Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 2020/08/31
08-31-2020 Page 1 of 5 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, August 31, 2020 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairperson: Kimberly Keys • Chairperson Pro-Tempore: John Armstrong • Commissioners: Michelle Lieberman, Natalie Meeks, Rosa Mulleady, Dave Vadodaria, Steve White • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment SPECIAL NOTICE DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body. Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, please be advised that Planning Commission members will participate in this meeting remotely. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 and given the current health concerns, members of the public can access the meeting live on-line, with audio and limited video, at www.anaheim.net/planning. In addition, members of the public can submit comments electronically for Planning Commission consideration by sending them to planningcommission@anaheim.net or directly to the project planner as indicated on each item below. To ensure distribution to the Planning Commission prior to consideration of the agenda, please submit comments prior to 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those comments, as well as any comments received after 3:00 p.m., will be distributed to the Planning Commission members and will be made part of the official public record of the meeting. Contact the Planning and Building Department at 714-765-5139, the project planner listed below, or planningcommission@anaheim.net with any questions. A copy of the staff report may be obtained on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, August 27, 2020, 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 by contacting the Building and Planning Department at 714-765-5139 or planningcommission@anaheim.net during regular business hours. 08-31-2020 Page 2 of 5 ACCESSIBILITY: 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, in order to observe and/or offer public comment may request such reasonable modification, accommodation, aid, or service by contacting the Building and Planning Department at 714-765-5139 or planningcommission@anaheim.net, no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day of the scheduled meeting. 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. 08-31-2020 Page 3 of 5 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 (DEV2020-00091) Location: 1912 South Jacaranda Street Request: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit a coordinated sign program for the REVO mixed use development. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures). This item was continued from the August 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Peter Lange PLange@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032 FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002 VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021 (DEV2019-00120) Location: 208-224 North Beach Boulevard Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) a Conditional Use Permit and Final Site Plan approval to permit 65 single- family attached residences with modified development standards; (ii) approval for a Tentative Tract Map to allow a one-lot subdivision with 65 “airspace” condominium lots; and (iii) a Variance to allow a vinyl fence where a masonry wall would be required. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans). This item was continued from the August 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net 08-31-2020 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 (DEV2016-00074) Location: 317 West Ball Road Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements to allow construction of an 11-unit, three-story, multiple-family residential development: (i) a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential; (ii) a Zoning Reclassification from the General Commercial (C-G) to the Multiple-Family Residential (RM-4) zone; (iii) and an Administrative Adjustment to allow reduced street and interior setbacks. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net Adjourn to the Special Meeting of Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. 08-31-2020 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 3:00 p.m. August 27, 2020 (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: AUGUST 31, 2020 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 LOCATION: 1912 South Jacaranda Street (REVO mixed-use development ) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and the property owner is Jefferson Platinum Park, LLC, represented by William Morrison. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a coordinated sign program for the REVO mixed-use development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 11, Accessory Structures) and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06071. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued this item from the August 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting due to a fire alarm that occurred during the presentation of the item. This staff report contains the same contents as the report submitted for the August 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. In 2016, the City Council approved a Development Agreement for the Jefferson at Stadium Park project, which has been subsequently renamed “Jefferson at Platinum Park.” This project consists of 1,079 dwelling units, 14,600 square feet of commercial development, and a 1.1-acre public park, developed in three phases on an 11.32-acre property in the Platinum Triangle. All three phases are currently under construction. The first two phases consist of the 371-unit Jefferson Edge apartment community and the 376-unit Jefferson Rise apartment community, which includes twelve live/work units. The Project site for the proposed coordinated sign program encompasses the third phase of the development , the REVO mixed-use development, which contains 332-units and 14,600 square feet of retail space. The following page provides a rendering of the REVO mixed-use development. On October 15, 2018, the Planning Commission approved a coordinated sign program for Jefferson Edge and Jefferson Ris e, under Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-05981. The coordinated sign program consisted of a projecting wall sign for the Leasing Center and two building identification wall signs for the Jefferson Edge building. Signs for the Jefferson Rise building consisted of a building identification projecting wall sign and a leasing center wall sign. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 6 The General Plan designates the entire Jefferson at Platinum Park project site for Mixed Use Urban Core land uses. The property is within the “I” Industrial Zone and the “PTMU” Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone. Land uses surrounding the Project site consists of Lennar’s A-Town development site to the north across Gene Autry Way; Jefferson Edge and Jefferson Rise at Platinum Park apartment communities to the west; a park site, offices and apartments to the south, and Angel Stadium to the east across State College Boulevard. Rendering PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to allow a coordinated sign program for the REVO mixed-use development. The proposed signs do not include business identification signs for the ground floor units. The applicant will submit sign plans for these businesses, once the applicant has identified tenants, and staff will review them for compliance with all Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) requirements. As shown on the Proposed Sign Layout and Sign Table on the following pages, the applicant proposes a coordinated sign program for the REVO mixed-use development project. The signs would consist of one internally illuminated resident parking sign (Sign A), and one internally illuminated retail and future resident parking sign (Sign B in purple), one internally illuminated parking blade sign (Sign C), two internally illuminated identification blade signs (Signs A:1 and A:2), and one monument sign, referred to on plans as a monolith tower sign (Sign B in red). The complete coordinated sign program, including sign renderings, is included as Exhibit C to the Draft Resolution. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: The PTMU Overlay Zone requires applicants to submit a coordinated sign program to the Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of the first sign permit. Signs for residential uses and commercial uses in the PTMU Overlay Zone are subject to the same Code requirements as all other multiple-family residential and commercial zones. If the coordinated sign program meets these Code requirements, then staff can approve the program administratively. If a coordinated sign program does not meet Code requirements, then the coordinated sign program is subject to the approval of a CUP. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Proposed Sign Layout CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Sign Table Sign Description Location Type Height Width Area A Resident Parking Sign Faces Jacaranda Street, located within the southwest area of the building Wall mounted 2 feet 16 feet 32 feet B (Purple) Retail and Future Resident Parking Sign Faces Jacaranda Street, located within the northwest area of the building Wall mounted 2 feet 6 inches 16 feet 40 feet A:1 REVO ID Blade Sign Wall mounted sign oriented towards the State College Boulevard and Artisan Court intersection Wall (Projecting) 20 feet 3 feet 50 feet A:2 REVO ID Blade Sign Wall mounted sign located on the corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard Wall mounted 20 feet 3 feet 50 feet B (Red) Monument Sign Freestanding monument sign located on the State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way Freestanding 8 feet 7 feet 6 inches 60 feet C Retail and Future Resident Parking Blade Sign Wall mounted blade sign located south of Gene Autry Way and Jacaranda Street intersection Wall (projecting) 5 feet 8 inches 1 feet 4 inches 7.5 feet CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 6 In the case of the REVO mixed-use development, staff has identified that a CUP for a coordinated sign program would be applicable because the proposed signs do not meet all of the Code requirements for said signs. The proposed wall mounted identification blade signs would exceed the maximum allowable sign area of 20 square foot. The sign areas of the REVO ID Signs (Signs A:1 and A:2) are proposed as 50 square feet 1. In addition, the proposed parking signs (Signs A, Purple B, and C) are above and beyond what the Code permits for on-site directional signs. The Code permits one illuminated, single- or double-faced sign at each vehicular entrance with a sign area of up to four square feet. The proposed signs exceed the maximum sign area; they are 32, 40 and 7.5 square feet in area, respectively. I n addition, the proposed sign layout uses both a wall mounted sign (Sign Purple B), above the vehicular entrance, and a blade sign (Sign C), north of the vehicular entrance, to id entify a single entrance for future resident and retail parking. The proposed monument sign meet s Code requirements for sign size; however, the size of the planter area in which it is situated does not appear to meet the minimum size of half the sign area of the sign. Staff believes that providing design flexibility for the coordinated sign program would be appropriate due to the configuration of the building and the mixed-use nature of the project. The standard multi-family residential and commercial sig n code requirements are not well suited to identify a large-scale mixed-use development project with significant frontages along State College Boulevard, Gene Autry Way and Jacaranda Street; therefore, a more comprehensive sign program to distinguish the community is needed. In addition staff believes that the combination of the wall and blade signs proposed for the northerly vehicular entrance off of Jacaranda Street will help patrons of the retail uses more easily identify parking for these uses. Furthermore, given the pedestrian nature of the proposed monument sign at the corner of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way, staff would prefer a smaller planter area to allow more room for pedestrian throughput. Before the Planning Commission may approve the CUP, 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 the Code authorizes a conditional use permit; 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 o f 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. 1 The calculations in the coordinated sign plan (Exhibit C of Attachment A) indicate that sign area for Sign A:1 is 33.33 square feet; however, the dimensions of the sign face as the same as Sign A:2 and the Applicant’s Justification Letter (Attachment 2) states that both signs are 50 square feet in area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 August 31, 2020 Page 6 of 6 In addition, the Planning Commission must also make the following findings specific to approval of a coordinated sign program: 1) Signs shall complement the architecture of the buildings on the same property and provide a unifying element along the streetscape. 2) The size, scale, and style of signs shall be internally consistent and consistent with the scale of the buildings located on the same property and the surrounding land uses. The proposed coordinated sign program for the REVO apartment community is consistent with and complementary to the size, massing, and overall aesthetics of the mixed-use development . The applicant has submitted signs designed with high quality materials, a contemporary style, and complementary exterior colors and finishes, consistent with the scale of the buildings. The signs would provide a unifying and identifying element along the streetscape. The proposed signs are on private property, and any illumination of the signs would not spill over the property lines. As a result, the signs would not adversely affect any adjoining land uses or future growth and development in the area. Additionally, the signs would serve as the necessary means of identification for visitors, deliveries, and emergency vehicles to the REVO mixed-use development . Overall, the implementation of a coordinated sign program would provide project identification, improved visibility and cohesive design elements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within the Class 11, Accessory Structures, Categorical Exemption. Class 11 consist of construction or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including on-premises signs. Although the proposed coordinated sign program is for a mixed-use development, staff believes that the impacts of the sign program, within the PTMU Overlay Zone, would be the same as those for other signs that fall within the Class 11 Categorical Exemption. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: The applicant has proposed signs that complement the REVO apartment community design and architecture and consistent with the scale of the surrounding buildings. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Peter Lange Susan Kim Contract Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Draft CUP Resolution 2. Applicant’s Justification Letter S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V DE GENE AUTRY WAY S U N I O N S T E ARTISAN CT S U N I O N S T S J A C A R A N D A S T S U N I O N S T E. KATELLA AVE E. CERRITOS AVE S . H A S T E R S T E. ORANGEWOOD AVE E. CHAPMAN AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY S .D O U G L A S S R DE. HOWELL AVE 1 9 1 2 S o u t h J a ca r a n d a S t D E V N o . 2 0 2 0 -0 0 0 9 1 Subject Property APN: 083-293-03 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o: Ma y 2 01 9 I (PTMU) Gene Autry Sub-Area B DEV 2020 -00091 JEFFERSON STADIUM PARK I (PTMU) Gateway Sub-Area C INDUSTRIAL I (PTMU) Gene Autry Sub-Area C INDUSTRIAL PR (PTMU) Stadium OFFICES O-L (PTMU) Gateway Sub-Area A OFFICES I (PTMU) Gene Autry Sub-Area B JEFFERSON STADIUM PARK I (PTMU) Gene Autry Sub-Area C SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY OFFICES PR (PTMU) Stadium ANGEL STADIUM OF ANAHEIM I (PTMU) Gateway Sub-Area A ANAVIA APARTMENTS 250 DU O-L (PTMU) Gateway Sub-Area A OFFICES PR (PTMU) Stadium OFFICES I (PTMU) Gen e Au try Sub -Area A VACANT O-L (PTMU) Gateway Sub-Area A OFFICES I (PTMU) Gene Autry Sub-Area B JEFFERSON STADIUM PARK S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V DE GENE AUTRY WAY S U N I O N S T E ARTISAN CT S J A C A R A N D A S T E. KATELLA AVE E. CERRITOS AVE S . H A S T E R S T E. ORANGEWOOD AVE E. CHAPMAN AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY S .D O U G L A S S R DE. HOWELL AVE 1 9 1 2 S o u t h J a ca r a n d a S t D E V N o . 2 0 2 0 -0 0 0 9 1 Subject Property APN: 083-293-03 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o: Ma y 2 01 9 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2020-00091) (1912 SOUTH JACARANDA STREET) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ("Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06071 to conditionally permit a coordinated sign program in association with the REVO mixed-use development at 1912 South Jacaranda Street in the City of Anaheim (the Property"). The Property is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 4.61-acres, is the third phase of a three building residential mixed use apartment community. The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Mixed Use land uses. The Property is located in the “I” Industrial Zone and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and the property owner has the option to develop the property in accordance with either the “I” Industrial Zone or the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, the Property has been developed in accordance with the development standards and regulations of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"). Subsection .010 of Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Code requires that a "coordinated sign program" be submitted to the Planning Department and must address the following: (1) Signs shall complement the architecture of the building and provide a unifying element along the streetscape; (2) The size, scale, and style of signs shall be internally consistent, and consistent with the scale of the buildings of which they are a part; (3) Wall signs for ground floor uses shall be placed between the doorway and the upper façade, and shall be located at approximately the same height as all other ground floor wall signs to create a unifying, horizontal pattern. WHEREAS, signs for residential uses developed in accordance with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone shall also be subject to the requirements of Section 18.44.070 (Signs in Residential Zones) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs) of the Code; and if said signs do not conform to these requirements, per Section 18.44.055 (Coordinated Sign Program) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs) of the Code, the coordinated sign program shall be subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit and the required findings in 18.66.060 (Findings) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code and the additional findings listed above; and - 2 - PC2020-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 17, 2020 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 the item was continued to the August 31, 2020 meeting; 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 11 – Accessory Structures) which consists of the "construction, or replacement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities. Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines provides examples of projects that qualify for an exemption from the provisions of CEQA. The example that is applicable to the Proposed Project is for on-premise signs. The Proposed Project fits within that example and, pursuant to Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines, will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisio ns 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. 2020-06071, does find and determine the following facts in support of the proposed coordinated sign program: 1) That the signs complement the architecture of the buildings on the same property and provide a unifying element along the streetscape. Specifically, the proposed signs will have black, red, and silver elements which will complement the exterior architecture of the mixed-use building which has black, red, and silver elements. 2) The size, scale and style of signs are internally consistent , and consistent with the scale of the buildings located on the same property and the surrounding land uses. The height of the signs will range from two (2) feet to twenty (20) feet depending on the type of sign proposed and the sign areas range from 7.5 square feet to 60 square feet; the proposed signs will not create an inconsistency of scale in comparison to the multistory mixed-use development. 3) There are no signs currently proposed for the ground floor commercial uses ; the applicant will submit sign plans for these businesses, once the applicant has identified tenants, and staff will review them for compliance with all applicable Anaheim Municipal Code requirements. - 3 - PC2020-*** 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. 2020-06071, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed request to permit a coordinated sign program at the premises is subject to a minor conditional use permit authorized under Section No. 18.44.055.040 of Chapter 18.44 (Signs ) of the Code. 2. The proposed conditional use permit, as conditioned herein, would 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 signs will be of quality design that is internally consistent and complement s the architecture of the buildings within the mixed-use development; 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the proposed signs will be internally consistent and located out of any line-of-sight areas. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because there will be no additional traffic generated by the coordinated sign program. 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 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. and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06071, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property under Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06071 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 - 4 - PC2020-*** 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 pr ocessed 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 wit h 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 August 31, 2020. 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 - PC2020-*** 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 August 31, 2020, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of August, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC2020-*** - 7 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 (DEV2020-00091) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF SIGN PERMITS 1 Any future signage for the subject property shall be in substantial conformance with the coordinated sign program. All new signs must be reviewed and approved by Planning Department staff. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services 2 Any future signage for the subject property that does not comply with the C ode may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, provided that the signs are in substantial conformance with the coordinated sign program. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services 3 No sign shall be permitted within the line-of-sight triangle. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services 4 No sign shall be permitted within the public right -of-way. Public Works Department, Development Services GENERAL CONDITIONS 5 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 6 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 7 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 - 8 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “C” COORDINATED SIGN PROGRAM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06071 (DEV2020-00091) ©2018 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SIGNAGE PRESENTATION EAST GENE AUTRY WAY ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "C" JSPIII|LEASING & LOBBY 7 LEASING RENDERING JSPIII|CLUBROOM 15 CLUBROOM RENDERINGJSPIII|CLUBROOM 16 GAME TABLE CONCEPT SCREEN WALL BAR INSPIRATIONGREY CABINETS + WHITE BACKSPLASH KITCHEN BACKSPLASH BAR BACKSPLASH LOUNGE SEATING INSPIRATION DIMENSIONAL COLUMNS ANGULAR WOOD DETAIL CONCRETE FLOORING WOOD WALL PANELINGNEUTRALS + TRANSITIONAL MATERIALS SEATING CONCEPTLIGHTING DIMENSIONAL ACCENT WALLS JSPIII|ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS 5 TRANSITIONAL MATERIALSUNIQUE LIGHTING FEATURES DIMENSIONAL WALLS ANGULAR COLUMNS WOOD + CONCRETE ©2019 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. SIGNAGE ON SITE PLAN 07/23/2020 JEH/DH SP.01.05 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a A:1 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED REVO ID BLADE SIGN A:2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED REVO ID WALL SIGN B MONOLITH TOWER SIGN C INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PARKING BLADE SIGN A INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RESIDENT PARKING SIGN B INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RETAIL &FUTURE RESIDENT PARKING SIGN A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2WALL SIGN X 1 BRETAIL PARKINGFUTURE RESIDENTWALL SIGN X 1ARESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGFUTURE RESIDENTBLADE SIGN X 1 BMONOLITH TOWER SIGN X 1 1-HOUR WALL ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH ES.01A.05 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a A:1INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN WITH REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERING X 1 INNER FRAMEWORK IS COMPRISED OF 1/8" WALL ALUMINUM ANGLE AND SQ TUBING ARMATURES TO ACCEPT CABINET ARMATURES WOODEN BLOCKING BETWEEN WALL STUDS FINISHOUT MATERIALS ALL PENETRATIONS TO BE SEALED WITH SILICONE OR EQ. 1/2” LAG SCREWS SECURE ARMATURE PLATE VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST AT STATE COLLEGE BLVD & ARTISAN CT. A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH ES.01B.03 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a A:1INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN WITH REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERING X 1 3 ft - 0 in A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 4 ft - 0 in 4 ft - 0 in 4 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 33.33 S Q FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 28 ft - 4 7/8 in 2,255 SQ FT FACADE AREA GENE AUTRY WAY JACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FTSIGN AREA A:1BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2WALL SIGN X 1 CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1BRETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 162 ft - 4 in 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 2 ft - 6 in 16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in 27 ft - 4 in2 ft - 6 in20 ft - 0 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in5 ft - 8 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in GENE AUTRY WAYJACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FTSIGN AREA20 SQ FTSIGN AREA A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1A:2 WALL SIGN X 1CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 B RETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 162 ft - 4 in9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in2 ft - 6 in16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in3 ft - 0 in33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in27 ft - 4 in2 ft - 6 in20 ft - 0 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in5 ft - 8 in14 ft - 5 3/4 in5 ft - 8 in10 in STATE COLLEGE BLVD VIEW ARTISAN COURT VIEW STATE COLLEGE BLVD VIEW ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH ES.02.04 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN WITH REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERING X 1 A:2 ALL PENETRATIONS TO BE SEALED WITH SILICONE OR EQ. 2 ft - 6 in 2 0 f t - 0 i n 3 f t - 6 i n 3 f t - 6 i n 3 f t - 6 i n 3 f t - 6 i n 4 in 4 in 4 in 4 in 5 in 1/2” LAG SCREWS SECURE ALUM. FRAME 2”X12” WOOD BLOCKING ALUM. FRAME SECURED TO WOOD BLOCKING ALUM PAN SIGN W/ CHANNEL LETTERS “SHOE BOXES” INTO