ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus stops /routes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc.)? Narrative Summary: J i�ES �A,NO I VICE STEMS - yNr !#fie eject a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ Q treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ Q ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including ❑ ❑ Q ❑ large -scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendurn12072009.doc «12/07/09u 3-11 P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendurn12072009.doc a12 /07/09» 3 -12 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Environmental issues Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which ❑ ❑ ❑ Q serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ Q ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related ❑ ❑ Q ❑ to solid waste? h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ Q alterations related to electricity? 1) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ Q alterations related to natural gas? j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ Q alterations related to telephone service? k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ Q alterations related to television service /reception? Narrative Summary: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ Q ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Narrative Summary: P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendurn12072009.doc a12 /07/09» 3 -12 Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each proposed project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.) * Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 (d) been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of "No Effect' determination by Department of Fish and Game is attached. Private projects are required to pay a County filing fee.) No (Pay fee) *Note: Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee. P: \DMJ0802\Reevaluations \6ene Autry Way West\GAWAddendum 1 2072009.doc «12/07/09» 3 -13 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES As described in Section 1.0, there have been changes to the environmental and regulatory setting since approval of the FEIR. As a result of these changes, the following analysis has -been conducted to support adoption of an Addendum to the FEIR. Each of the topical areas outlined in the City's Environmental Checklist are outlined below. 4.1 AESTHETICS The visual analysis conducted for the FEIR evaluated the project's potential visual effects both from and looking toward the roadway. According to the FEIR, the proposed project was evaluated for its potential effects on the existing visual environment associated with both project construction and operation. The potential visual impacts that would occur as a result of construction of the proposed project would include the removal of structures and vegetation within the ROW, construction of the roadway, and vacation of the sites after construction is completed. Visible construction activities would include demolition, grading, truck trips (debris hauling), paving, and other roadway - related construction activities. Project construction could represent a visual nuisance to local residents; however, this impact is considered temporary and limited in scope. Under the proposed project, partial acquisitions with displacements would be required at the southern end of the Satellite Mobile Home Park and Plantation Mobile Estates. These property acquisitions would include the removal of mature trees, a concrete block private security /sound wall, and landscaping. The proposed project would partially or fully obstruct views to the south from the mobile home parks due to the existing private concrete block wall. However, the visual quality and character of the views under the existing location is low because the vegetation removed as part of the proposed project is not considered unique, is discontinuous, and does not provide visual harmony. Existing walls that would be part of the proposed project would be replaced with new 8 foot sound walls, which would buffer adjacent residences from the noise and visual effects of traffic on Haster Street. The remainder of the apartments located within the project limits on both sides of Haster Street have unobstructed views of Haster Street. However, the quality of the view is also considered low due to common varieties of vegetation, presence of the existing four -lane street, and the lack of vividness. The proposed project would alter the view from the residences to the project by removing vegetation and moving traffic lanes closer to the residences. However, vegetation or streetscape that is removed by the proposed project would be replaced in accordance with established City of Anaheim policies. As a result, the FEIR concluded that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures A -1 and A -2, impacts to the existing visual quality of the surrounding area of the project limits would less than significant. P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc « 12/07/09» 4 -1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The project area is located within an existing urbanized area. Since there are no changes to the visual quality of the project study area and no substantial changes in project design since approval of the FEIR, the conclusions of the FEIR remain valid. 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The FEIR conclude that the proposed project would not result in the conversion of prime farmland to nonagricultural use, nor would it conflict with agricultural zoning designations or a Williamson Act contract. Changes to the environmental or regulatory setting do not affect this finding and the conclusions of the FEIR related to agricultural resources remain valid. 