FRAME AND SECURED W/ COUNTERSUNK SCREWS AROUND PARAMETER A:2 - VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ON GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD.A:2WALL SIGN X 1 ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH ES.02A.04 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN WITH REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERING X 1 A:2 GENE AUTRY WAY 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA A:2 WALL SIGN X 1 6 2 f t - 4 i n 2 ft - 6 in 3 3 f t - 9 i n 3 ft - 0 in 4 ft - 0 in 4 ft - 0 in 4 ft - 0 in 4 ft - 0 in 29 ft - 4 in 50 SQ FT SIGN AREA 1,547 SQ FT FACADE AREA GENE AUTRY WAY JACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2 WALL SIGN X 1 CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 B RETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 6 2 f t - 4 i n 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 2 ft - 6 in 16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in 2 7 f t - 4 i n 2 ft - 6 in 2 0 f t - 0 i n 3 3 f t - 9 i n 1 ft - 8 in 5 ft - 8 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in GENE AUTRY WAY VIEW GENE AUTRY WAY VIEW grade ©2020 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE: ELEVATIONS07/23/2020 ES.03.06JPI-917-6S JEH REVO JPI West Coast Anaheim, California B:2MONOLITH TOWER D/F AT CORNER OF STATE COLLEGE BLVD & GENE AUTRY WAY X 1 STREETPROPERTY PROPERTYSTREET STREETPROPERTY PROPERTYSTREET SOUTH FACE STREET VIEW (FROM STATE COLLEGE BLVD) NORTH FACE (FROM GENE AUTRY WAY) PR O P E R T Y ST R E E T 2 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 1 ft - 8 in 2 ft - 0 in 4 ft - 4 1/2 in 3 ft - 0 in 6 f t - 0 i n 3 ft - 0 in LANDSCAPE PLANTER (BY OTHERS) 2 ft - 4 in 1 ft - 0 in 4 in4 in 1 ft - 0 in 1 ft - 0 in 1 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 9 in 3 ft - 0 in 6 ft - 6 in 3 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 3 in 7 f t - 5 i n 6 ft - 10 in 8 f t - 0 i n 2 ft - 3 in 7 ft - 6 in 7 f t - 1 5 / 1 6 i n 6 f t - 6 3 / 4 i n 6 ft - 10 in 7 ft - 6 in 6 in BASE OF SIGN POINT OF CONTACT WITH LANDSCAPE PLANTER GEOMETRIC CENTER OF TRIANGLE 76.09°76.09°LANDSCAPE PLANTER (BY OTHERS) LANDSCAPE PLANTER (BY OTHERS) LANDSCAPE PLANTER (BY OTHERS) LANDSCAPE PLANTER (BY OTHERS) 60 SQUARE FOOT SIGN AREA THIS SIGN TO EXHIBIT ONLY ON-PREMISE TENANTS THIS SIGN TO EXHIBIT ONLY ON-PREMISE TENANTS grade ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH ES.03A.03 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a STREETPROPERTY NORTH FACE B:2MONOLITH TOWER D/F AT CORNER OF STATE COLLEGE BLVD & GENE AUTRY WAY X 1 8 f t - 0 i n 7 ft - 6 in THIS SIGN TO EXHIBIT ONLY ON-PREMISE TENANTS B:2 - VIEW LOOKING SOUTH AT STATE COLLEGE BLVD & GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD.BMONOLITH B X 1 B MONOLITH TOWER SIGN X 1 SIGN EASEMENT CENTER LINE OF STREET 9 ft - 0 in 13 ft - 0 in SETBACK 59 ft - 0 in TO CENTER LINE OF STREET ©2020 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE: ELEVATIONS07/23/2020 ES.03C.03JPI-917-6S JEH/DH REVO JPI West Coast Anaheim, California ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH ES.04.07 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a CINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED D/F PARKING BLADE SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 D/F ALUMINUM SIGN CABINET (METALLIC SILVER) WITH 4” RETURN (8“ TOTAL) (1” X 1” WRAP ON 3 SIDES OF BLADE) .040” ALUMINUM OVERLAY ON SIGN CABINET (2-TONE BLACK/GREY PATTERN COLORS T.B.D.) D/F ALUMINUM SIGN CABINET WITH 3” RETURN (6” TOTAL), (SILVER METALLIC) EXTERNAL POWER CUTOFF SWITCH LOCATED ON BACK. 120V/20 AMP POWER PULLED THROUGH BOTTOM ARMATURE OF SIGN FROM DEDICATED BREAKER WITH TIMER/PHOTOCELL. .063” ALUMINUM ACCENT PANEL (REVO RED T.B.D.) .063” ALUMINUM ACCENT PANEL (SILVER METALLIC) INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED 1/2” ACRYLIC PUSH THROUGH ICON & LETTERING (SIGN WHITE) WITH .040” ALUMINUM LIGHT MASK (SILVER METALLIC) .040” ALUMINUM OVERLAY ON SIGN CABINET (REVO RED T.B.D) REVEAL CUT LETTERING WITH ACRYLIC LENSE (SIGN WHITE) 6 in 1 ft - 2 in 1 ft - 4 in 4 in 4 in 4 in 1 ft - 8 in 1 f t - 4 i n 4 f t - 4 i n 5 f t - 8 i n 3 f t - 2 i n 2 in 1/2 in 1/2 in 1/2 in .063 in 6 in 8 in C - VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ON JACARANDA ST CPARKING BLADE X 1 ©2019 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. EXTERIOR SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH ES.04A.04 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a CINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED D/F PARKING BLADE SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 3 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 3 1/2 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in 3 ft - 0 in 3 ft - 2 in 7.2 SQ FT SIGN AREA 4,565 SQ FT FACADE AREA GENE AUTRY WAY JACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA A:1BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2WALL SIGN X 1 CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1BRETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 6 2 f t - 4 i n 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 2 ft - 6 in 16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in 2 7 f t - 4 i n 2 ft - 6 in 2 0 f t - 0 i n 3 3 f t - 9 i n 1 ft - 8 in 5 ft - 8 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in GENE AUTRY WAY JACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FTSIGN AREA A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2 WALL SIGN X 1 CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 B RETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 162 ft - 4 in 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 2 ft - 6 in 16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in 27 ft - 4 in2 ft - 6 in20 ft - 0 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in5 ft - 8 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in JACARANDA STREET VIEW GENE AUTRY WAY VIEW JACARANDA STREET VIEW ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. PARKING GARAGE SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH PGS.01-A.05 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a A X 1 AINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RESIDENT ENTRY PARKING SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 SIGN CABINET “SHELL” WITH 4” RETURN, (1” X 1” WRAP ON 3 SIDES OF SIGN) (METALLIC SILVER) INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED 1/2” ACRYLIC PUSH THROUGH ICON & LETTERING (SIGN WHITE) WITH .040” ALUMINUM LIGHT MASK (SILVER METALLIC).063” ALUMINUM ACCENT PANEL (SILVER METALLIC) EXTERNAL POWER CUTOFF SWITCH LOCATED ON BOTTOM OF SIGN 1/2 in 1/2 in 3 in 4 in 1 ft - 10 in 2 ft - 0 in 16 ft - 0 in 1 f t - 6 i n 1 0 i n 1 f t - 4 i n 2 f t - 0 i n S/F SIGN CABINET WITH 3” RETURN, 2-TONE BLACK/GREY PATTERN (COLORS T.B.D.) .063” ALUMINUM ACCENT PANEL (REVO RED T.B.D.) 120V/20 AMP POWER PULLED THROUGH BACK OF SIGN FROM DEDICATED BREAKER WITH TIMER/PHOTOCELL B RETAILPARKING X 1ARESIDENTPARKING X 1 ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. PARKING GARAGE SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH PGS.01-B.05 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a B X 1 BINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RETAIL ENTRY PARKING SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 SIGN CABINET “SHELL” WITH 4” RETURN, (1” X 1” WRAP ON SIDES OF SIGN) (METALLIC SILVER) S/F SIGN CABINET WITH 3” RETURN, (REVO RED T.B.D.) INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED 1/2” ACRYLIC PUSH THROUGH LETTERING (SIGN WHITE) WITH .040” ALUMINUM LIGHT MASK (SILVER METALLIC) “RETAIL PARKING & BUTTON” SAME DIMENSIONS & DESCRIPTION AS SHOWN ABOVE 16 ft - 0 in 2 f t - 0 i n 1 f t - 8 i n 4 in 8 i n 9 ft - 6 in 9 ft - 8 in B RETAILPARKING X 1ARESIDENTPARKING X 1 ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. PARKING GARAGE SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH PGS.01A.04 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a AINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RESIDENT ENTRY PARKING SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 BINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RETAIL ENTRY PARKING SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 GENE AUTRY WAY JACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2 WALL SIGN X 1 CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 B RETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 6 2 f t - 4 i n 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 2 ft - 6 in 16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in 2 7 f t - 4 i n 2 ft - 6 in 2 0 f t - 0 i n 3 3 f t - 9 i n 1 ft - 8 in 5 ft - 8 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in GENE AUTRY WAY JACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FTSIGN AREA A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2 WALL SIGN X 1 CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 B RETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 162 ft - 4 in 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 2 ft - 6 in 16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in 2 7 f t - 4 i n 2 ft - 6 in20 ft - 0 in33 f t - 9 i n 1 ft - 8 in5 ft - 8 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in JACARANDA STREET VIEW GENE AUTRY WAY JACARANDA STREET ARTISAN COURT STATE COLLEGE BLVD 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA A:1BLADE SIGN X 1 A:1 BLADE SIGN X 1 A:2 WALL SIGN X 1 CD/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1BRETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 C D/F RETAIL PARKINGBLADE SIGN X 1 6 2 f t - 4 i n 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 15 ft - 4 in 3 ft - 0 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 2 ft - 6 in 16 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in33 ft - 9 in 1 ft - 8 in 20 ft - 0 in 30 ft - 3 in 3 ft - 0 in 33 ft - 9 in 20 ft - 0 in 2 7 f t - 4 i n 2 ft - 6 in 2 0 f t - 0 i n 3 3 f t - 9 i n 1 ft - 8 in 5 ft - 8 in 14 ft - 5 3/4 in 5 ft - 8 in 10 in JACARANDA STREET VIEW ©2020 All ideas, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by these drawings are the property of Fource Communications, Ltd. and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the specified project. No part of the drawings, designs, arrangements or ideas herein shall be duplicated or used for any purpose whatsoever without the express written consent of Fource Communications, Ltd. PARKING GARAGE SIGNAGE 07/23/2020 JEH/DH PGS.01Aa.03 SHEET NO. DESIGNER INITIALS JPI-917-6S JOB NO. Your signature acknowledges full approval of the design layout and its content, releasing Fource Communications, Ltd. from any responsibility regarding incorrect information and design. Any colors shown are only representative of actual colors to be used. Final colors will be matched as closely as possible. Colors shown tend to vary due to some materials used in the industry. APPROVAL SHEET TITLE DATE RE V O JP I W e s t C o a s t An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a AINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RESIDENT ENTRY PARKING SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 BINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED RETAIL ENTRY PARKING SIGN WITH PUSH THROUGH LETTERING X 1 JACARANDA STREET 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA B RETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 10 ft - 6 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 16 ft - 0 in 93 SQ FT SIGN AREA2 ft - 6 in 1,426 SQ FT FACADE AREA 32 SQ FT SIGN AREA 4,565 SQ FT FACADE AREA JACARANDA STREET 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA B RETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 10 ft - 6 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 16 ft - 0 in 93 SQ FT SIGN AREA2 ft - 6 in 1,426 SQ FT FACADE AREA 32 SQ FT SIGN AREA 4,565 SQ FT FACADE AREA JACARANDA STREET 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA 20 SQ FT SIGN AREA BRETAIL PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 A RESIDENT PARKINGWALL SIGN X 1 9 ft - 7 1/2 in27 ft - 2 in 16 ft - 0 in 2 ft - 0 in 10 ft - 6 in 25 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 6 in9 ft - 0 in 16 ft - 0 in 93 SQ FT SIGN AREA2 ft - 6 in 1,426 SQ FT FACADE AREA 32 SQ FT SIGN AREA 4,565 SQ FT FACADE AREA ATTACHMENT NO. 2 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 31, 2020 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032 FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021 AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 LOCATION: This property is located at the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard (208-224 North Beach Boulevard). APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Rob Mitchell of Greenlaw Partners, Inc., and the property owner is the City of Anaheim. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following zoning entitlements: 1) A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the construction of a 65- unit, attached single family residential project with modified standards; 2) A Final Site Plan (FSP) to permit final plans for a 65-unit attached single family residential project; 3) A Tentative Tract Map to permit a 1-lot , 65 unit subdivision for condominium purposes; and 4) A Variance to allow an 8-foot high vinyl fence on interior property lines where a masonry wall would be required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolutions, determining that the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans), and approving a Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032, Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002, Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, and Variance No. 2020-05143. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 8 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued this item from the August 17, 2020 meeting due to a fire alarm that occurred before the presentation of the item. This staff report contains the same contents as the report submitted for the August 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The subject property is 3.63 acres in size and is part of the site of a former landfill. In 2001, the City of Anaheim, through its former Redevelopment Agency, commenced the acquisition and subsequent environmental remediation of the site. On July 30, 2019, the City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Zelman Anaheim, LLC and the subject project applicant, Greenlaw Partners, Inc. The DDA provides for the construct ion of approximately 38,000 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, mixed-uses, and up to 65 townhomes. Pursuant to the DDA, this proposal provides for construction of 65 townhomes by Greenlaw Partners, Inc. Future development of retail/restaurant uses is anticipated to be forthcoming from Zelman Anaheim, LLC as the project applicant at a future date. This property is designated for Mixed-Use Medium land use in the General Plan and is within the Mixed-Use Medium (MU-M) Development Area of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017- 1 (SP 2017-1) Zone (BBSP). Surrounding uses include a vacant parcel to the north and west designated for Regional Commercial land uses and former ly used for a landfill; a service station to the west at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue; multiple-fami ly apartment complexes to the east; and a service station, restaurant, vacant retail building, and two small commercial centers to the south, across Lincoln Avenue. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct 65 attached, single-family residences using the BBSP Mixed-Use Medium (MU-M) Development Area development standards. The project would consist of a series of 4-plex to 9-plex buildings that would be approximately 45 feet in height, or three-stories tall, with 10 two-bedroom units, 45 three-bedroom units, and 10 four- bedroom units. All common areas, including driveways, recreational areas, paseos and sidewalks would be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association. The project would provide vehicular ingress and egress with a single, private drive that connects to Lincoln Boulevard on the south side of the project site. Each unit would include two garage bays. The proposed project includes 130 garage parking spaces and 63 open parking stalls. A portion of the rear of the project site is within the boundary of the former landfill, where a drive aisle and parking area would be constructed within a parking easement on a separate City-owned parcel. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance in order to install an 8-foot vinyl perimeter fence on the interior property lines where the Code requires a decorative masonry wall. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Site Design Plan Recreational-Leisure Area: A total of 17,339 square feet of recreational area is proposed in the common area where 13,000 square feet would be required. Common area improvements would include paseos, and an interior community gathering space with tot lot, barbeque, and picnic tables. While there would be small private patios and balconies, none of these area would be counted toward the recreational-leisure requirement. Architecture: The architectural design is modern with a mix of stucco, siding, wrought iron and stone accents. Low pitched hip roofs would create a pedestrian scale to the buildings. The colors would be a blend of modern earth tones which would cohesively tie together the project. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Rendering of Project Entry from Lincoln Avenue Looking Northwest FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation for each requested entitlement action: Conditional Use Permit: The pro ject is subject to the Mixed-Use Medium (MU-M) Development Area development standards of the BBSP. In this zone, single-family attached residences are subject to CUP approval. Development standards, including setback and building separation requirements, may be modified as part of a conditional use permit when it is determined that the modifications serve to achieve a high quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. Before the Planning Commission may approve the CUP for a residential development with modified standards, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The uses within the project are compatible; 2) New buildings or structures related to the project are compatible with the scale, mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area, provided the existing buildings conform with the provisions of this title; 3) Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate; 4) The project is consistent with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; 5) 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 the particular area; 6) 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, 7) 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 8 The project complies with the development standards of the MU-M Development Area with the exception of a rear interior structural setback abutting an interior property line. The applicant is requesting to modify the minimum required rear interior setback to 0 feet where 15 feet would be required. Setbacks for projects in the MU-M Development Area may be modified in conjunction with a conditional use permit when it is determined that the modifications promote increased pedestrian activity, provide for a unified street frontage, ensure privacy and light for residential uses, provide for public spaces, and promote compatibility with existing development. Staff believes the request for the modification of the interior setback is justified because of the unique circumstances of the project . The landfill area is unsuitable for residential development, and in order to encourage development, the City agreed to provide a parking easement to serve the proposed 65 townhomes on an adjacent City-owned property. As a result, the drive aisle and parking areas would be constructed within this parking easement at the rear of the project site. All residential buildings would be on a separate parcel outside of the landfill area. Thus, practically speaking, the units would be setback approximately 54 feet from the project boundary at its narrowest point , as shown in the image below. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested interior setback modification request. Site Plan Showing Rear Setback with Parking Easement Staff supports the CUP because the land use is consistent with the BBSP, which permits attached, single-family residences in the Mixed-Use Medium Development Area, where the intent is to allow flexibility for parcels that could transition from strip commercial uses to residential or a mix of residential, commercial, and/or office development. Further, the MU-M allows residential in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 dwelling units per acre. This project would emphasize quality and offers a variety of amenities, consistent with the BBSP. This res idential project would complement the surrounding residential development, as well as the surrounding commercial uses. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 August 31, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Parking: The proposed project includes 130 garage parking spaces and 63 open parking stalls. The total number of parking spaces required by the Code is 193 parking spaces including 63 open parking spaces, 16 of which are required for guests. As referenced previously and shown in the image above, a portion of the project site is located on a City-owned parcel within a parking easement granted to the developer. The proposed project meets the municipal code parking requirements by incorporating this parking area combined with other parking onsite. Final Site Plan: In the BBSP, projects are subject to Final Site Plan approval. Before the Planning Commission may approve the final site plan, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district, and any special area guidelines or policies; 2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood; 4) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained; and 5) The proposed development will not be det rimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. As discussed above regarding the conditional use permit, staff believes the project complies with all aspects of the BBSP, includ ing applicable development standards and guidelines; staff believes the project would provide three-story units with high-quality materials and attractive design that would be complementary to surrounding neighborhood. Further, the design incorporating aesthetically appealing common area amenities would provide a desirable and functional environment; therefore, staff recommends approval of the Final Site Plan. Variance: The Planning Commission may grant the requested variance upon a finding that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; 2) That, because of special circumstances shown above, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 August 31, 2020 Page 7 of 8 The applicant requests a variance to install an 8-foot vinyl perimeter fence on the interior property lines where the Municipal Code requires an 8-foot high decorative masonry wall. The applicant has stated that there are structural challenges to construct a masonry wall over the landfill area due to the weight of a masonry wall. Therefore, they are proposing a vinyl fence to mitigate these structural issues. For aesthetic continuity, the applicant would continue the fence along the perimeter in areas that are not part of the former landfill. The applicant proposes to provide shrubs and vines in front of the fence to provide a landscape buffer between the commercial and residential uses. Therefore, staff supports the variance request because of the unique circumstances created by the former landfill. Tentative Tract Map: Before the Planning Commission may approve the tentative tract map, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed subdivision of the Property, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, and more particularly with the "Mixed-Use Medium" land use designation. 2) That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, including their design and improvements, is consistent with the zoning and development standards of the "MU-M" Mixed-Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP, with the exception of the reduced setbacks being proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-05143. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the Proposed Project. 4) That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as no sensitive environmental habitat has been identified. 5) That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021 or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public, at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. A tentative tract map is proposed to create a 1-lot condominium subdivision for the 65 “airspace” condominium units. The proposed density of 20.63 dwelling units per acre is permitted in the Mixed-Use Medium land use designation, which allows up to 36 dwelling units per acre. The project will comply with applicable development standards and include approval of a CUP for modified standards (discussed above), will not cause any environmental impacts pursuant to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (discussed below), is not anticipated to create any public health impacts, and does not conflict with easements acquired by the public. The project complies with a ll subdivision requirements; t herefore, staff recommends approval of the tentative tract map request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 August 31, 2020 Page 8 of 8 Affordable Housing: Although the City Council has adopted a policy emphasizing the importance of affordable housing, the developer has not proposed any affordable units. The developer did meet with staff to discuss affordable options, but believes that the housing product offered will be an affordable alternative to buyers, and could be considered by “workforce” or “first-time home buyers.” Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans). This exemption consists of residential projects undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to the specific plan where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared. Residential projects covered by this section include, but are not limited to, land subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments. The proposed project would construct 65 attached, single-family residences by implementing the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan (BBSP) Mixed-Use Medium (MU-M) Development Area development standards. In 2018, the City Council certified EIR No. 350 in conjunction with its approval of the BBSP. Staff has prepared the attached Initial Study Checklist (Attachment 4) to confirm that the proposed project meets the criteria for this exemption. The draft resolutions for the proposed project include all applicable mitigation measures from EIR No. 350 as conditions of approval. CONCLUSION: Staff has carefully considered the proposed project and believes that it is designed in a manner that will provide a quality living environment for its future residents and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. In add ition, t he proposed project meets the goals of the General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor , AICP Niki Wetzel, AICP Associate Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Development Summary 2. Draft Cond itional Use Permit , Final Site Plan, and Variance Resolution 3. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution 4. Initial Study Checklist 5. Letter of Request 6. CUP Justification Letter 7. Variance Justification Letter 8. Project Plans 9. Correspondence SP 2 017-1 R-C DEV 2019-00120 VACANT SP 2017-1 R-M APARTMENTS 31 DU SP 2 017-1 MU-H RETAIL SP 2017-1 MU-H RETAIL SP 2 017-1 R-C SERVICE STATION SP 2 017-1 MU-H SERVICE STATION SP 2 017-1 R-C BEST VALUE INN & SUITES SP 2017-1 R-M APARTMENTS 84 DU SP 2017-1 MU-H AUTO PARTS SALES AND REPAIR SP 2 017-1 MU-M DEV 2019-00120 PROPOSED PROJECT SP 2017-1 R-C VACANT SP 2017-1 R-M APARTMENTS 84 DUSP 2 017-1 MU-H RETAIL SP 2 017-1 MU-H RETAIL SP 2 017-1 R-LM CONDOS 103 DU SP 2 017-1 R-C VACANT SP 2 017-1 R-C VACANT SP 2 017-1 R-C VACANT SP 2 017-1 R-C VACANT SP 2 017-1 R-LM CONDOS 103 DU N B E A C H B L V D W LINCOLN AVE N S T A N T O N A V E B E A C H B L V D W LINCOLN AVE N R I C H M O N T D R N R I D G E W A Y S T W BRISTOL DR W. ORANGE AVE . CRESCENT AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. BROADWAY S . D A L E A V E N . D A L E A V E N . M A G N O L I A A V E S . K N O T T A V E . K N O T T A V E S . W E S T E R N A V E W. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 2 2 4 N o r t h Be a ch B o u le v a r d D E V N o . 2 0 1 9 -0 0 1 2 0 Subject Property APN: 258-011-17 258-031-05 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o: Ma y 2 01 9 BUENA PARK N B E A C H B L V D W LINCOLN AVE N S T A N T O N A V E B E A C H B L V D W LINCOLN AVE N R I C H M O N T D R N R I D G E W A Y S T W A NAC APA WAY W BRISTOL DR W. LINCOLN AVE W. ORANGE AVE . CRESCENT AVE W. BROADWAY S . D A L E A V E N . M A G N O L I A A V E S . K N O T T A V E . K N O T T A V E S . W E S T E R N A V E W. LINCOLN AVE 2 2 4 N o r t h Be a ch B o u le v a r d D E V N o . 2 0 1 9 -0 0 1 2 0 Subject Property APN: 258-011-17 258-031-05 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o: Ma y 2 01 9 PR OPOSED PROJECT BUENA PARK DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Development Standard Proposed Project BBSP Mixed-Use Medium Development Area Standards Site Area 3.63 acres 1.80 Density 20.63 36 Street Setback 10’ – 18.5’ 10’ min – 25’ max Side Interior Setback 13.7’ 10’ min Rear Interior 0* 15’ min Building to Building setback 15’ 15’ min Parking 193 spaces 193 spaces *M ay be modified by CUP ** Per Density Bonus Ordinance ATTACHMENT NO. 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 -PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2019-00120) (204-224 NORTH BEACH BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032 and Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002 to permit the construction of a 65-unit attached, single-family residential project with modified development standards, i.e., a reduction in rear interior setbacks, and (ii) Variance No. 2020-05143 for to allow a vinyl perimeter fence to be constructed where a masonry wall would be required for that certain real property generally located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard and commonly referred to as 204-224 North Beach Boulevard 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. 2019-06032, Final Site Plan No. 2020- 00002 and Variance No. 2020-05143 are proposed in conjunction with a tentative tract map to permit a 1-lot, 65 unit attached single-family residential subdivision of the Property for condominium purposes, which is designated as Tentative Tract Map No. 19021". Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032, Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002, Variance No. 2020-05143, and Tentative Tract Map No. 19021 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, single family, attached dwelling development within the "MU-M" Mixed-Use Medium Development area of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zone (BBSP) is subject to the approval by the Planning Commission of a conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection .010 of Section 18.122.050 (Uses). Pursuant to subsection .040 of Section 18.122.060 (Site Development and Design Standards by Development Area), the minimum setbacks set forth in Section 18.122.060 of Chapter 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards) may be modified in order to achieve a high quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. If approved, Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032 will permit the reduction in rear setbacks; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 3.63 acres in size and is currently vacant land and is located in the "MU-M" Development Area of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zone (BBSP). The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Mixed- Use Medium land uses; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act -related provisions of Executive Order N- 25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise - 2 - PC2020-*** electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 17, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., and continued to August 31, 2020; 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 for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-146 approving the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 to provide for the establishment of a community-driven vision supported by new development standards, permitted and prohibited uses, design guidelines, sustainable practices, economic development incentives, and capital improvements that improve the quality of life for all future users of the corridor; and WHEREAS, in connection with adoption of Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-144 certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 350 (“FEIR No. 350”), with a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 342; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017- 1) Zoning and Development Standards) prescribes the methods and procedures for implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan, which for the Proposed Project requires the processing and approval of a Final Site Plan in accordance with Chapter 18.70 (Final Site Plans) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Code prior to the issuance of building permits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that this project is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c). This exemption consists of residential projects undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to a specific plan where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared. Residential projects covered by this section include, but are not limited to, land subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments. The proposed project is a request for a subdivision to construct 65 residential units and a variance to permit an 8-foot high vinyl fence. As such, the proposed project meets the criteria for exemption; and . WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection .040 (Site Development Standards by Area) of Section 18.122.060 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1), this Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, including the plans submitted by the applicant, does hereby find and determine the following facts with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032: - 3 - PC2020-*** 1. The uses within the Proposed Project are compatible with the surrounding land uses because the surrounding properties are developed with multiple -family residential and commercial land uses; 2. New buildings or structures related to the Proposed Project are compatible with the scale, mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area. The proposed buildings are single-family attached at a density and scale that is compatible with the surrounding multiple -family residential land uses in the vicinity because the Proposed Project will include adequate setbacks from the adjacent the residential complex to the east, and three-story residential structures to create massing that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; 3. Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate because improvements to the public right -of-way and the project’s ingress/egress will be constructed in accordance with City standards; 4. The Proposed Project is consistent with any adopted design guidelines applicable to the Property because the project has been designed to include quality architecture, sound attenuation, common recreational areas, and sufficient building setbacks and landscape screening from the surrounding properties; 5. The size and shape of the site proposed for the Proposed Project is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area because the Project will include Code compliant parking and recreational areas, sufficient building setbacks from the multiple -family residential neighborhood to the east , and new pedestrian paths throughout the neighborhood. The Proposed Project will also include three story buildings that will be adequately setback from the multiple -family residential structures to create massing that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; 6. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways because they are designed and will be improved to carry the traffic in the area; 7. The Proposed Project will compl y with the General Plan and zoning for the Property because the Proposed Project will provide for the development of a quality multiple-family living environment with design amenities, such as private open space and common recreation areas. The permitted density range under the Mixed-Use Medium Density Residential designation is from zero to 36 dwelling units per gross acre. The Proposed Project w ill have a density of 20.63 dwelling units per acre; 8. 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 C ity of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection .050 (Findings and Decision) of Section 18.70 (Final Plan Reviews), this Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, including the plans submitted by the applicant, does hereby find and determine the following facts with respect to Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002: - 4 - PC2020-*** 1. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district, and any special area guidelines or policies because the Proposed Project will provide for the development of a quality multiple-family living environment with design amenities, such as private open space and common recreation areas. The permitted density range under the Mixed-Use Medium Density Residential designation is from zero to 36 dwelling units per gross acre. The Proposed Project will have a density of 20.63 dwelling units per acre; 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards because the Project will include Code compliant parking and recreational areas, sufficient building setbacks from the multiple-family residential neighborhood to the east, and new pedestrian paths throughout the neighborhood, and the streets and highways are designed and will be improved to carry the traffic in the area; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood because the proposed project will comply with the design standards and guidelines of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan, and t he Proposed Project will also include three story buildings that will be adequately setback from the multiple -family residential structures to create massing that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained because the project will comply with design standards and guidelines of the Beach Boule vard Specific Plan; 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; 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 to construct a vinyl fence on interior property lines where a masonry wall would be required by the Code, has determined that Variance No. 2020-05143 should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.46.110.020 Required Fences and Walls. (8’ decorative masonry wall required; 8’ vinyl fence proposed proposed) 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity, because the property is located on a former landfill site wit h fill material different from a typical property that does not support the increased weight of a block wall without significant structural enhancements. - 5 - PC2020-*** That, because of special circumstances shown, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because the fill properties of the landfill area would require special engineering techniques for construction of a masonry wall that would not otherwise be required for other properties and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that , based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim does approve and adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032 Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002, and Variance No. 2020- 05143, contingent upon and subject to: (1) the adoption of a resolution approving and Tentative Tract Map No. 19021 now pending ; (2) 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. - 6 - PC2020-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 2020. 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 August 31, 2020, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of August, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 7 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06032, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2020-00002, AND VARIANCE NO. 2020-05143 (DEV2019-00120) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 Lot Line Adjustment LLA-0000795 shall be approved by the City Surveyor and recorded at the Orange County Recorder’s Office. Public Works, Development Services 2 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, finished floor and pad elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code and the California Building Code, latest edition. Public Works, Development Services 3 The final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval to Public Works Development Services Division and comply with the most current requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The WQMP shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/ Significant Redevelopment projects, identify potential sources of pollutants during the long-term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site; define Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control (if applicable) best management practices (BMPs) to control or eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring program to address the long-term implementation of and compliance with the defined BMPs. Public Works, Development Services 4 Prepare and submit a final drainage study, including supporting Q10, Q25, and Q100 hydraulic and hydrological data to the City of Anaheim for review and approval. No offsite run-off shall be blocked during and after grading operations or perimeter wall construction. The Final Drainage Report shall demonstrate that the overall site post -development storm event run-off shall be less than or equal to the overall site existing pre-development storm event run-off for each watershed and that the proposed building structures and basement(s), if any, shall be flood protected. Finish floor elevations shall be 1-ft. minimum above the 100-year, 24 hour event water surface elevation. The Study shall be based upon and reference the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for the project area. All drainage sub-area boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage shall be maintained. Run-off shall not be diverted and any proposed improvements shall prevent downstream properties from becoming flooded. The Final Drainage report shall address the drainage velocity on the new on-site improvements and potential impacts to the existing drainage system. Also, the plans shall show that all concentrated Public Works, Development Services - 8 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT flow shall be contained within an approved drainage device and preserve the existing flows and manner drainage is conveyed downstream. Any inlets in sump condition shall be designed to capture Q25 and a secondary emergency outlet for the sump condition is required to provide a minimum of 1-ft. freeboard between the maximum water surface elevation and minimum finish floor elevation. The emergency outlet must direct overflows to either an adequate downstream street or natural conveyance system. 5 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works Development Services Division for review and approval. The report shall address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP. Public Works, Development Services 6 The developer shall execute a Save Harmless Agreement with the City of Anaheim for any storm drain connections to a City storm drain system. The agreement shall be recorded by the applicant on the property prior to the issuance of any permits. 7 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer. Public Works, Development Services 8 The property owner shall obtain the required coverage under California’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) nu mber. Public Works, Development Services 9 The property owner shall have prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for Public Works Development Services Division review upon request. Public Works, Development Services 10 The project plans and reports shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Health Care Agency’s Environmental Health Division/Orange County Solid Water Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). An approval letter from LEA shall be provided to Public Works, Development Services prior to any permit issuance. Public Works, Development Services 11 The existing gas extraction system shall be relocated as shown on the tentative tract map, which shall be coordinated, permitted, and approved by the Orange County Health Care Agency’s Environmental Health Division/Orange County Solid Water Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) due to the previous contamination of the overall site. Public Works, Development Services 12 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering - 9 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 13 The Owner/Developer shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. Public Utilities Water Engineering 14 The Project Applicant shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Anaheim that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, documentation shall be provided by the applicant to the City of Anaheim that verifies, to the satisfaction of the City, the use of construction equipment as stated in this mitigation measure. MM AQ-1 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 15 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits whichever occurs first, the Project Applicant shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used on the Project site for Projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt Projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment. MM AQ-2 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 16 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, the Project Applicant shall submit a dust control plan that implements the following measures during ground-disturbing activities, in addition to the existing requirement s for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions: a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant, PM10 -efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. The City shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections. MM AQ-8 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 10 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 17 Prior to demolition, the Project Applicant shall provide documentation of the presence/absence of historic resources for the properties that are 50 years old or over by a qualified historical resources professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The criteria for determining the historically significant structures shall meet one or more the following criteria: 1. It strongly represents a significant event or broad patterns of local, regional, or national history. 2. It is associated with the life of a significant person in local, regional, or national history. 3. It is a very good example of a significant architectural style, property type, period, or method of construction; or it represents the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder who is locally, regionally, or nationally significant; or it is a significant visual feature of the City. MM CUL-1 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 18 On properties where historically significant resources are identified, a proper documentation meeting the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Guidelines shall be prepared and implemented, as approved by the qualified historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. Such documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and written data for each building/structure/element, and provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program, recovery, rehabilitation, redesign, relocation, and/or in situ preservation plan. MM CUL-2 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 19 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the Project Applicant shall retain an archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology for the Project and will be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that the following measures are followed for the Project. • Prior to any ground disturbance, the Qualified Archaeologist, or their designee, shall provide a worker environmental awareness protection (WEAP) training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should unant icipated cultural resources be made during construction. Workers will be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The WEAP training can be in the form of a video or PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the Project. • In the event that unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any phase of Project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the Qualified Archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the appropriate City, the discovery is determined not to be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 11 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT • If a resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or has a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources, and construction allowed to proceed. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. • If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. • Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes, as determined as appropriate by the City of Anaheim. MM CUL-3 20 Prior to the issuance of demolition, the Proje ct Applicant shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Anaheim with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment. • The Project applicant shall retain a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) to perform abatement Project planning, monitoring (including air monitoring), oversight, and reporting of all asbestos-containing materials (ACM) encountered. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all ACM shall be conducted in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 and California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos). • The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified lead inspector/assessor to conduct the abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered. The contracted lead inspector/assessor shall be certified by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). All lead abatement shall be performed by a CDPH-certified lead supervisor or a CDPH-certified worker under the direct supervision of a lead supervisor certified by CDPH. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered shall be conducted in accordance with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rule 29, CFR Part 1926, and California Code of Regulation, Title 8, Section 1532.1 (Lead). • Evidence of the contracted professionals retained by the Project applicant shall be provided to the City of Anaheim. Additionally, contractors performing ACM and lead waste removal shall provide Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 12 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT evidence of abatement activities to the City of Anaheim. MM HAZ- 1 21 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Anaheim to identify environmental conditions of the development site and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR 312.10 and in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527.05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils are identified in the Phase I ESA, the Project applicant shall perform soil, groundwater, and/or vapor sampling as a part of a Phase II ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels, the Project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Anaheim Fire & Rescue, etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion, results, and any follow-up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the City of Anaheim evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed. MM HAZ-2 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 22 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on plans for grading, demolition, and construction activities, indicating that the property Project Applicant shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise: • Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., as prescribed in the City’s Municipal Code (Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official). • All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. • Stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors • Construction traffic shall be limited to the established haul routes. MM N-1 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 23 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare a construction management plan that shall be approved by the City of Anaheim Public Works. The construction management plan shall: Public Works, Traffic Engineering - 13 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT • Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. Truck routes that avoid congested streets and sensitive land uses shall be considered. • Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the minimum City criteria. Traffic control plans shall determine if dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction truck and equipment on and offsite are available. • Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. • Keep all construction-related traffic onsite at all times. • Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. MM N-2 24 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the Project applicant/developer shall retain qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance activities. The monitor(s) shall be approved by the Tribal Representatives of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and be present on-site during construction that involve ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall be responsible for the following activities during the monitoring, as appropriate: • Complete monitoring logs on a daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. • If the monitoring site has hazardous materials concerns, the monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural resources. MM TCR-1 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 25 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a noise level analysis, which must include mitigation measures that comply with applicable City noise standards including the following: • Exterior noise within the private rear yard of any single-family lot and/or within any common recreation areas, shall be attenuated to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL; interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of 45 dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City (identified in Section 18.40.090). • Exterior noise within common recreation areas of any single family attached or multiple family dwelling Project shall be attenuated to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL; interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of 45 dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City (identified in Section Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 14 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 18.40.090). The Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the requirements pertaining to exterior noise levels, given that all of the following conditions exist (Section 18.040.090.060): • The deviation does not exceed 5 dB above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and • Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the Project. In addition, the proposed Project shall be designed to limit the interior noise caused by adjacent commercial uses and parking areas to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room with windows closed. The required interior noise reduction can be accomplished with enhanced construction design or materials such as upgraded dual-glazed windows and/or upgraded exterior wall assemblies. These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into construction of the Project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic report’s recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM N-3 26 Prior to issuance of a building permit, if the proposed Project involves high- vibration construction activities, such as pile driving or vibratory rolling/compacting, said activities shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The Project applicant shall submit a vibration report prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim to determine if the use of pile driving and/or vibratory rolling/compacting equipment would exceed the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) vibration-annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime or FTA’s vibration-induced architectural damage PPV criteria of 0.2 inches/second for wood-framed structures or 0.5 inches/second for reinforced masonry buildings. The construction contractor sha ll require the use of lower vibration-producing equipment and techniques. Examples of lower- vibration equipment and techniques would include avoiding the use of vibratory rollers near sensitive areas and/or the use of drilled piles, sonic pile driving, or vibratory pile driving (as opposed to impact pile driving). MM N-4 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 27 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the Project Applicant shall pay all applicable transportation impact fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. MM T-3 Public Works, Traffic Engineering 28 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are prepared by an authorized professional for review and approval by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which will generally provide for the following: Public Works, Traffic Engineering - 15 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT a) A requirement that residents shall use designated parking area, including garages, only for the parking of vehicles. b) A provision that parking garages are subject to inspection by the Association or City of Anaheim staff. c) A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs shall be submitted for review to the City Engineer, Planning Director or designee, and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the amendment being valid. d) A provision that the City is a third-party beneficiary to the CC&Rs and has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any of the provisions of the CC&Rs relative to common area and utility maintenance, Water Quality Management Plan, and internal parking. 