4.3 AIR QUALITY The FEIR concluded that the proposed project is in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and is consistent with the requirements of the federal Transportation Conformity Rule. To make this finding, it was determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and would not exacerbate an exceedance of federal or State carbon monoxide (CO) standards. Temporary air quality impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project would occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -9, potential temporary air quality impacts would be less than significant with the exception of emissions of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ) which would remain significant after mitigation. 4.3.1 Regional Conformity In general, regional air quality has improved since approval of the FEIR. There have been changes to the existing and projected future traffic volumes. In particular, adoption of the Platinum Triangle MLUP /PTMU Overlay Zone, to the east of I -5, increases the allowable development between the I -51 SR -57 /State Route 91 (SR -91) area, with the majority of the Platinum Triangle located south of East Cerritos Avenue. An assessment of the effect of changes in existing and forecast traffic volumes has been included in the Air Quality Technical Report (LSA 2009). The results of the air quality analysis confirmed the prior findings of the FEIR. The project is listed in the 2008 RTP, which was found to be conforming by the FHWA /Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on June 5, 2008. The project is also listed in the 2008 RTIP, which was found to be conforming by the FHWA/FTA on November 17, 2008. The proposed project is consistent with the scope of design concept of the RTIP. Since the project is not expected to result in any concentrations exceeding the 1 -hour or 8 -hour CO standards, a detailed CALINE4 CO hot -spot analysis was not required. Therefore, the proposed project is in conformance with the SIP and the conclusions of the FEIR remain valid. 4.3.2 Construction Emissions Similar to the conclusions within the FEIR, temporary impacts result from construction activities that produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on -site heavy -duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Since there has been no change in the scope of the P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 4 -2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT proposed project, the temporary construction impacts remain the same as identified in the FEIR and the conclusions of the FEIR remain valid. 4.3.3 Climate Change The proposed project would reduce the number of vehicle hours traveled (VHT) within the project area by improving access across I -5 between the Anaheim Resort Area on the west and the Platinum Triangle Area on the east. The Gene Autry Way (West) extension is identified in the Transportation Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan and is included in the RTP and RTIP. The extension of Gene Autry Way would provide an additional opportunity for existing and forecast traffic to cross the I -5 within this portion of the City of Anaheim (including vehicles, trucks, buses run by the Orange County Transportation Authority and the City's local shuttle within the Resort and Platinum Triangle areas), thus reducing congestion on the adjacent arterial crossings at Katella Avenue and Ball Road and improving the overall operation of the arterial network in this area. As discussed in the traffic analysis, the proposed project would not worsen the level of service (LOS) at any of the intersections within the project area that are currently operating at a LOS of D, E, or F and would improve the traffic flow and LOS at several intersections within the project area. The carbon dioxide (CO emissions associated with vehicles on the local roadway system would be reduced due to the reduction in VHT and the improved traffic flow. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES According to the FEIR, construction of the proposed project would require the removal of ornamental landscaping and some street trees. However, the project would include new landscaping and street trees in accordance with City standards. Additionally, the project site is located in a developed urban area and no sensitive or listed plant or animal species or habitat exists in the project area. The FEIR concluded that impacts to biological resources are less than significant. Since the biological setting remains the same and there are no changes to the environmental setting and the project scope, the conclusions of the FEIR remain valid. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following discussion addresses both cultural and paleontological resources. 4.5.1 Cultural Resources According to the FEIR, project construction could reveal previously unidentified archaeological resources. Only one historical resource, located at 2040 Haster Street, was identified as a locally significant historical resource in the Historic Property Survey Report for the Gene Autry Way (West) Extension Project (December 2000). However based on National Register of Historic Places (National Register) criteria, this property is not eligible for the National Register. Although this historical resource would be subject to noise and visual impacts during construction, such impacts are considered temporary and would not significantly affect the resource. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -1 through CR -3, potential impacts to unknown cultural resources were determined to be less than significant. P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 4 -3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A supplemental Cultural Resources Study (CRS) was conducted for the proposed project by LSA Associates (LSA 2009). The CRS included a new records search and also included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a 0.25 -mile radius of the project area, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, LSA examined the California State Historic Resources Inventory, which includes the National Register, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and various local historic registers. The entire project area has been surveyed. The CRS concluded that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area. Architectural properties were also examined as part of the CRS to determine whether they were eligible for listing in the National Register. It was concluded that all properties within the project area can be addressed per the Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal -Aid Highway Program in California (2004), Attachment 4, Property Type 4. No buildings within the project area are eligible for listing in the National Register. Given the result of the CRS, the findings of the FEIR remain valid and impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Measures CR -I through CR -3. 4.5.2 Paleontological Resources A paleontological resources study was not part of the FEIR. A Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) was completed (LSA 2008). To ensure that research was comprehensive, the paleontological resources "study area" was expanded to a 328 ft radius beyond the project area of direct impact. Prior to the field survey, research was conducted to locate fossil localities both within the project area and in an area much larger than the study area. The proposed project is located within an area that contains sediments with potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. However, the potentially fossiliferous sediments will only be encountered if excavation extends deeper than 8 -10 ft below the natural surface. According to current design, this is not likely to occur except in areas where driven piles or cast -in- drilled -hole (CIDH) piles will be installed. Both driven piles and CIDH piles are almost impossible to monitor and safely recover resources from. In addition, because of their small footprint, they are unlikely to impact any fossils. No special paleontological situations that would require project redesign to avoid critical localities or strata were identified. In addition, as it is unlikely that excavation would extend to depths where fossils will be encountered, a Preliminary Monitoring Plan (PMP) would not need to be prepared and impacts to paleontological resources are considered less than significant. P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc a12 /07/09» 4 -4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS According to the FEIR/FONSI, due to the relatively flat topography of the proposed project, project construction would require minimal amounts of grading for the roadway; however, construction of sound and retaining walls would require some excavation. The proposed project could be subject to strong ground shaking, as the project would be located within the seismically active Southern California region. Also, given the urban nature of the project area, the proposed project would be located within a built -out area and would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces. Additionally, construction activities would expose soils that could be eroded due to wind or water conditions. The FEIR acknowledged that construction activities would be subject to the conditions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit, which is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to control soil erosion during project construction as part of the permit conditions and the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable seismic safety standards and guidelines. The FEIR determined that potential geology /soils /seismic /topography impacts associated with the proposed project were less than significant. There have been no changes to land uses or the project scope within the study area that would have affected geology, soils, seismicity, or topography. The proposed project would be required to comply with the most recent NPDES requirements as further discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, and the conclusions of the FEIR remain valid. 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted for FEIR, and concluded that general grading and excavation activities associated with the project construction would not encounter substantial amounts of hazardous materials or contaminated groundwater. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Phase I) (Ninyo and Moore, 2000), two former gasoline stations were identified immediately adjacent to the project limits. Both facilities were noted to have affected groundwater. At the time of the Phase I, one gasoline station was issued a closure letter by the lead regulatory agency. The remaining gasoline station did not yield detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Therefore, these sites were not considered as a potential concern during the construction of the proposed project. The Phase I also indicated that potentially displaced multi - family residential units may include asbestos containing materials, which would require removal prior to demolition. These materials would be removed prior to demolition in accordance with the applicable environmental health and safety hazards and regulations. As described in the FEIR, potential hazardous waste impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Measures HM -1 and HM -2. In addition, project operation could increase the potential for release of hazardous materials due to truck traffic along the proposed Gene Autry (West) roadway. However, given the relatively low truck volumes and the fact that the transport and clean up of hazardous materials is strictly regulated, less than significant impacts were anticipated. P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 4 -5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A supplemental ISA (GaiaTech, 2008) was conducted due to the age of the previous Phase I. The supplemental ISA was conducted to assess whether there were any changes to hazardous waste/ materials setting since the approval of the FEIR. Based on the updated database search several hazardous release sites were identified within 0.5 mi of the project limits. However, based on the regulatory status and /or known extent of impacts, these off -site facilities have no potential to impact the site. As part of the acquisition of two properties within the study area, subsurface impacts associated with the importation of off -site fill, a former septic system, a former underground storage tank (UST), and soils impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons and arsenic were identified. Based on