29 That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, street improvement plans shall be submitted for all traffic related improvements adjacent to the project site to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. These plans will show both sides of all streets and alleys adjacent to the property, including all driveways and utility installations, signing and striping. All improvements shall be installed and completed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 30 That prior to issuance of building permits, a bond shall be posted for all traffic related street improvements, including, but not limited to, directional signage, striping, and median islands as required for said project. All improvements identified as required for the project opening shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspection. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 31 Vehicle gates shall not be installed across the project driveways or access roads as the site design does not allow any such gates to conform to City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 pertaining to gate set back distance, turnaround area, guest phone, separate lane for guest access, and minimum width for ingress/egress as required by the Fire Department. Should gates be desired in the future, gates shall comply with the current version of City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 32 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, excluding model homes and demolition, record the approved Tract Map No. 19021 pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with City Code. Provide a conformance copy of the recorded map to the City Engineer's office. Public Works, Development Services 33 A cash-in-lieu payment based on the project engineer’s cost estimate, in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to pay for future street widening along Lincoln Avenue, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, utility relocations, concrete driveway, street trees, landscape irrigation, relocation of street lights, required offsite BMPs, etc. necessary for the widening to its ultimate location, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim. Public Works, Development Services - 16 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 34 Provide a Pad Certification from a Registered Civil Engineer, certifying that the finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City approved grading plan. Public Works, Development Services 35 A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for all work performed in the public right- of-way. Public Works, Development Services 36 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB1881). Public Works, Development Services 37 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic water shall be provided and shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 38 Per California Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537- 537.5) as amended by Senate Bill 7, water submetering shall be furnished and installed by the Owner/Developer and a water submeter shall be installed to each individual unit. Provisio ns for the ongoing maintenance and operation (including meter billing) of the submeters shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 39 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 40 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 41 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 42 The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s standard water Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 17 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT easement deed. The easement deeds shall include language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilit ies. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. 43 The Owner/Developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 44 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 45 Applicant shall contact Water Engineering for recycled water system requirements and specific water conservation measures to be incorporated into the building and landscape construction plans. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 46 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 47 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 48 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall require the construction contractor and provide a note on construction plans indicating that: a) All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). b) All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand- roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency. c) The construction contractor shall also use pre- coated/natural colored building materials, where feasible. The City shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections. MM AQ-4 Planning and Building Department, Planning Division - 18 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 49 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MM AQ-5 Planning and Building Department, Planning Division 50 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code MM AQ-6 Planning and Building Department, Planning Division 51 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Anaheim Building Division prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • For buildings with more than ten tenant -occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. MM AQ-7 Planning and Building Department, Planning Division PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 52 That curbs adjacent to the drive aisles and curbs on Lincoln Blvd shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 53 That prior to final building and zoning inspection, fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 54 Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspections, the property owner/developer shall execute and record with the Orange County Recorder an unsubordinated declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to run with the land, satisfactory to the City Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which restricts the installation of vehicle gates across the project driveways or access roads as the site design does not allow Public Works, Traffic Engineering - 19 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT any such gates to conform to City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 pertaining to gate set back distance, turnaround area, guest phone, separate lane for guest access, and minimum width for ingress/egress as required by the Fire Department. Should gates be desired in the future, an amendment to the CC&R’s approved by the City Engineer, Planning Director and the City Attorney's office and recorded. Gates, if any, shall comply with the current version of City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 55 Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 56 All required on-site Water Quality Management Plan, sewer, storm drain, and public right of way improvements shall be completed, operational, and are subject to review and approval by the Construction Services Inspector. Public Works, Development Services 57 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must be paid in full. Public Works, Development Services 58 Set all Monuments in accordance with the final map and submit all centerline ties (if required) to the Public Works Department. Any monuments damaged as a result of construction shall be reset to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public Works, Development Services 59 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building and zoning inspection. Public Works, Development Services 60 Record Drawing and As-Builts Plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division. Public Works, Development Services ON-GOING DURING PROJECT GRADING, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS 61 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 62 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way, public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded Master CC&Rs for the project and the City easement deeds. Public Utilities Water Engineering - 20 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT GENERAL 63 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and private water looping inside the project are required. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 64 The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be maintained between proposed water main and other facilities: • 10-feet minimum separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from sanitary sewer mains and laterals • 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities, including storm drains, gas, and electric • 6-feet minimum separation from curb face • 10-feet minimum separation from structures, footings, and trees. The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants, service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): • 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. • 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground facilities. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 65 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking lots. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 66 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 67 That ongoing during project operations, vehicle deliveries including loading and unloading shall be performed on site. Delivery vehicles shall not block any part of the public right of way. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 68 During construction activities, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the Planning and Building Department that the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. MM AQ-3 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 69 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 21 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 70 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 71 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 det ermine 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 72 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Pla nning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 73 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit draft Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are prepared by an authorized professional for review and approval by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which will generally provide for the following: a. A requirement that residents shall use designated parking area, including garages, only for the parking of vehicles; and that substandard garage sizes shall be disclosed to buyers. b. A provision that parking garages are subject to inspection by the Association or City of Anaheim staff. c. A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs shall be submitted for review to the City Engineer, Planning Director or designee, and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the amendment being valid. d. A provision that the City is a third-party beneficiary to the CC&Rs and has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any of the provisions of the CC&Rs relative to common area and utility maintenance, Water Quality Management Plan, and internal parking. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2019-00120) (204-224 NORTH BEACH BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 19021 to establish a 1-lot, 65-unit attached single family residential subdivision for that certain real property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard and commonly referred to as 204-224 North Beach Boulevard 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, Tentative Tract Map No. 19021 is proposed in conjunction with a request for a (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032 and Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002 to permit the construction of a 65-unit attached, single-family residential project with modified development standards, i.e., a reduction in rear interior setbacks, and (ii) Variance No. 2020-05143 to allow a vinyl perimeter fence to be constructed where a masonry wall would be required. Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032, Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002, Variance No. 2020- 05143, and Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 3.63 acres in size and is currently vacant land and is located in the "MU-M" Development Area of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zone (BBSP). The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Mixed- Use Medium land uses; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act -related provisions of Executive Order N- 25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 17, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., and continued to August 31, 2020; 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 for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and - 2 - PC2020-*** WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018- 146 approving the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 to provide for the establishment of a community-driven vision supported by new development standards, permitted and prohibited uses, design guidelines, sustainable practices, economic development incentives, and capital improvements that improve the quality of life for all future users of the corridor; and WHEREAS, in connection with adoption of Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-144 certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 350 (“FEIR No. 350”), with a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 342; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017- 1) Zo ning and Development Standards) prescribes the methods and procedures for implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan, which for the Proposed Project requires the processing and approval of a Final Site Plan in accordance with Chapter 18.70 (Final Site Plans) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Code prior to the issuance of building permits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that this project is exempt from t he requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c). This exemption consists of residential projects undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to the specific plan where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared. Residential projects covered by this section include, but are not limited to, land subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments The proposed project is a request for a subdivision to construct 65 residential units and a variance to permit an 8-foot high vinyl fence. As such, the proposed project meets the criteria for exemption; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, 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 to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, does find and determine and recommends that the City Council so find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, and more particularly with the "Mixed-Use Medium" land use designation, because the Proposed Project will consist of a density of 20.63 dwelling units per acre which is permitted under the Mixed-Use Medium land use designation, which allows up to 36 dwelling units per acre. - 3 - PC2020-*** 2. That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the zoning and development standards of the "MU-M" Development Area of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zone (BBSP) contained in Chapter 18.122) of the Code, because the project will comply with applicable development standards and include approval of a Conditional Use Permit for modified standards, now pending. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the Proposed Project. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as no sensitive environmental habitat has been identified, because the Draft EIR No. 350 determined that there will be no significant impacts to the environment as a result of the Proposed Project. 5. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public, at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that t he 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, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission does approve Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, contingent upon and subject to: (1) the adoption by the Planning Commission of (i) a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032, Final Site Plan No. 2020-00002, and Variance No. 2020-05143, all of which entitlements are now pending; and 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 said 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. - 4 - PC2020-*** 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 August 31, 2020. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Section 17.08.104 of the 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 - PC2020-*** 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 August 31, 2020, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of August, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC2020-*** - 7 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19021 (DEV2019-00120) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP 1 The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a variable easement, 60-foot to 69-foot in width from construction centerline (47-ft. to 56-ft. from survey centerline) of Lincoln Avenue for road, public utilities, and other public purposes. (7-foot to 16-foot dedication from existing right of-way for road, public utilities, and other public purposes). Public Works, Development Services 2 The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an additional 2-ft. easement, north of the existing sewer easement, for sewer purposes. Public Works, Development Services 3 The property owner shall relinquish street access to Lincoln Avenue except at approved driveway locations. Public Works, Development Services 4 The developer shall submit the final map to the City of Anaheim, Public Works Development Services Division and to the Orange County Surveyor for technical correctness review and approval. Public Works, Development Services 5 The developer shall post a Monumentation bond in an amount specified in writing by a Licensed Land Surveyor and approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney. Public Works, Development Services 6 The developer shall execute a maintenance covenant with the City of Anaheim in a form that is approved by the City Engineer and the City attorney for the private improvements including but not limited to private utilities, private drive, drainage devices, parkway landscaping and irrigation, paseos, private lights, gas extraction system etc. in addition to maintenance requirements established in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as applicable to the project. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map. Public Works, Development Services 7 The developer shall submit improvement plans, for the construction of required public improvements, to the Public Works Department Services Division for review, approval and to determine the bond amounts. Public Works, Development Services 8 The developer shall execute a Subdivision Agreement and submit security in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to guarantee construction of the public improvements required herein. Security deposit shall be in accordance to City of Anaheim Municipal Code. The agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map. Public Works, Development Services 9 The developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Public Works, Development Services - 8 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 10 The property owner shall record a 15 foot wide easement for storm drain purposes as shown on the tentative tract map. The storm drain easement shall be in favor of the adjacent properties (Parcel 1 of LLA0000795, Parcel A and B per P.M.B. 42/29, Parcel D per P.M.B. 34/36, Parcel C, D, H and I per Instrument No. 2019000399301 O.R.). Strom drain easement shall be per separate instrument and recorded prior to Final Map recordation. Public Works, Development Services 11 The developer shall pay all applicable development impact fees required under the Anaheim Municipal Code. Public Works, Development Services 12 The developer shall execute a Save Harmless Agreement with the City of Anaheim for any storm drain connections to the City’s storm drain system. The agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map. Public Works, Development Services 13 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. 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 subject 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 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM SUBJECT 39 Commons Phase I (Residential Component) CASE NO. DEV 2019-00120, CUP 2019-06032, SUBTM 19021, and VAR 2020-0514 ADDRESS 208-224 North Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801 APN 258-011-17, 258-031-05 LOCATION The project is located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. 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 & Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resource Noise Paleontological Resources Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire 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 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) 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 of City of Anaheim Representative Date Andy Uk, Associate Planner (714)765-5238 Printed Name, Title Phone Number 08/10/2020 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 - 2- 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 Environmental Impact Report (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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (§ 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 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. 5) 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. 6) 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. - 3- Project Setting/Background The 39 Commons Phase I (Residential Component) Project (the “Project”) is located within the area of the City subject to the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan (BBSP). The Project Site is located on 3.63 acres designated for Mixed-Use Medium land use by the General Plan. The Project Site is within the Mixed- Use Medium (MU-M) Development Area of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zone (BBSP), as shown on the BBSP Development Areas Map. The Mixed-Use Medium Development Area allows flexibility in zoning for parcels that could transition from strip commercial uses to residential or a mix of residential, commercial, and office development. The designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 dwelling units per acre. A mix of commercial uses would continue to allow for a range of community-serving retail, office, and service commercial uses. The non-residential component of mixed-use development has a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35. The Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC or Code) includes the Zoning and Development Standards for the BBSP in Chapter 18.122. The underlying AMC base zone is the “MU” Mixed Use Overlay Zone. If the standards in the BBSP are silent on a particular topic, the MU Overlay Zone shall apply. On July 30, 2019, the City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) pertaining to an approximate 30-acre vacant property located on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, which includes the Project Site. The DDA initiated the development four separate components referred to as the Residential Component (Phase 1), the Retail Component (Phase 2), the Grocery Component (Phase 3), and the Mixed Use Commercial Component (Phase 4). The proposed Project is the Residential Component (Phase 1). The Council’s approval of the DDA included a determination that there would be no new environmental impacts associated with the DDA beyond those identified in the previously approved Final Environmental Impact Report for the BBSP (EIR No. 350). A mix of land uses surrounds the Project site, as shown on the Aerial Photograph of the Project site. Directly adjacent to the north of the site is a vacant parcel, formerly used for the former landfill, this parcel is also a part of the DDA. Further north is an America’s Best Value Inn & Suites hotel in the City of Anaheim and single-family homes in the City of Buena Park. The remaining surrounding properties, to the east, south and west, are within the City of Anaheim. Directly adjacent to the east of the site are two multi-family apartment complexes. Directly adjacent to the east of the site are single-family homes. A service station is located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, adjacent to the Project site. To the south of the site, across Lincoln Avenue, there is a service station, a restaurant, a vacant retail building, and two small commercial centers. To the west, across Beach Boulevard are a large commercial center with a Walmart Neighborhood Market, Rally’s fast-food restaurant, and the 102-unit Anacapa attached residential planned unit development. A small commercial center is located southwest of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. All surrounding properties, with the exception of the single-family homes within the City of Buena Park, are within the area guided and regulated by the BBSP. Project Description The Project Applicant proposes to construct 65 townhomes (proposed Project) on the Project Site. Development of the proposed Project would be in accordance with the BBSP. The following Site Map (Figure 1) depicts the Project Site. The proposed Project would be subject to the approval of a Final Plan, Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Variance and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM). The Applicant proposed to develop the Project Site in a series of 4-plex to 9-plex buildings that would be approximately 45 feet in height, or three-stories tall. The proposed Project amenities would include an interior community gathering space with tot lot, barbeque, and picnic tables. The proposed Project would provide vehicular ingress and egress to the Project Site with a single, private drive that connects to Lincoln Boulevard on - 4- the south side of the Project site. The proposed Project would assign the townhomes, also referred to in this document as dwelling units (du), two garage bays to each unit. The proposed Project includes 130 garage parking spaces and 63 open parking stalls. The total number of parking spaces required by the Code is 193 parking spaces including 63 open guest parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed Project meets the AMC parking requirements. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting a Variance in order to install an 8-foot vinyl perimeter fence on the interior property lines where the Code requires a decorative masonry wall. The proposed Project would implement the 39 Commons DDA and the BBSP. Pursuant to AMC Section 18.122.020 (Development Review and Permits), development applications for projects that comply with the vision of the BBSP and the Zoning and Development Standards of Chapter 18.122 are subject to the review and approval of a Final Plan to determine compliance with the BBSP. The Planning and Building Director (Director) has approval authority over the Final Plan. However, for uses requiring discretionary review, the Code requires the Applicant to submit the Final Plan for consistency with the BBSP in conjunction with the processing of the other project entitlements. The Planning Commission will review the Final Plan in conjunction with its review of the CUP, Variance and TTM. - 5- Figure 1 – Site Map - 6- Beach Boulevard Specific Plan (BBSP) The BBSP guides the future development of approximately 283 acres along a 1.5-mile portion of the Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 [SR-39]) in the City of Anaheim, Orange County. Beach Boulevard is an eight-lane divided highway that connects the cities of Huntington Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Mirada, and La Habra. The BBSP is a community-driven vision for Beach Boulevard and the properties adjacent to this transportation corridor. The BBSP supports this vision through the implementation of development standards, permitted and prohibited uses, design guidelines, sustainable practices, economic development incentives, and capital improvements that improve the quality of life for all future users of the corridor. The City of Anaheim received funding for the BBSP through the California Strategic Growth Council’s Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program. Implementation of the BBSP will strengthen the West Anaheim community and meet the Strategic Growth Council’s goals to help local governments address the challenges of land use planning and transforming communities for long-term prosperity. The Strategic Growth Council defines a sustainable community as one that promotes equity, health, and safety and strengthens the economy while protecting the environment. The City anticipates that the BBSP will promote revitalization of this corridor by implementing market-driven land use changes to encourage infill development of currently vacant or underutilized properties. The BBSP allows for the development of vacant parcels and the adaptive reuse or redevelopment of existing uses. At buildout, implementation of the BBSP would result in a maximum of 5,128 dwelling units and 2,189,445 square feet of nonresidential development, as shown in Table 1-1. In addition to revitalizing the corridor with new development, use types, and adaptive reuse, the BBSP would also facilitate and encourage use of multiple modes of transportation by improving pedestrian amenities, and access to Orange County Transit Authority Route 29 (La Habra to Huntington Beach), Route 42 (Seal Beach to Orange), and Route 46 (Los Alamitos to Orange). Within the City of Anaheim, Beach Boulevard (SR-39) is a California state highway that travels through Orange and Los Angeles counties. In order to have greater control over all infrastructure, which includes roadway, landscaping, medians, pedestrian access ramps and driveway entrances, the City may seek relinquishment of Beach Boulevard from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to the City of Anaheim. The BBSP also proposes other improvements within the public realm including urban amenities and improvements to public rights-of-way, including key intersections, streets, alleys and drives, parks, plazas, and gateways. The BBSP identifies public street design elements, landscaping, intersection enhancements, entry treatments, public open space, right-of-way detail, and other unique public realm features within the proposed Development Areas. Other improvements include the undergrounding of utilities and removal of utility poles. As previously noted, the 3.63-acre project site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site. Table 1-1 Beach Boulevard Specific Plan Buildout Statistical Summary Development Areas Acreage Units/Acre Units Population FAR Non-Res. SF Employment Flood Control Channels 4.2 – – – – – – Low-Medium Residential 44.8 18 806 2,621 – – – Medium Residential 49.4 36 1,778 5,781 – – – - 7- Mixed-Use High1 32.3 60 1,938 6,300 0.35 492,446 1,231 Mixed-Use Medium2 16.8 36 605 1,966 0.35 210,575 526 Neighborhood Commercial 22.6 – – – 0.35 344,560 861 Office 2.2 -- -- -- 0.50 47,916 168 Public-Recreational 27.9 -- -- -- 0.10 121,532 304 Regional Commercial3 27.4 – – – 0.35 380,000 950 Right of Way 41.6 – – – – – – Semi-Public4 13.6 – -- -- 1.00 592,416 1,481 Total5 282.8 – 5,128 16,6696 – 2,189,445 5,5227 Existing – – 1,477 – – 1,282,124 – Net New – – 3,651 – – 907,321 – Source: PlaceWorks, 2018. 1 Mixed-Use High buildout includes 54,000 SF of hotel/motel (108 rooms) and the following assumptions for other non-residential uses: 20% service, 20% office, 20% restaurant, and 40% retail. 2 Mixed-Use Medium buildout includes 140,000 SF of hotel/motel (280 rooms) and following assumptions for other non-residential uses: 25% service, 10% office, 25% restaurant, and 40% retail. 3 Regional Commercial buildout includes 35,000 SF of hotel/motel (70 rooms). 4 The West Anaheim Medical Center provides 219 hospital beds. 5 Hotels were included in the buildout assumptions for Commercial, Mixed-Use Medium, and Mixed-Use High uses. Hotels were estimated at approximately 500 gross SF per room (including walls, elevators, stairways, corridors, storage, mechanical areas, etc.). (De Roos 2011) 6 Population estimates are based on a citywide 3.44 persons per household factor published in the City of Anaheim 2014-2021 Housing Element. 7 Employment estimates are City of Anaheim General Plan Employment Generation Rates of 400 SF per employee for Commercial uses, 285 SF per employee for Office uses, and 400 SF per employee for Mixed-Use uses. Previously-Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2017-00350 On November 20, 2018, the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2017-00350 (EIR No. 350), including the adoption of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 342 (MMRP No. 342), and a Water Supply Assessment. The certification of EIR No. 350 was in conjunction with the Council’s approval of amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code (zoning text and zoning map); and, adoption the BBSP. EIR No. 350 was prepared as a Program EIR. The legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as for a Project EIR; however, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual than Project EIRs, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions characterized as one large Project. Use of a Program EIR gives the lead agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address Project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. Agencies prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions linked geographically; logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects, mitigated in similar ways. Once a Program EIR has been prepared, the City as the Lead Agency must evaluate subsequent activities within the program to determine whether an additional CEQA document is necessary. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities may be within the Program EIR’s scope, and additional environmental documents may not be required (Guidelines § 15168[c]). When a lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives from the Program - 8- EIR into the subsequent activities (Guidelines § 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects outside the scope of the Program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. Even in this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages: 1. Provide a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR; 2. Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; 3. Avoid continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues; 4. Consider broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them; 5. Reduce paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering). (Guidelines § 15168[h]) In addition, Guidelines § 15182, Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan, allows an exemption for a residential project implementing a specific plan, subject to the following [Guidelines § 15182 (c)]: 1. Eligibility. Where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan is exempt from CEQA if the project meets the requirements of this section. Residential projects covered by this section include but are not limited to land subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments. 2. Limitation. If after the adoption of the specific plan, an event described in Section 15162 occurs, the exemption in this subdivision shall not apply until the city or county which adopted the specific plan completes a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR on the specific plan. The exemption provided by this section shall again be available to residential projects after the Lead Agency has filed a Notice of Determination on the specific plan as reconsidered by the subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR. 3. Statute of Limitations. A court action challenging the approval of a project under this subdivision for failure to prepare a supplemental EIR shall be commenced within 30 days after the lead agency's decision to carry out or approve the project in accordance with the specific plan. As described above the proposed Project meets the eligibility requirement of Guidelines § 15182 (c) in that the proposed Project is pursuant to a specific plan with an EIR prepared after January 1, 1980. In addition, none of the following events described in Guidelines § 15162 have occurred: 1. 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; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; - 9- (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown 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 proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The following analysis confirms that the proposed Project is consistent with development assumptions analyzed by EIR No. 350 for the Project site. The mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342 address any significant impacts, with the exception of those impacts (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation and Traffic) described in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with the certification of EIR No. 350. The City, as the Lead Agency, will apply all applicable mitigation measures to the proposed Project. I. AESTHETICS -- Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.1. According to EIR No. 350, the area regulated by the BBSP consists of a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, mixed- use, office, and public-recreational developments and is not located on a scenic resource or vista. The area regulated by the BBSP (depicted in the previous three maps) is generally flat in topography. The proposed Project would be a 65-unit single-family attached residential development, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. The Project Site does not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vista. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. - 10- Beach Boulevard (SR-39), is not a state-designated scenic highway. Moreover, the area regulated by the BBSP consists of a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, mixed-use, office, and public-recreational developments, and no trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway would be damaged due to construction of the proposed Project. Impacts associated with state scenic highways would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The BBSP allows for the redevelopment of existing uses, resulting in new development that differs from existing land uses in height, scale, mass, and character. Implementation of the he BBSP would have the potential to alter the visual character area to provide a more consistent and cohesive design character. The Project Site is currently a vacant lot. The proposed Project would implement Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA and would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation program. The area regulated by the BBSP consists of a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, mixed-use, office, and public- recreational developments and include existing sources of light include street lights, vehicle headlights, building and security lights, and parking lot lights. The BBSP allows for intensification of existing land uses and new development with associated lighting. Therefore, new sources of light and glare could increase levels of light and glare above existing conditions, potentially resulting in adverse impacts to day or nighttime views. The proposed Project is a 65-unit single-family attached residential development that would include a range from 4-plex to 9- plex buildings that would have a building height of approximately 45 feet tall. The proposed Project would be developed with quality design features, architectural materials, and landscaping, which would help break up the massing of the proposed Project and create visual interest. The proposed Project would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts that would be consistent with the BBSP and would be less than significant. As discussion in section XI. Land Use, the proposed Project would be a 65-unit single-family attached residential development, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. The proposed Project would be consistent with the BBSP land uses and zoning. The Applicant would develop the proposed Project subject to the review and approval of a Final Plan, CUP, and a TTM to allow the construction of 65 townhomes. Additionally, the proposed project would include an eight-foot vinyl perimeter fence on the interior property lines, with the approval of a Variance. The proposed Project would develop 65-unit single-family attached residences with buildings as tall as approximately 45 feet. The Project site is in an urbanized area of the City, and glare sources currently exist from sunlight reflecting off vehicles parked and traveling on nearby roads, and from glass and light-colored building materials. The proposed Project’s architectural treatment and building materials would not be highly reflective and would not produce significant glare impacts. Glare from building materials and vehicles are typical of the surrounding area. Therefore, glare would not increase beyond what is typical for an urban area, glare impacts from the proposed Project. Furthermore, compliance with adopted building codes and proposed development standards ensure that the proposed Project would not result in a significant lighting pollution impact during the night. The overall amount of light and glare generated would not be result in a significant impact when compared to existing conditions and compared to surrounding uses. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact - 11- 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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? Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed Project would be a 65-unit single-family attached residential development, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. The proposed Project site is located within an area of the City regulated by the BBSP, which is not within an area with agricultural or forest uses. There is no unique, prime or farmland of statewide importance located on the Project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the Project Site. No impacts would occur. III. AIR QUALITY -- 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 Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) 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 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the air quality impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.2. - 12- EIR No. 350 concluded that, the area regulated by the BBSP is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and is subject to the air quality management plan (AQMP) prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction activities of future development, revitalization, and/or redevelopment activities pursuant to the BBSP would generate exhaust from construction equipment and vehicle trips, fugitive dust from demolition and ground-disturbing activities, and off-gas emissions from architectural coatings and paving. Implementation of the BBSP allows development of a mix of uses, resulting in an increase in development intensity and associated increase in criteria air pollutants. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact. Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed Project have the potential to generate fugitive dust, stationary- source emissions, and mobile-source emissions. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would occur over the short term for site preparation and construction activities of the proposed Project. In addition, emissions would result from the long-term operation. The air quality analysis conducted for the BBSP, which determined that the short- and/or long-term emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. However, the Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact. Emissions from construction equipment used during the construction of the proposed Project, such as diesel exhaust and VOCs from architectural coatings, may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant odor impacts, and no mitigation measures are required. As previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. The following mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342 would address any impacts and will be conditions of approval for the proposed Project (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): AQ-1: Applicants for new development Projects in the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt Projects) The Project Applicant shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Anaheim that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, documentation shall be provided by the applicant to the City of Anaheim that verifies, to the satisfaction of the City, the use of construction equipment as stated in this mitigation measure. AQ-2: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used on the Project site for Projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt Projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment. AQ-3: During construction activities, for Projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt Projects), the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the Planning and Building Department that the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. AQ-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit for Projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non- exempt Projects), the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall require the construction contractor and provide a note on construction plans indicating that: a) All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). b) All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve - 13- a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency. c) The construction contractor shall also use pre-coated/natural colored building materials, where feasible. The City shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections. AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development Projects in the Project Area, the Project applicant shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. AQ-6: Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed use residential development Projects in the Project Area, the Project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code AQ-7: Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development Projects in the Project Area, the Project Applicant applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Anaheim Building Division prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • For buildings with more than ten tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. AQ-8: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, for Projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt Projects), the property owner/developer the Project Applicant shall submit a dust control plan that implements the following measures during ground-disturbing activities, in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions: a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. The City shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections. - 14- IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact 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 Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and 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 defined by § 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 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, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 addressed the potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350. The Project Site consists of vacant land located in the BBSP. As identified in EIR 350, impacts related to Biological resources were determined less-than-significant during the Initial Study of the BBSP. The proposed Project would not impact sensitive species, and no mitigation measures are required. - 15- As identified in EIR 350 for the BBSP, which includes the Project Site, properties within the BBSP do not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies; known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or known to be important wildlife corridors. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. As identified in EIR 350 for the BBSP, which includes the Project Site, properties within the BBSP do not include any wetlands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact wetlands, and no mitigation measures are required. EIR 350 identified that properties within the BBSP, which includes the Project Site, and the surrounding area are in a highly urbanized setting that lacks suitable habitat for wildlife species and is not a native wildlife nursery site. The Project site is currently vacant land with no trees on-site. Migratory birds typically use trees for nesting, there are no trees on site, however small vegetation growth is on the Project site. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would be subject to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; US Code, Title 16, §§ 703– 712). The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. If removal of the vegetation occurs during nesting season (typically between February 1 and July 1), the Project applicant is required to conduct nesting bird surveys in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. Compliance with the MBTA would ensure that no significant impacts to migratory birds occur and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site does not contain trees on-site, however there are street trees adjacent to the Project area on Lincoln Avenue and may include the removal of ornamental trees street trees on the City’s right-of-way during street modification. However, Chapter 13.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishes applicable regulations for the protection, maintenance, removal, and replacement of street trees within the City’s right-of-way. There are no local policies protecting trees on private properties. Therefore, impacts associated with policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The area regulated by the BBSP, which includes the Project Site, is not in the Orange County's Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) area and does not contain any sites designated for nature reserves under the NCCP. The proposed Project does not conflict with the provision of any adopted habitat conservation plan. No impacts occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. EIR No. 350 concluded that compliance with existing regulations related to Biological Resources would reduce any impacts to less than significant; and, therefore, MMRP No. 342 does not include any mitigation measures related to Biological Resources and none would be applicable to the proposed Project. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (April 15, 2010)? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? - 16- d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 addressed the potential impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.3. According to EIR No. 350, there are no historical landmarks in the area regulated by the BBSP, including the Project Site. The Project Site is currently vacant and the proposed Project would not involve any demolition of buildings, including historically preserved structures. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site is a vacant lot. It is possible that previously unidentified archaeological artifacts could be present within the area, however, the proposed Project is within the area regulated by the BBSP, and the Project Applicant would comply with mitigation measures outlined in EIR. No 350. The discovery of buried resources on the Project Site would not contribute cumulatively to potential archaeological resources impacts in the region. Consequently, impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Development of the proposed Project may cause the disturbance of archaeological resources. Building construction in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires excavation to depths greater than current foundations has the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources. Therefore, mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Project. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within a Project area, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The proposed Project would comply with existing law, and potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would impact a property located within the area regulated by the BBSP; and therefore, would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. The proposed Project would address any impacts by implementing the mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): CUL-1: Prior to demolition, the Project Applicant applicant/developer shall provide documentation of the presence/absence of historic resources for the properties that are 50 years old or over by a qualified historical resources professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The criteria for determining the historically significant structures shall meet one or more the following criteria: 1. It strongly represents a significant event or broad patterns of local, regional, or national history. 2. It is associated with the life of a significant person in local, regional, or national history. 