conversations with AMEC, the consultant that prepared the previous reports, it appears that adequate monitoring and removal of impacted soils was conducted during the demolition of the properties. In addition, surveys for asbestos - containing materials (ACMs), lead -based paints (LBPs), and chromium paints may be present on existing multi - family residential structures that may be acquired as part of the proposed project. However, similar to the recommendations made within the Phase I ESA, these materials would be removed, if present, prior to the demolition any structure that may be required as part of the Proposed project. Based on the government records search, site survey, and aerial photograph review, the areas of concern continue to be ACMs in properties to be acquired and demolished. However, since the approval of the FEIR, new requirements and regulations have been instituted by the federal /State regulatory agencies for the testing and handling of hazardous materials. These new or updated requirements include the testing and removal of LBPs and /or chromium -based paint on existing structures, testing for aerially deposited lead and the removal of thermoplastic paint and traffic in roadways, and testing in the event that potentially leaking aboveground electrical transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are to be disturbed. These standard measures are included in the updated ISA to address these potential environmental concerns during construction. The implementation of these standard measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The updated ISA did not indicate greater impacts or the need for more improvements and mitigations compared to previous analysis completed as part of the FEIR. Therefore, the conclusions made within the approved FEIR remain valid. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY As discussed in the FEIR, there are no surface water resources or open drainage channels in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and the closest water body to the project site is the Santa Ana River, which is located approximately 1.5 kilometers (1 mile) to the east of the project site. Stormwater runoff in the project area is collected in local underground storm drains. Impacts included the potential for temporary effect on water quality or local surface water resources due to the wind or water erosion of exposed soils during the construction process. Impacts to water quality or local surface water resources during construction were not considered substantial, because the proposed project would comply with the NPDES Permit requirements and would include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 4 -6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Pollutant levels and impacts to the water bodies from the construction of the proposed project result in runoff associated with vehicular traffic. As described in the FEIR, permanent impacts resulting from the proposed project would result from an increased amount of impervious surface in the area through the construction of the new roadway. A substantial portion of the project alignment is already developed with impervious surfaces due to the presence of mobile homes and multifamily apartment buildings, and the increase in impervious area would be limited to any landscaped areas associated with mobile homes and residential structures that are converted to roadway uses. The proposed project would also increase runoff constituents in the immediate area, specifically particulates, total nitrogen, lead, zinc, and chemical oxygen demand, due to traffic traveling on the new roadway. Runoff from the project site flows into underground storm drains, which connect to drainage channels that ultimately discharge into the Pacific Ocean. The FEIR concluded that the increase in impervious area and runoff constituents constitute less than significant impacts to water resources or water quality, particularly given that the project would comply with NPDES requirements. Although there has been no substantial change in land uses that would affect the quality or quantity of existing runoff, since approval of the FEIR, there have been updated requirements for control of runoff, including the compliance with the most recent County municipal permit and statewide construction permit. The project area ultimately drains to the Santa Ana River, Reach 2 (17th Street in Santa Ana to Prado Dam). In general, the quality of surface water and groundwater in the Santa Ana River Basin becomes progressively poorer as water flows downstream. Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River is not on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, approved by the State Water Resources Control Board in October 2006. On March 8, 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) partially disapproved California's 2004 -2006 303(d) list (i.e., it disapproved the State's omission of impaired waters that met federal listing regulations or guidance). On June 28, 2007, the EPA approved the addition of 64 waters and 37 associated pollutants to the State's 303(d) list. The Santa Ana River, Reach 2, is not on the list of waters being added to the 2006 303(d) list. The Porter - Cologne Act establishes a regulatory program to protect water quality and protect beneficial uses of State waters. It empowers the RWQCBs to formulate and adopt, for all areas within the regions, a Basin Plan that designates beneficial uses and establishes water quality objectives that, in its judgment, will ensure reasonable protection of beneficial uses. The following beneficial uses are identified in the Basin Plan for the Santa Ana River, Reach 2: • AGR: Agricultural Water Supply • GWR: Groundwater Recharge • REC -1: Contact Water Recreation (swimming /wading) • REC -2: Noncontact Water Recreation (boating /fishing) • WARM: Warm Freshwater Habitat (for fish amenable to reproduction in warm water) P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 4 -7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT • WILD: Wildlife Habitat (for wild plants and animals) • RARE: Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (habitat for plants or animals) BMPs will be incorporated into project design to meet the requirements identified in the City's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Procedures and the County's 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The proposed project would also comply with the requirements listed within the City's Project Review Checklist for WQMP Requirements, which includes a signed statement certifying that the provisions of the WQMP have been accepted by the applicant and that the applicant will strive to have the plan carried out by all future successors in accordance with the City of Anaheim's "Notice of Transfer of Responsibility" procedures. With the implementation of this standard measure, the conclusions of the FEWFONSI regarding operational water quality impacts remain valid. In addition, water discharge occurring during construction activities will comply with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). The Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) for the construction of the proposed project is approximately 10.5 ac. With the implementation of this standard measure, the conclusions of the FEIR regarding hydrology and water quality impacts during construction remain valid. 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING As described in the FEIR, although project construction would introduce a new roadway in place of an existing residential land use, the proposed improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (General Plan) and the Master Plan of Arterial Streets (Master Plan). As identified in the FEIR, both Haster Street and the proposed Gene Autry Way (West) are identified as primary arterials by the General Plan and have been listed as such since at least 1984. The proposed project would not conflict with any other local plans or policies. Therefore, the implementation of proposed project would result in neighborhood compatibility impacts that were considered less than significant. Further the FEIR found that, although residential displacements and construction activities would be disruptive and have an adverse effect on the community, the proposed project would not divide an established neighborhood. The proposed highway alignment is the approximate location of an existing alley and privacy wall that separates the multi - family residential neighborhood to the south from the mobile homes to the north. There is no through access connecting the mobile home parks with the multi- family residential neighborhood to the south. Furthermore, under the proposed project, the overwhelming majority of multi - family residences in the neighborhood bounded by Haster Street on the west, Orangewood Avenue on the south, and Mountain Avenue on the east, as well as the mobile home parks on the north, would remain intact and their sense of community would be maintained. Similarly, the proposed project would not divide the mobile home park communities to the north, since the large majority of mobile homes in these parks located north of the proposed improvements would remain. Therefore, the implementation of proposed project would result in neighborhood compatibility impacts that were considered less than significant. Since certification of the FEIR, within the project study area, no new development has occurred within the project study area. Removal of some of the mobile homes in the adjacent mobile home PA\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc <<12/07/09)> 4 -8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPR OVEMENT PROJECT parks has occurred, and several multifamily units on Haster Street have been removed or modified by the City as part of the ROW acquisition process for this project. Since approval of the FEIR, the City of Anaheim has adopted the Platinum Triangle MLUP /PTMU Overlay Zone located to the east of I -5 from the project area. As discussed in Sectionl.2 above, the City of Anaheim approved the Platinum Triangle MLUP/PTMU Overlay Zone, located east of I -5, which provides for redevelopment with residential, commercial, retail, and recreational uses. As discussed previously, the Platinum Triangle is composed of an area within Anaheim east of the project area that generally surrounds and includes Angel Stadium, Honda Center, and The Grove of Anaheim. The Platinum Triangle is anticipated to bring high density, mixed -use, office, restaurant, and residential projects to replace older industrial developments within the area. The proposed project is designed to accommodate existing and future traffic in order to improve mobility within the City of Anaheim, and will be constructed within an urbanized area that has a well - developed infrastructure system already in place. The proposed project would help accommodate planned growth consistent with the City's General Plan and regional land use - plans. Since there are no changes to the land use setting in the direct vicinity of the project study area since approval of the FEIR, the conclusions of the FEIR regarding land use impacts remain valid. 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES The FEIR determined that the project is located in a developed, urbanized environment. There are no known mineral resources in the immediate area. Additionally, the project area is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any local land use plan. The proposed project would have no impacts to mineral resources. 4.11 NOISE As discussed in the FEIR, local traffic is the dominant noise source at those locations along or within the immediate vicinity of Haster Street. Noise levels at receptor locations along Haster Street were reported between 69 and 72 A- weighted decibels (dBA). The dominant noise sources along Wakefield Avenue were associated with residential activities as traffic volumes were relatively low. As a result, noise levels were quieter in this area compared to those sites along Haster Street. Long- term impacts associated with the operation of the proposed project could result in exterior noise levels at sensitive receptors that are within 1 dBA or exceed the FHWA exterior noise criteria for noise abatement. Project operation could also result in increases in ambient noise levels. As a result, the FEIR recommended that sound walls be located along either side of the proposed Gene Autry Way (West) and along the east side of Haster Street, as necessary. At those locations where sound walls are not feasible, alternative off -site mitigation would be incorporated such as the installation of double - pane windows and air - conditioning. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N -1, operational noise impacts were reduced to less than significant. Given the changes in existing and forecast traffic volumes, an updated Noise Analysis (LSA 2008) was completed that follows the August 2006 Noise Protocol and uses the October 1998 Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) noise model. The traffic noise level results for the existing peak, future no build, and future build 2035 scenarios were evaluated as part of the Noise Analysis. Results indicated P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc u12/07/09>> 4-9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT that out of the 103 modeled receptor locations, 4 receptors currently approach or exceed the 67 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (L Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) under the existing peak traffic noise condition. Under the future build conditions, of the 103 modeled receptor locations, 31 receptors would "approach or exceed" the NAC under Activity Category B, which has an exterior NAC of 67 dBA L Also, of the 103 modeled receptor locations, 23 receptors would experience a substantial noise increase of 12 dBA or more over their corresponding modeled existing peak noise level. Noise abatement measures were evaluated for receptors located within the project limits that would be or would continue to be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC or would experience a substantial noise increase of 12 dBA or more over their corresponding modeled existing peak noise level. All properties requiring abatement consideration are within Category B (67 dBA L eq NAC). Three sound barriers (SB Nos. 1, 1a, and 2) were evaluated along the ROW for the future 2035 build condition to reduce noise levels at receptor locations within the project limits. SB No. 1a is similar to SB No. 1, but with the east end wrapped around the residential property line to compare the effectiveness of the sound barrier. SB No. 1 was evaluated at two locations to compare its ability to reduce traffic noise levels. Under the first scenario, SB No. 1 was evaluated along the north side of the proposed Gene Autry Way (West) ROW. Under the second scenario, SB No. la was evaluated along portions of the Gene Autry Way (West) ROW and the property line of the Plantation Mobile Estates. The sound barrier modeling results indicate that SB No. 1a located along the Plantation Mobile Estates property line performs better by benefiting more residences than SB No. 1 located only along the proposed Gene Autry Way (West) ROW line. SB No. I was determined feasible and reasonable at a height of 8 ft and is recommended. SB No. 2 was evaluated on the south side of the proposed Gene Autry Way (West) extension, from Haster Street to just east of the mobile home park, and an 8 ft sound barrier was determined feasible and reasonable and is recommended. The western end of SB No. 2 wraps around the property at the Gene Autry Way (West)/Haster Street intersection to shield traffic noise from South Haster Street and the proposed Gene Autry Way (West). The eastern end of SB No. 2 wraps around the end of the last multifamily structure on Gene Autry Way (West). Since sound barriers will be constructed on either side of the proposed project adjacent to residential uses, the conclusions made within the FEIR remain the same. 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING As discussed within the FEIR, the proposed project would be located within an urbanized area that has a well- developed infrastructure system already in place. The proposed project is designed to accommodate existing and future traffic in order to improve mobility within the City of Anaheim. Therefore, the FEIR concluded that project operation would not result in significant local or regional population growth. Rather the proposed project would accommodate planned growth consistent with local and regional Land Use Plans. The changes to the environmental and regulatory setting do not change these findings and the conclusions of the FEIR remain valid. P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 4-10 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT As discussed in the FEIR, the proposed highway improvements would result in two full acquisitions and four partial acquisitions of residential properties (totaling 18 units), and the displacement of 67 mobile homes for the proposed project. At an average of four persons per household in the proposed project area (source: 2000 United States Census), the total number of people displaced would range from about 340 persons within the project area. Considering the relatively small proportion of persons likely to be displaced, the proposed project would not result in a substantial change in the distribution of the population in the project area or the City of Anaheim. With implantation of Mitigation Measure PH -1, potential population and housing impacts were reduced to less than significant. Under the current project design, only 1 full residential property acquisition, 3 partial residential acquisitions, and acquisition of 66 mobile home spaces would result from the proposed project. The current total number of acquisitions /relocations is similar to but less than the total number of acquisitions stated the FEIR. Therefore, the potential community character and cohesion effects of the proposed project are less adverse than described in the FEIR. 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES As discussed in the FEIR, the proposed project does not include new residential, commercial, or industrial development that could increase the need for public services, such as fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. Impacts to these services were considered less than significant. 4.14 RECREATION There were no parks or recreational facilities located within the project limits at the time of the FEIR was approved. Given that the proposed project is a roadway it would not generate any demand for recreational resources. The FEIR determined that there were no recreation impacts. No additional parks or recreational facilities have been acquired and /or constructed since the approval of the FEIR. Therefore, the conclusions made within the FEIR are still valid. 4.15 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC According to the FEIR, the construction of the proposed project would result in temporary impacts. Construction of the proposed project could directly affect traffic along Haster Street due to construction activities and lane closure. Temporary relocation of existing bus stops along Haster Street would be required. In addition, traffic delays associated with project construction could also indirectly affect nearby roadways and intersections. Although there are no existing or planned bike paths in the project area, pedestrian access in the area could also be limited during construction activities during the construction of the new sidewalks and street widening. However, such impacts would be considered temporary, as access to local residences will be maintained throughout the project construction, and alternative routes for both vehicles and pedestrians would be provided. As a result, the FEIR has determined that these temporary traffic impacts were not considered substantial with the implementation of a traffic management plan. P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12 /07/09» 4-11 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PR OJECT Long -term impacts would result in reduced existing forecast vehicle congestion on streets within the area and would result in a beneficial effect on public transit service due to street improvements that would include new bus pads and bus stop facilities on Haster Street. Implementation of the proposed build alternatives would result in improved traffic conditions over the background conditions, with all local intersections operating at acceptable LOS. Implementation of the proposed project would result in improved traffic conditions over the background conditions, with all local intersections operating at acceptable LOS. Due to the passage of time and the approval of the Platinum Triangle MLUP /PTMU Overlay Zone, existing and future forecast volumes were evaluated in a Final Technical Memorandum (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2009). The Technical Memo evaluated peak -hour LOS analysis at eight intersections and link analysis for four roadway segments and was based on 2007 peak -hour counts, while the future 2035 analysis was based on the City of Anaheim General Plan build -out model for 2025. Based on the comparison of intersection LOS data, the updated Technical Memo did not indicate greater impacts or the need for more improvements and mitigations compared to the previous analysis completed as part of the FEIR. Given that the scope of the project has not changed and the results of the traffic analysis remain the same, the conclusions made within the approved FEIR remain unchanged and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Numerous public utilities within the study area were identified in the FEIR, and preservation in -place and /or relocation of utilities within the project area were required. As discussed in the FEIR, the proposed project does not include new residential, commercial, or industrial development that could increase the need for public services, such as fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. Utilities impacted by the proposed project would either be protected in place or moved. No new or upgraded storm water drainage facilities would be required to accommodate runoff from the proposed project. Potential impacts to public utilities were considered less than significant. Since the proposed project does not change the scope of the project, the conclusions regarding impacts to utilities made in the FEIR remain valid. 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The FEIR determined that the proposed project's impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified. The proposed project would have no impacts on biological resources. Additionally, the FEIR found that with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified, the cumulative impacts of the project on operational air quality, cultural resources, noise, housing/ population and traffic would be reduced to less than significant levels. The project's contribution to short air quality emissions during construction would be reduced with mitigation but would remain significant. All other cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant. P:\DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc <<12/07/09>> 4-12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ DECEMBER 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GENE AUTRY WAY (WEST) HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The FEIR also determined that there would not be substantial adverse impacts to human beings since mitigation had been incorporated to address the project's air quality, noise and housing /population impacts. Since the scope of the project has not changed and the conclusions of the FEIR have not been altered based on the conclusions of this Addendum, the conclusions of the FEIR relative to cultural resources, cumulative impacts and effects to human beings remain valid. 4.18 CONCLUSION Based on the information provided above, no new significant impacts have been identified nor is the severity of previously identified impacts substantially greater than the conclusions of the FEIR. Based upon the evidence included in the above analysis, the proposed project as described in Chapter 2.0 would not result in a substantial change in the conclusions and analysis included in the FEIR. P: \DMJ0802 \Reeva1uations \Gene Autry Way West \GAWAddendum12072009.doc «12/07/09» 4 -13