3. It is a very good example of a significant architectural style, property type, period, or method of construction; or it represents the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder who is locally, regionally, or nationally significant; or it is a significant visual feature of the City. CUL-2: On properties where historically significant resources are identified, a proper documentation meeting the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Guidelines shall be prepared and implemented, as approved by the qualified historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. Such documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and written data for each building/structure/element, and provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program, recovery, rehabilitation, redesign, relocation, and/or in situ preservation plan. CUL-3: Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the Project Applicantapplicant/developer shall retain an archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology for the Project and will be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that the following measures are followed for the Project. • Prior to any ground disturbance, the Qualified Archaeologist, or their designee, shall provide a worker environmental awareness protection (WEAP) training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should - 17- unanticipated cultural resources be made during construction. Workers will be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The WEAP training can be in the form of a video or PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the Project. • In the event that unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any phase of Project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the Qualified Archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the appropriate City, the discovery is determined not to be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. • If a resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or has a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources, and construction allowed to proceed. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. • If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. • Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes, as determined as appropriate by the City of Anaheim. VI. ENERGY – Would the Project Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Narrative Summary: Less-than-significant Impact. EIR No 350 did not analyze Energy as the City Council certified the document before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the new standard. Regulatory Framework California State Building Regulation California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy conservation standards for new residential and non- residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2016 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2016 Standards continues to improve upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and - 18- nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards, residential and nonresidential buildings are 28 and 5 percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards, respectively. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. While the 2016 standards do not achieve zero net energy, they do get very close to the state’s goal and make important steps toward changing residential building practices in California. The 2019 standards will take the final step to achieve zero net energy for newly constructed residential buildings throughout California. The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi -family buildings of 3 stories and less. Four key areas the 2019 standards will focus on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards while single-family homes will be 7 percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards. California Building Code: CALGreen. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.12 The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2019. The 2019 CALGreen will become effective on January 1, 2020. Senate Bill 350. Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law in September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. SB 100. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which replaces the SB 350 requirement of 45 percent renewable energy by 2027 with the requirement of 50 percent by 2026 and also raises California’s RPS requirements for 2050 from 50 percent to 60 percent. SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target. Local Regulation The City’s Green Element outlines goals and policies conserve energy during the construction and operation of buildings. Key goals and policies from the Green Element regarding new construction are: • Goal 15.2: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy. o Policy 15.2(1): Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development (e.g., orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping and landscape structures to shade buildings). o Policy 15.2(2): Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City. • Goal 17.1: Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs. o Policy 17.1(1): Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design, natural ventilation, space planning and thermal massing. During construction, the proposed Project would utilize main forms of available energy supply; electricity, natural gas, and oil. Construction of the proposed Project, would result in energy consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance of water used for dust control, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities that require electrical power. Construction activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. However, construction activities would also consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off- road construction vehicles and equipment, round-trip construction worker travel to the Project site, and delivery and haul truck trips. Construction activities would comply with CARB’s “In-Use Off- Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation”, which limits engine idling times to reduce harmful emissions and reduce wasteful consumption of petroleum-based fuel. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce - 19- short-term energy demand during the proposed Project’s construction to the extent feasible, and proposed Project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore, during construction no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project is a residential Project, where its intensities and uses have been considered in EIR No. 350 and would be implemented pursuant the BBSP. The proposed Project would comply with State and Local regulations, in compliance with building codes, as they pertain to energy efficiency, therefore during operation, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? - 20- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • Geotechnical Engineering Report 39 Commons Residential Development Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience, February 19, 2020 (Appendix A) • Response to City’s Review Comments on Geotechnical Engineering Report 39 Commons Residential Development, Tetra Tech BAS Geoscience, May13, 2020. (Appendix A.2) Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the geotechnical and soils impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.4. Further, the analysis in EIR No. 350 relied upon an approved Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared for the proposed Project: Geotechnical Engineering Report 39 Commons Residential Development. According to EIR No. 350, the area regulated by the BBSP, including the Project Site, is not on a known fault. Therefore, there is no potential for the rupture of a known earthquake fault in the Project Site. No impacts related to an earthquake rupture would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site is subject to ground shaking and potential damage in the event of seismic activity (Seismic Zone 4, encompassing most of southern California). The Project Site could be subject to moderate and possibly strong ground motion due to the proximity and potential earthquake magnitude of these faults, which would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Based on a review of the Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Anaheim Quadrangle, the entire regulated by the BBSP is within a zone of liquefaction zone, including the Project Site. The Geotechnical Engineering Report analyzed the Project site specifically and found fill material overlying native alluvial deposits. The fill material generally consists of dense silty sand, clayey sand with scattered gravel. The Geotechnical Engineering Report indicates that groundwater was encountered from 20 to 43 feet below the surface. Liquefaction occurs at depths shallower than 50-feet and occurs with generally loose, relatively clean granular soils and low plasticity silts. The Geotechnical Engineering Report identified groundwater shallower than 50-feet with fill material consisting of dense silty sand, clayey sand with scattered gravel, would not create as susceptible conditions as with looser soil material. However, the proposed Project would comply with all relevant Federal, State and local regulations. As such, the liquefaction potential of the Project Site is consistent with the analysis with EIR No. 350, therefore no new impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Construction of the proposed Project would disturb large amounts of soil during site grading and construction, and thus could cause widespread erosion if effective erosion control measures were not used. Erosion control measures to be specified in Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) – that would be prepared and implemented for each Project developed pursuant to the BBSP. EIR No. 350 identified a potential for expansive soils within the confines of the area regulated by the BBSP. However, according to the Geotechnical Engineering Report on-site soils are expected to have low expansive soil indices. Geology and soils impacts related to future development in the rea regulated by the BBSP, including the Project Site would involve hazards related to site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and ground-shaking during earthquakes. The impacts on each site would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to the impacts (or shared with, in an additive sense) on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to existing regulations and standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, cumulative geology and soils impacts would be less than significant. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement is a residential development that is consistent with the standards of the BBSP and would - 21- not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the potential impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.5. A typical Project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. Implementation of the BBSP could increase GHG emissions through new construction and an increase in vehicle trips. Recommended mitigation measures would ensure that GHG emissions from buildout of the BBSP would be minimized. EIR No. 350 concluded that although implementation of the BBSP, including the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and although feasible mitigation measures would be incorporated into the implementation of the BBSP, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts. As previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Implementation of Air Quality Mitigation Measures (AQ-5 and AQ-6) and Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures (T- 1, T-2 and T-3) from MMRP No. 342, would reduce impacts relative to GHG emissions. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? - 22- 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous 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 sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 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 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? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, 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 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.6. Onsite construction equipment might require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the release of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. Therefore, the proposed Project will require implementation of mitigation measures from EIR No. 350, adopted to minimize any impacts. Construction activities could expose the public and, in particular, construction personnel, to hazardous substances. Contaminated structures or soils could also expose workers to health or safety risks (e.g., mold and lead). With implementation of mitigation, including compliance with the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law, potential impacts related to hazardous material on or near the Project Site would be reduced to less than significant levels. The Project Site is not within the airport’s land use plan and is outside of the areas where land uses are regulated respecting air crash hazards, and areas where heights of structures are limited to prevent airspace obstructions for aircraft approaching or departing Fullerton Municipal Airport. Additionally, since the Project Site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and the nearest heliport is North Net Training Authority Heliport, approximately 6.8 miles to the southeast (Airnav.com 2020), the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area regulated by the BBSP. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Operation activities not anticipated to have any impacts on an established emergency response plan. The proposed Project will - 23- require implementation of mitigation measures from EIR No. 350, adopted to minimize any impacts. The Project Site and properties within its vicinity consist of urban uses and are not adjacent to any wildland. The proposed Project would not expose people or structure to significant safety impacts due to wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would provide a stormwater treatment control best management practice (BMP) that would intercept first flush runoffs through two subsurface infiltration systems (i.e., Contech corrugated metal pipe infiltration systems or approved equivalent), where stormwater would be infiltrated into the subsoil onsite prior to entering the regional storm drain system. The BBSP encourages sustainable community development incentives, and the contribution of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal would be minimal. Moreover, the existing regulations would ensure that the cumulative impact of hazardous materials release or emissions from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Projects in the vicinity would be less than significant. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures that would be demolished in conjunction with individual development Projects pursuant to the Proposed Project, the Project Applicant applicant/developer shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Anaheim with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment. • The Project applicant shall retain a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) to perform abatement Project planning, monitoring (including air monitoring), oversight, and reporting of all asbestos-containing materials (ACM) encountered. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all ACM shall be conducted in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 and California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos). • The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified lead inspector/assessor to conduct the abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered. The contracted lead inspector/assessor shall be certified by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). All lead abatement shall be performed by a CDPH-certified lead supervisor or a CDPH-certified worker under the direct supervision of a lead supervisor certified by CDPH. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered shall be conducted in accordance with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rule 29, CFR Part 1926, and California Code of Regulation, Title 8, Section 1532.1 (Lead). • Evidence of the contracted professionals retained by the Project applicant shall be provided to the City of Anaheim. Additionally, contractors performing ACM and lead waste removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City of Anaheim. HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for individual development Projects that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project, the Project Applicant applicant/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Anaheim to identify environmental conditions of the development site and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR 312.10 and in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527.05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils are identified in the Phase I ESA, the Project applicant shall perform soil, groundwater, and/or vapor sampling as a part of a Phase II ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels, the Project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Anaheim Fire & Rescue, etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion, results, and any follow-up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the City of Anaheim evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project: - 24- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • City of Anaheim Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) C&V Consulting, May 2020 (Appendix B) • Preliminary Hydrology Study 2935 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA C&V Consulting, June 2020. (Appendix C) • Geotechnical Engineering Report 39 Commons Residential Development Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience, February 19, 2020 (Appendix A) - 25- Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the hydrology and water quality impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.7. According to EIR No. 350, implementation of the BBSP could result in short-term construction-related and long-term operational water quality impacts. However, compliance with Federal, State, Regional and Local standard and regulatory requirements reduces these impacts. Although direct impacts to the underlying groundwater resources would not occur, indirect impacts associated with the anticipated increase in long-term demand for domestic water, landscape irrigation, and maintenance activities would be significant. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce demand for groundwater resources. The proposed Project would be a single-family attached residential development, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA, within the BBSP. Urban runoff, during both dry and wet weather conditions, discharges into storm drains, and in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Drainage at the site currently percolates onsite via an existing onsite desilting basin, and excess flows overflow to the southwest corner of the site and proceeds offsite onto West Lincoln Avenue. There are no existing storm drain systems onsite, although there is an existing 16’ catch basin located along the Project frontage in the public right of way as well as an existing 54” storm drain system located along the Project frontage within West Lincoln Avenue. According to the City of Anaheim Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Creek Channel Tributary Area indicates the Project site is within Drainage Basin 2. Drainage Basin 2 has a tributary area of approximately 286-acres with 13 drainage areas. The Project site is located within Drainage Area 2-1. While the City recommends upgrading a portion of the existing storm drain within the drainage area to accommodate the flood width criteria, the Project site is not tributary to the storm drain segment with recommended improvements. Runoff from the proposed Project would be collected and conveyed via surface flow and through area drains towards three proposed curb‐inlet catch basins within the proposed private drive aisle which are equipped with a system to divert low flows to three proposed Modular Wetlands Systems (MWS) Biofiltration vaults for water quality treatment. Treated stormwater is returned to the proposed catch basins below the Dvert systems and is conveyed to the existing 54” storm drain facility within West Lincoln Avenue via proposed underground storm drain. Upon entering the public right-of-way, proposed drainage runoff would follow the existing drainage pattern of the site and drain to the existing Carbon Creek Channel. Upon entering the public right-of-way, stormwater drainage would flow through Carbon Canyon Creek, which then flows in the southwesterly direction and ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean. Construction Impact During construction, there is the potential for short-term surface water quality impacts. Such impacts include runoff of loose soils and/or a variety of construction wastes and fuels that could be carried off-site in surface runoff and into local storm drains and streets that drain eventually into water resources. The proposed Project would be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP includes BMPs to reduce water quality impacts, including various measures to control on-site erosion, reduce sediment flows into storm water and wind erosion; reduce tracking of soil and debris into adjacent roadways and off-site areas; and manage wastes, materials, wastewater, liquids, hazardous materials, stockpiles, equipment, and other site conditions to prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the provisions of the NPDES permit and compliance with City grading requirements would minimize construction impacts through BMPs that reduce construction-related pollutants. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required. Operational Impact Stormwater runoff from the proposed Project has the potential to introduce small amounts of pollutants into the stormwater system. The Project site is four percent impervious and a post development condition as a result of the proposed Project would be approximately 81 percent impervious. This increase in imperviousness would generate an increased peak runoff volume and flowrate. However, this is due to an overall increase in impervious coverage from vacant land to single-family attached residential. The proposed Project’s onsite outflow-controlled detention would mitigate the increased runoff volume and peak flows to maintain existing conditions Overall, the proposed Project, the drainage pattern will remain and runoff from the proposed Project would be equal or less than the existing peak runoff and would not be hydrologically or hydraulically impacted. Additionally, as discussed before runoff from the proposed Project would be collected and conveyed via surface flow and through area drains towards three proposed curb‐inlet catch basins within the proposed private drive aisle which are equipped with a system to divert low flows to three proposed MWS Biofiltration vaults for water quality treatment. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed Project, the Project applicant would have to comply with all applicable regulations - 26- and obtain a NPDES stormwater permit to indicate that the Project features BMPs. As such, the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or stormwater NPDES standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required. The City receives approximately 75 percent of its water supply from groundwater from Orange County Basin (OC Basin) and 25 percent from imported water. The OC Basin, managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD). It underlies the northerly half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands and covers approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City owns and operates a network of groundwater wells to supply potable water to their users. The City is currently using a small amount of recycled water and is planning to increase its water use in the future. The proposed Project would create an increased demand for water, which could lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. However, a replenishment assessment fee is levied on cities in accordance with the Orange County Water District Act for the amount of groundwater extracted, and this fee is used by OCWD for various groundwater replenishment programs to ensure that no overdraft of local groundwater resources occurs. OCWD’s groundwater is recharged primarily through artificial replenishment, not natural recharge. Additionally, the Project site is not a groundwater recharge area, and the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required. The area regulated by the BBSP, including the Project Site is in the inundation zone for Prado Dam (Anaheim 2004a), which is on the Santa Ana River and approximately 20 miles east from the Project Site. However, due to the length of time required for water to reach the Project site if the Prado Dam were to fail, and the lack of appreciable amounts of water behind the Prado Dam, implementation of the BBSP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death in the case of dam failure, and impacts are considered to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. No impact involving arising from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur and no mitigation measures are required. While the proposed Project could generate increased pollutants during construction, to minimize these potential impacts, the Project will be required to comply with the NPDES CGP as well as prepare a SWPPP. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA, which is an agreement within the BBSP, would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? - 27- Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the land use impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.8. EIR No. 340 concluded The area regulated by the BBSP consists of residential and commercial uses surrounded by a mixture of uses such as commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential. Land uses of the BBSP would be compatible with various uses in the area and would not physically divide an established community. Impacts would not be significant and no mitigation measures are required. The BBSP required a General Plan amendment, Municipal Code amendment, and amendment of the zoning map to reclassify approximately 232.8 acres of certain real property, to provide consistency between the BBSP and the General Plan. Implementation of the BBSP would allow for additional jobs, restaurants, residential, and other support services and uses, supported by necessary infrastructure and sustainable features. Future individual development Projects would be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans, programs, and policies in order to ensure orderly urban development. Implementation of the BBSP would not result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts. The area regulated by the BBSP consists of residential and commercial uses and roadway improvements, and it is not part of any habitat or natural community conservation plans. The nearest habitat conservation plan area, the NCCP area, generally lies south of SR-91 and east of SR-55, approximately ten miles to the east. The BBSP would not conflict with any applicable habitat or natural conservation plans. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would be a single-family attached residential development, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. The proposed Project would be consistent with the BBSP land uses and zoning. The proposed Project would be developed subject to the approval of a tentative tract map and a conditional use permit to allow the construction of 65 townhomes. Additionally, the proposed Project would include an eight-foot vinyl perimeter fence on the interior property lines, with the approval of a variance. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? Narrative Summary: No Impact. The Project Site is not located in an area with active mining operations. According to the California Department of Mines and Geology, there are no mineral resources or mining operations currently located within the Project Site. No impacts would occur. The proposed Project is a single-family attached residential development that would be consistent with the BBSP and therefore the no impacts would occur. XIII. NOISE -- Would the Project result in: - 28- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the noise impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.9. Regulatory Framework California State Noise Regulation The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a general plan that includes a noise element which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of the noise element is to “limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels.” California Code of Regulations, Title 24. The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA (Community Noise Equivalent Level) CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45dBA CNEL. City of Anaheim City of Anaheim General Plan. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan contains noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses throughout the City. These standards and criteria are used in the land use planning process to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities. The standards shown in the table are the primary tool that allows the City to ensure integrated planning for compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise. City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance AMC Chapter 6.70. The City has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise. The applicable standards for these activities are specified in the AMC. The AMC limits sound levels for stationary sources of noise radiated for extended periods from any premises in excess of 60 decibels at the property line. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City is also exempt from the applications of the AMC during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. - 29- AMC Section 18.040.090.060. The Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the requirements pertaining to exterior noise levels, given that all of the following conditions exist: • The deviation does not exceed 5 dB above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and • Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the Project. EIR No. 350 determined that development in the BBSP, including the proposed Project would have the potential to increase noise levels due to an increase in vehicle trips, outdoor use of proposed open space and recreation areas, and stationary sources, including mechanical systems. In addition, demolition and construction activities could generate substantial noise affecting existing residents within the BBSP boundary and in the surrounding areas. Groundborne vibration or noise would primarily be associated with construction activities. Temporary increased levels of vibration could impact vibration-sensitive land uses. The proposed Project would not be in proximity to sensitive vibration sensitive land uses. Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the area regulated by the BBSP and at adjacent land uses. The City of Anaheim recognizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and provides an exemption for this type of noise when the work takes place within the hours specified in Section 6.70.010 of the City’s Municipal Code (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Mitigation measures from MMRP No. 342 would be required as conditions of approval for the proposed Project. These measures would significantly reduce short-term noise levels. There are no public airports within two miles of the proposed Project and the Project Site does not lie within the 65 CNEL contour of any public airport. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose future residents or workers to excessive noise levels from aircraft. No private airstrip–related impacts would occur; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts would be addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): N-1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on plans for grading, demolition, and construction activities, indicating that the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise: • Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., as prescribed in the City’s Municipal Code (Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official). • All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. • Stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors • Construction traffic shall be limited to the established haul routes. N-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, each Project applicant within the Project area the Project Applicant shall prepare a construction management plan that shall be approved by the City of Anaheim Public Works. The construction management plan shall: • Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. Truck routes that avoid congested streets and sensitive land uses shall be considered. • Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the minimum City criteria. Traffic control plans shall determine if dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction truck and equipment on and offsite are available. • Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. • Keep all construction-related traffic onsite at all times. • Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. N-3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new residential or subdivision developments within the Project Area involving the construction of two or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two or more parcels, and located within six-hundred feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated - 30- by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, are required to the Project Applicant shall submit a noise level analysis, which must include mitigation measures that comply with applicable City noise standards including the following: • Exterior noise within the private rear yard of any single-family lot and/or within any common recreation areas, shall be attenuated to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL; interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of 45 dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City (identified in Section 18.40.090). • Exterior noise within common recreation areas of any single family attached or multiple family dwelling Project shall be attenuated to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL; interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of 45 dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City (identified in Section 18.40.090). The Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the requirements pertaining to exterior noise levels, given that all of the following conditions exist (Section 18.040.090.060): • The deviation does not exceed 5 dB above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and • Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the Project. In addition, residential portions of the mixed-use the proposed Project shall be designed to limit the interior noise caused by adjacent commercial uses and parking areas portions of the Project to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room with windows closed. Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited so neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries, and/or late-night activities. No use shall produce continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Section 18.32.130, Compatibility Standards). The required exterior noise reduction can be accomplished with sound walls or berms, or by site plan/building layout design. The required interior noise reduction can be accomplished with enhanced construction design or materials such as upgraded dual-glazed windows and/or upgraded exterior wall assemblies. These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into construction of the Project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic report’s recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. N-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for Projects within the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan that if the proposed Project involves high-vibration construction activities, such as pile driving or vibratory rolling/compacting, said activities shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The Project applicant shall submit a vibration report prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim to determine if the use of pile driving and/or vibratory rolling/compacting equipment would exceed the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) vibration-annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime or FTA’s vibration-induced architectural damage PPV criteria of 0.2 inches/second for wood-framed structures or 0.5 inches/second for reinforced masonry buildings. The construction contractor shall require the use of lower vibration-producing equipment and techniques. Examples of lower-vibration equipment and techniques would include avoiding the use of vibratory rollers near sensitive areas and/or the use of drilled piles, sonic pile driving, or vibratory pile driving (as opposed to impact pile driving). XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? - 31- Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No impact. EIR No. 350 analyzed the population and housing impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.10. The BBSP allows for build-out that would result in a net increase of approximately 3,496 residential units accommodating an additional 16,166 residents. As previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Based on the average household size of 3.42 persons per household (Department of Finance, 2020), the proposed Project could generate approximately 223 residents. This would result in less than one-percent of the planned residential increase identified in the BBSP. Although implementation of the proposed Project would result in direct and indirect growth in the area, EIR No. 350 determined that implementation of the BBSP would be generally consistent with SCAG’s growth management policies that aim to better coordinate infrastructure development with Projected population, housing, and employment growth. Also, it presents opportunities for the City to meet its RHNA allocation and better house the substantial amount of people working in the City. In addition, it would not exceed the APA’s recommended target range for jobs-housing ratios at the county level. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated. EIR No. 350 determined that impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement the Phase I component of the 39 Commons DDA and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of 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: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the impacts on public services related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.11. EIR No. 350 determined that implementation of the BBSP could have a substantial demand for fire and police protection services, school services, parks, and libraries. Fire The proposed Project would construct 65 townhomes and is an implementation of the Phase I component of the 39 Commons DDA. As discussed in section XV. Population and Housing, the proposed Project would generate approximately 223 residents, - 32- which would be less than one-percent increase compared to the BBSP. As a result, the proposed Project would not substantially impact Anaheim Fire & Rescue’s (AF&R) ability to meet response time goals and the deployment conditions individually or cumulatively. Additional fire personnel and associated facilities and equipment would be provided through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process that would evaluate not only implementation of the BBSP but other Projects in the City. This periodic review process would ensure adequate service throughout the City and no significant cumulative impact is anticipated to occur. Police The proposed Project, in conjunction with other development in the City, would increase the overall police services demands for Anaheim Police Department (APD). The proposed Project would generate approximately 223 residents, which would be less than one-percent increase compared to the BBSP. The BBSP identified buildout of the area along with other City development would occur over an extended period of time, and the actual needs for police protection staff and facilities would be assessed annually with the budget allocation process. This periodic review process would ensure adequate service throughout the City and no significant cumulative impact is anticipated to occur. Schools The proposed Project would construct 65 townhomes with approximately 223 residents and this increase in residents would increase the demand on school facilities However, compliance with the fee program established by SB 50 would mitigate this impact. Library The proposed Project would construct 65 townhomes with approximately 223 residents and this would increase services demand in the current library system. The impacts to the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space would not create significant physical or environmental impacts. Therefore, project-related impacts to library facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Parks See Section XVI Recreation. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts from build-out of the BBSP would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA, which is an agreement that permits development consistent with the BBSP; Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XVI. RECREATION -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact 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? 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? - 33- Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the impacts to recreation and recreational facilities related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.12. The proposed Project would construct 65 townhomes and is an implementation of the Phase I component of the 39 Commons DDA. The proposed Project would generate approximately 223 residents, which would be less than one-percent increase compared to the BBSP. Residents living at the Project site would utilize the various public park and recreation facilities in proximity to the Project site. The following City Parks have been identified within approximately one-mile radius of the Project site; Schweitzer Park, Twila Reid Park and Maxwell Park. The closest regional park to the Project site is Ralph B. Clark Regional Park, approximately five miles to the north. The number of residents introduced by the proposed Project would not create a demand that would exacerbate the physical deterioration of these parks. Furthermore, The proposed Project would be subject to the state’s Quimby Act and AMC Section 17.34.010, which requires development Projects to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay in-lieu fees for park improvements. Therefore, cumulative recreational impacts are not considered significant. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XVII. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • 39 Commons Phase One Trip Generation Assessment, FEHR & PEERS, February 26 2020 (Appendix D) • 39 Commons Phase One VMT Assessment, FEHR & PEERS, July 23,2020 (Appendix D.2) Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the transportation and traffic impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.13. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. The adopted guidelines, evaluates transportation impacts based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lead agencies were allowed to continue using their current impact criteria until June 30, 2020, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. In late 2019, State courts stated that under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall - 34- not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. While the Proposed Project does not create a significant impact through LOS or delay, for the purposes of this recent court decision, the Proposed Project was also screened for VMT analysis. On June 23, 2020, the City of Anaheim City Council adopted the VMT Thresholds of Significance for purpose of analyzing transportation impacts and also approved the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis. Based on the City Guidelines, the proposed Project type is one of the screening thresholds that could be used for determining if a VMT analysis is required. As noted previously, on June 23, 2020, the City adopted the Vehicle Miles Travelled Thresholds of Significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts and also approved the TIA Guidelines. Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, certain projects that meet specific screening criteria are presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to CEQA Section 15064.3 absent substantial evidence to the contrary (City of Anaheim 2020e). There are three project-screening types that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment. A project only needs to fulfill one of the screening types below to qualify for screening. These screening types are summarized below: Type 1: Transit Priority Area Screening. A Transit Priority Area is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. Projects located within a Transit Priority Area may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project has a total floor area ratio of less than 0.75, includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction, Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units. Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening. A low VMT-generating area is an area that has a VMT per service population metric that is 15% below the County average. Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Other employment-related and mixed-use projects within a low VMT-generating area may also be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the project can reasonably be expected to generate a VMT per service population metric similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. Type 3: Project Type Screening. Some project types are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature. Projects that are presumed to have a less than significant impact due to their local serving nature include local-serving K-12 schools, neighborhood and community parks, day care centers, certain local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses, community and religious assembly uses, public services, local-serving community colleges, affordable or supportive housing, convalescent and rest homes, senior housing, and projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips. The proposed Project qualifies for a Type 1 and Type 2 screening criteria. Under the Type 1 screening, the proposed Project is within a TPA and meets the additional criteria for TPA screening, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to Type 1 VMT criteria. Under the Type 2 screening, The proposed Project is located in a Low VMT Area, as identified in Attachment B of Appendix D.2 - Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2012). The proposed Project is located in TAZ 248 which is bound by Beach Boulevard, Lincoln Avenue, Dale Avenue and Crescent Avenue, as shown in Attachment D of Appendix D.2 - Eastern Anaheim OCTAM TAZs. Attachment C of Appendix D.2 - OCTAM Socioeconomic Data shows that the baseline assumptions for TAZ 248 include 777 households. The households within the TAZ 248 boundary include market rate apartments, senior living apartments and single-family homes. The proposed Project, which proposes to build more apartments, are similar to the existing TAZ land use. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would result in a similar VMT per resident which is more than 15% below the County of Orange average VMT per service population and would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT Type 2 criteria While the revised CEQA Guidelines prohibit a Lead Agency from using vehicle delay and LOS to evaluate a proposed Project’s transportation impact, the following analysis provides the Proposed Project’s consistency with these policies, as well as the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for informational purposes. As evaluated in EIR No. 350, traffic impacts associated with buildout of the BBSP would result in significant impacts at 20 area intersections, and four roadway segments. Proposed improvements have been recommended for identified impacts; however, since the impacted facilities are under Caltrans or City of Buena Park control, Anaheim cannot guarantee that these mitigation measures will be implemented and therefore the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Improvement measures were developed to minimize the impact of implementation of the BBSP on the study intersections and roadway segments. These improvements were developed in order to bring operations back to acceptable or pre-Project conditions. The proposed Project would construct 65 townhomes and is an implementation of the Phase I component of the 39 Commons DDA. The Trip - 35- Generation Memo conducted by Fehr & Peers determined that the proposed Project would generate approximately 354 daily trips, with approximately 23 trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 29 trips during the PM peak hour. In accordance to the BBSP, and the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, the proposed Project would generate fewer than 100 trips during AM/PM peak hour, which does not require a Level of Service assessment. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. As previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. The following mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342 would address any impacts and will be conditions of approval for the proposed Project (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): T-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall pay all applicable transportation impact fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in §21074? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the tribal cultural resources impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1, which includes the Project Site. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.14. According to EIR No. 350, The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the ancestral tribal group, did not identify any recorded Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) on or near the area regulated by the BBSP. However, it is possible that buried TCRs could be present within the area during ground-disturbing activities. With implementation of mitigation measures, it would be required to protect these resources if they are uncovered during grading activities. The discovery of buried resources within the BBSP area would not contribute cumulatively to potential TCRs impacts in the region. Consequently, impacts to TCRs would not be cumulatively considerable. - 36- The proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts would be addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant: TCR-1: Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the Project applicant/developer shall retain qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction- related ground disturbance activities. The monitor(s) shall be approved by the Tribal Representatives of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and be present on-site during construction that involve ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall be responsible for the following activities during the monitoring, as appropriate: • Complete monitoring logs on a daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. • If the monitoring site has hazardous materials concerns, the monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural resources. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) 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? d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? - 37- This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • 39 Commons Development Sewer Analysis GHD, April 18, 2020 (Appendix E) Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the impacts to utilities and service systems related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.15. Wastewater. The proposed Project would be served by the Anaheim Public Works Department for wastewater (sanitary sewer) collection service. Wastewater generated in the City is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The City’s existing sewer network in the vicinity of the proposed Project consists of an 8-inch sewer main on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, an 8-inch sewer main on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a 15-inch sewer main near the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. The three parallel sewer mains flow westerly and converge at Manhole SW012307. The sewer main continues westerly as an 18-inch main after the confluence until reaching the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue. However, the proposed Project would connect to Manhole SW012304. Figure 2.1: Study Area, in Appendix E, shows the existing sewer networks that the Project site would be served by. Appendix E studied the 39 Commons DDA in its entirety which includes the proposed Project, conservatively estimating 85 dwelling units (du), with a generation factor of 215 gallons per day (gpd)/du, with a sewer loading capacity of 18,275 gpd. The study demonstrates that the 39 Commons development, in its entirety would introduce a steady state loading of 126,275 gpd, where 14% would originate from residential users. The analysis concludes that the 39 Commons Development in its entirety would not create any hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Project site. In addition, as previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Impacts would be addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. Water: APUD, Water Services Division, operates the City’s water production and distribution system. The City of Anaheim 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA). The UWMPA requires every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 AF of water annually to prepare, adopt, and file a UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years in the years ending in zero and five. The 2015 UWMP provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five (5)-year increments and identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future demands. The demand analysis must identify supply reliability under three hydrologic conditions: a normal year, a single-year, and multiple dry years. The City’s service area is approximately 49.63 square miles and includes approximately 63,800 municipal connections. The City relies on a combination of approximately 70 percent local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) and 30 percent imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project supplies provided by the Municipal Water District (MWD). The current water system includes eight (8) import connections to MWD, 18 active wells, 14 water reservoirs, and approximately 752 miles of water mains. The City also maintains 14 interconnections with neighboring cities and districts to supply water during emergency situations. In 2015, the City supplied a volume of approximately 62,053 AF of water to municipal customers. In its most recent UWMP, the City determined that it would have reliable supplies to meet single-and multiple dry-year demands from 2020 through 2040, even with a six percent increase from 2015 demand totals. Total demand is expected to increase from 62,050 AF in 2020 to 67,143 AF in 2040. Demand would be met through diversified supply and water conservation measures. The UWMP also includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that describes policies that MWD and the City have in place to respond to catastrophic interruption and reduction in water supply. The proposed Project would not exceed water supplies or result in a significant increase in water demand. In addition, as previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Impacts would be addressed by mitigation set forth in MMRP No. 342. Stormwater. On-site grading and drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with the proposed site work would be required to meet the City’s and Orange County Flood Control District’s (OCFCD) flood control criteria including design discharges, - 38- design/construction standards and maintenance features. As discussed in Section X. Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Project’s runoff would be collected and conveyed via surface flow and through area drains towards three proposed curb‐inlet catch basins within the proposed private drive aisle which are equipped with a system to divert low flows to three proposed Modular Wetlands Systems (MWS) Biofiltration vaults for water quality treatment. Treated stormwater is returned to the proposed catch basins below the Dvert systems and is conveyed to the existing 24” storm drain facility within West Lincoln Avenue via proposed underground storm drain. Upon entering the public right-of-way, proposed drainage runoff would follow the existing drainage pattern of the site and drain to the existing Carbon Creek Channel. Upon entering the public right-of-way, stormwater drainage would flow through Carbon Canyon Creek, which then flows in the southwesterly direction and ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Project would not alter any drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. There are no streams or rivers on the site that would be altered by the proposed Project. Erosion and siltation impacts potentially resulting from the proposed Project would, for the most part, occur during the Project’s site preparation and grading phase. Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements, SWPPP and BMPs as they apply to the site, would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less-than- significant and no mitigation measures are required. Electrical Power: Anaheim Public Utilities (APU) provides electricity to the City of Anaheim, including the area regulated by the BBSP and the Project Site. The proposed Project would require modification and upgrades to the existing electrical facilities (e.g., underground and overhead cables, conduits, transformers, switches, high voltage lines, etc.) to accommodate new development. The electrical lines are owned by Southern California Edison (SCE), and could be moved underground as part of buildout. Implementation of the BBSP would require compliance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and would be required to coordinate with the City’s Electrical Engineering Division and comply with the City of Anaheim’s Rates, Rules, and Regulations. As previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides gas service in the City of Anaheim and has facilities throughout the City, including the area regulated by the BBSP and the Project Site. Although SCG serves the area regulated by the BBSP, change in land use from industrial and commercial uses to residential and retail would require changes in supply system. However, the improvements would occur in accordance with the SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) when the contractual agreements between the Applicant and SCG are made. The availability of natural gas service is based on present gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SCG is under the auspices of the PUC and federal regulatory agencies. Private services provide telecommunication services to the City of Anaheim, including the area regulated by the BBSP and the Project Site. Telecommunications: The proposed Project is located within an urbanized area within the City of Anaheim. As such, the area is adequately served by telecommunications facilities. The proposed Project would include on-site connections to off-site telecommunication services and facilities in the immediate area of the Project Site. Additionally, facilities and infrastructure for the various telecommunication providers are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. The proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required. Solid Waste: Solid waste services in the City are provided by Republic Services, a private recycling and non-hazardous solid waste hauler. Republic Services is responsible for all residential, commercial, and industrial waste and recycling services. Solid waste is disposed of in Orange County Waste and Recycling Landfills. Currently, there are three active landfills in the County: Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and Prima Deshecha. The landfills are among the largest statewide and receive more than four million tons of waste annually. Olinda-Alpha Landfill in the City of Brea accepts up to 8,000 tons per day (tpd) and has a remaining capacity of 34,200,000 cubic yards (cy). Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine accepts up to 11,500 tpd and has a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cy. Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano accepts up to 4,000 tpd and has a remaining capacity of 134,300,000 cy. The proposed Project would construct 65 townhomes and is an implementation of the Phase I component of the 39 Commons DDA. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) soil waste generation rates, a residential development produces approximately 12.23 pounds/household/day. The proposed Project would produce an estimated 0.4 tons per day. Furthermore, compliance with the existing recycling and disposal programs would further ensure proposed Project does not exceed service levels at applicable landfills. The proposed Project would result in a less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. - 39- The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant: USS-2: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permits, whichever occurs first, the developer/applicant shall pay sewer impact fees per the updated the current Combined West Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. described in Mitigation Measure USS-1. USS-3: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, building or water permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Public Utilities Department for review. The Public Utilities Department shall review the location of each Project to determine if it is an area served by potentially deficient water facilities, as identified in the latest updated water study for the BBSP. In such a case, the property owner/developer shall perform a hydraulic analysis for the existing and proposed public water improvements to determine if the Project domestic or fire flow demands will increase flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate water master plan study for the area or if the Project will create a deficiency in an existing water mains. The hydraulic water analysis for the existing and proposed public water improvements shall incorporate the anticipated flow, pressure, and any other information specific for the Project to determine the conditions for final design. With the hydraulic water analysis, the property owner/developer shall submit the results of a field fire flow test and provide a written response from Anaheim Fire Department confirming the fire flow requirements for the Project. The property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department and City Attorney’s Office per Anaheim’s most current Water Rules and Regulations. XX. WILDFIRE – Would the Project Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Narrative Summary: No Impact. EIR No 350 did not analyze Wildfire as it was previously approved before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the new standard. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for the City of Anaheim, the Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area. The Project site is in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone within a local responsibility area. The Project site is flat and does not have a slope or other features that could exacerbate wildfire risks. The proposed Project would tie into existing infrastructure that currently serves the Project Site. Project implementation would not result in the new construction, installation, or maintenance of new infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. The proposed Project construction would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project is located in a developed, urbanized area, and surrounded primarily by commercial and residential uses. There are no slopes or hills near the Project site that would have the potentially expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. - 40- XX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact 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? 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)? c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed impacts related to the implementation of the BBSP and found that implementation of the BBSP could degrade the quality of the environment and may result in cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous conditions, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, mitigation measures have been adopted to reduce the impacts. As previously noted, the 3.63-acre Project Site is within the Mixed Use Medium Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 130 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 65 du of the Project Site, implementing Phase I of the 39 Commons DDA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. - 41- Appendix A – Geotechnical Study 21700 Copley Drive Suite #200 * Diamond Bar, CA 91765 * Tel: 909-860-7777 Project No. GEN 20-27E February 19, 2020 Ms. Brenda Bischak Toffoli Investments, LLC 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 39 COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APN 258-031-05 Anaheim, California Dear Ms. Bischak: Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience (Tetra Tech) is pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed 39 Commons Residential Development Project located northeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue in the City of Anaheim, California. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and to provide recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development including relocation of landfill elements in conflict with the proposed development. This report includes a brief project description, discussions regarding field and laboratory investigative efforts, geology and subsurface conditions, and geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed developments. The appendices to the report include logs of borings, results of geophysical survey, results of laboratory tests, and liquefaction analyses. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Yonglang Li, Ph.D., P.E. Project Engineer Shannon Siegel, P.G. Project Geologist 03-31-21 Doug Bell, G.E. Supervising Engineer Distribution: Addressee (4 hardcopies + pdf by email thatbrendabischak@gmail.com) Filename: 39 Commons Residential Development RPT 2020-02-19.docx Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 2 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................. 4 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................. 5 4.1. FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................ 5 4.2. LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 6 5. GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................. 7 5.1. UNDOCUMENTED FILL ..................................................................................................... 7 5.2. LANDFILL REFUSE ........................................................................................................... 7 5.3. NATIVE ALLUVIUM .......................................................................................................... 7 5.4. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................... 7 6. ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY ........................................................................................... 9 6.1. GENERAL SEISMIC SETTING ............................................................................................. 9 6.2. HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES ............................................................................................ 9 6.3. SEISMIC HAZARDS AND POTENTIAL FOR SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE ............................. 10 6.4. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT .............................................. 11 7. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 13 7.1. GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 13 7.2. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ............................................................................................ 13 7.3. SITE PREPARATION ........................................................................................................ 14 7.4. TEMPORARY SLOPE AND TRENCH EXCAVATIONS .......................................................... 15 7.5. SETBACK ZONES ............................................................................................................ 16 7.6. MAT FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 16 7.7. FOOTING FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................ 18 7.8. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ...................................................................................... 20 7.9. CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE ....................................................................................... 20 7.10. PAVEMENT SECTIONS .................................................................................................... 21 7.11. SOIL CORROSION ........................................................................................................... 23 7.12. DRAINAGE CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 23 8. GENERAL SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 25 9. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ........................................... 27 9.1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 27 9.2. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ........................................................................................ 27 10. LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 28 11. SELECTED REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 29 Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Figures Figure 1 – Project Location Map Figure 2 – Project Layout and Boring Location Map Figure 3 – Geologic Map Figure 4 – Historic High Groundwater Depth Map Figure 5 – Regional Faults and Seismicity Map Figure 6 – Seismic Hazards Zone Map Appendices Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Borings Appendix B – Geophysical Survey Results Appendix C – Results of Laboratory Testing Appendix D – Liquefaction Analyses Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 1 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience’s (Tetra Tech) geotechnical engineering evaluation and design recommendations for the proposed 39 Commons Residential Development Project located northeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue in the City of Anaheim, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development and relocation of landfill elements in conflict with the proposed development. This report summarizes the data collected and presents our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical design recommendations. This report addresses the geotechnical aspects of the development only. Evaluation of environmental aspects of the project (e.g., characterization of refuse, landfill gas collection system, groundwater monitoring, and methane control, etc.) is also being performed by Tetra Tech and will be summarized under separate cover. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 2 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Tetra Tech’s scope of services for this project consisted of the following tasks: Review of provided and in-house available background data from nearby projects, geotechnical literature, geologic maps, and seismic hazard maps relevant to the subject site. A site reconnaissance to observe the site conditions and to select boring locations. Notification of Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to drilling for clearance of underground utilities. A subsurface evaluation, including the excavating, logging, and sampling of 8 exploratory borings to depths ranging from about 11.5 to 51.5 feet. Soil samples obtained from the borings were transported to a geotechnical laboratory for visual classification and testing. A supplemental subsurface evaluation including the 3 hand-dug excavations to a depth of 2 feet and 10 exploratory borings to depths ranging from about 12 to 20 feet to identify the limits of landfill refuse and locations of landfill elements that are in conflict with the proposed development and determine the feasibility of relocating these landfill elements. Conducting a geophysical survey along the northern boundary of the project site to aid in the delineation of the limits of landfill elements such as landfill gas trench collector and gas line. Laboratory testing of selected samples recovered from the exploratory borings to evaluate geotechnical properties of the on-site soils. Engineering evaluation of the collected geotechnical data to develop geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed structures. This work including the following items: An evaluation of general subsurface conditions and description of types, distribution, and engineering characteristics of subsurface materials. An evaluation of the liquefaction potential and dynamic settlement of the on-site granular materials. A qualitative evaluation of the suitability of on-site soils for the support of structures. Recommendations for design of mat foundations including allowable bearing capacity, lateral resistance, and settlement estimates. Recommendations for design of footing foundations including allowable bearing capacity, lateral resistance, and settlement estimates. Recommendations for design of concrete slab-on-grade at the site. Determination of seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code. Recommendations for asphalt and Portland cement concrete pavement sections at the site. An evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils to buried concrete and steel. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 3 Preparation of this report, including the provision of reference maps and illustrations, a summary of the collected data, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 4 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located northeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue in the City of Anaheim, California. The approximate location of the project site is shown on Figure 1 – Project Location Map. The proposed development at the site will consist of development of a 65-unit multi-family residential complex with associated parking and landscape features. Historically, portions of the project site have been occupied by a trailer park. The project site is currently a vacant lot with a stormwater retention basin spanning a majority of the proposed development space. Based on the preliminary grading plan prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. dated August 20, 2019, the existing site needs to be raised by about 2 to 8 feet to reach design finish grades. A closed landfill, designated as the Anderson Pit, is located north of the proposed residential development area. The Anderson Pit was primarily utilized for disposal of construction and demolition debris and extended to a depth of about 45 to 50 feet (GPI, 2010). Based on the field explorations and geophysical survey, the following landfill elements were identified at the site in conflict with the proposed buildings and need to be abandoned and relocated: A landfill gas interceptor trench about 4 feet wide and 6 to 8 feet deep. A buried landfill gas line located in the northern portion of the project site. Four gas probes GP-25 through GP-28 One groundwater monitoring well MW-14 The approximate locations of these landfill elements are presented in Figure 2 – Project Layout and Boring Location Map. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 5 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4.1. Field Exploration Exploratory Borings The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions beneath the site were explored on January 16 and 17, 2020 and included drilling, logging, and sampling of 8 hollow stem auger borings (B-1 through B-8). The locations of these borings are shown on Figure 2 – Project Layout and Boring Location Map. Prior to initiation of the field exploration program, a field reconnaissance was conducted to observe surface conditions and to mark the locations of the planned subsurface exploration. Underground Service Alert was notified of the exploratory boring locations at least 48 hours prior to drilling. A boring permit was obtained from the City of Anaheim, Public Utilities, Environmental Services. The hollow stem auger borings B-1 through B-8 were excavated using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. Borings B-1 and B-3 were advanced to a depth of about 51.5 feet. Borings B-2 and B-4 through B-6 were advanced to a depth of about 31.5 feet. Borings B- 7 and B-8 were advanced to a depth of about 11.5 feet. Soil boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Both bulk and driven (SPT and ring-type) samples were retrieved at selected depths during drilling. The driven samples were collected utilizing a 140-pound hammer with a drop of 30 inches driving a Standard Penetration Test sampler or modified California-type sampler in general accordance with ASTM D1586. A supplemental field exploration consisting of 3 hand dug excavations to expose the landfill gas trench collector (HA-1 through HA-3) and 10 exploratory hollow stem auger borings (EB-1 through EB-10) to investigate the limits of landfill refuse was performed on January 24, 2020. These hollow stem borings were drilled to depths ranging from about 12 to 20 feet. The approximate locations of these borings are indicated on Figure 2. Soil samples were not collected from these explorations. All borings were surface-logged by a geologist, who also prepared the recovered samples for subsequent reference and laboratory testing. All the borings were backfilled with cement- bentonite grout at the completion of drilling. Geophysical Survey A non-invasive geophysical survey was conducted on January 17, 2020 to identify the landfill elements such as landfill gas interceptor trench and buried landfill gas line. The survey was conducted using an EM-31 electromagnetic induction instrument, a Fisher TW-6 M-scope shallow focus metal detector, and ground penetrating radar (GPR) equipment. A NavCom DGPS unit was utilized to couple measurements to the corresponding geographic coordinates and record survey data to create a site survey map. Approximate locations of the landfill gas interceptor trench and buried landfill gas line are delineated on the survey maps included in Appendix B. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 6 4.2. Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the borings to aid in the classification of soils and to evaluate pertinent engineering properties of the foundation soils. The following tests were performed: In-situ Moisture Content and Dry Density, ASTM D2937; Grain Size Distribution, ASTM D6913; Percent Passing #200, ASTM D1140; Atterberg Limits, ASTM D4318; Consolidation, ASTM D2435; Direct Shear, ASTM D3080; R-value test ASTM D2844; and Corrosivity series (pH & Resistivity, Sulfate, and Chloride). Laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM Standards and California Test Methods. Results of all laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C. For ease of referral to the soil profile, selected laboratory results, including moisture content and dry density determinations, have also been included on the boring logs in Appendix A. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 7 5. GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Regionally, the site is located within in the coastal portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, that extends northwesterly from Baja California into the Los Angeles Basin to the San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains, and westerly into the offshore area that includes the southern Channel Islands. Locally, the site is located within the coastal plain of the Los Angeles basin. The coastal plain is a nearly flat to gently sloping alluvial fan surface comprised primarily of Quaternary sediments deposited by the Santa Ana, Los Angeles, and San Gabriel Rivers (Figure 3 – Geologic Map). The subsurface soils encountered during the field explorations on January 16, 17, and 24, 2020 generally consisted of fill material overlying native alluvial deposits. In the northernmost portion of the exploration, refuse was encountered in two borings. The bottom of the stormwater retention basin exposed native alluvium, with a minor amount of disturbed surficial material. Generalized descriptions of the encountered units are provided below. Detailed descriptions of the encountered units are presented in Appendix A – Boring Logs. 5.1. Undocumented Fill Fill was encountered in 5 of the 8 borings advanced within the limits of the proposed structures and all the 10 borings drilled north of the residential building area. The fill thickness varied from about 6.5 to 10 feet. The fill soils generally consisted of brown, loose to dense silty sand and clayey sand with scattered gravel. Traces of concrete and asphalt material were observed in the fill. 5.2. Landfill Refuse Landfill refuse was encountered in Borings EB-7 and EB-9 below the landfill cover at a depth of about 10 to 11 feet. The landfill refuse extended in Borings EB-7 and EB-9 to depths of about 18 and 16 feet, respectively. The landfill refuse generally consisted of large pieces of concrete and asphalt debris as well as some sheet plastic. Landfill refuse was not encountered in the remaining borings. 5.3. Native Alluvium Native alluvial soils were encountered below the fill soils or landfill refuse and typically consisted of olive to greyish brown, loose to very dense, well or poorly graded sand with silt and silty sand, and firm to stiff sandy silt and lean clay. The material generally became wet or saturated at a depth of about 20 to 25 feet below ground surface. 5.4. Groundwater At the time of our exploration, groundwater was encountered in borings B-1 through B-6 at depths ranging from about 20 to 43 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining borings B-7, B-8 and EB-1 through EB-10, which were drilled to depths of about 11.5 to 20 feet. Mapping by the State of California (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 8 1998) for the Anaheim 7.5-minute Quadrangle indicates that the historic high groundwater level at the site is about 10 feet below the ground surface (see Figure 4 -– Historic High Groundwater Depth Map). It should be noted that groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations, rainfall, irrigation, or other factors. Evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this study. Groundwater is not anticipated to impact grading operations. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 9 6. ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY 6.1. General Seismic Setting The Southern California region is known to be seismically active. Earthquakes occurring within approximately 60 miles of the site are generally capable of generating ground shaking of engineering significance to the proposed construction. The project area is located in the general proximity of several active and potentially active faults, as shown on Figure 5. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene period (approximately the last 11,000 years). The closest active faults to the site include the Puente Hills Fault which is a blind thrust fault with no surficial expression, known to underly portions of the Los Angeles Basin approximately 3 miles north of the site, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 8 miles southwest of the site and the Whittier Fault, located approximately 9 miles north-northeast of the site. The San Andreas Fault is located about 41 miles to the northeast of the site. The regional fault and seismicity map is presented in Figure 5. 6.2. Historical Earthquakes The project area is located in the general proximity of several active and potentially active faults, as shown on Figure 5. A large amount of seismic activity and associated events with their epicenters have been recorded surrounding the project site. However, only relatively few earthquake epicenters have been recorded in the immediate area of the subject site. Notable historic earthquakes in Southern California of significance to the project are listed in Table 1. The most significant historic earthquake near the project site was the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Table 1 Historic Earthquakes in Southern California Earthquake Name Year Fault and Fault Type Earthquake Magnitude* Epicenter Latitude Longitude Ridgecrest 2019 TBD (right-lateral strike-slip) 7.1 Mw 35.77°N -117.60°W Chino Hills 2008 Whittier- Elsinore Fault (right-lateral strike-slip) 5.4 Mw 33.953°N -117.761°W Northridge 1994 Northridge Thrust (Blind Thrust) (a.k.a. Pico Thrust) 6.7 Mw 34.21°N -118.54°W Sierra Madre 1991 Clamshell-Sawpit Canyon Fault (reverse) 5.8 ML 34.20°N -118.14°W Pasadena 1988 Raymond Fault (left lateral strike-slip) 5.0 Mw 34.14°N -118.13°W Whittier Narrows 1987 Puente Hills Fault (blind thrust) 5.9 ML 34.06°N -118.08°W San Fernando 1971 San Fernando Fault (thrust) 6.5-6.7 Mw 34.42°N -118.37°W Torrance-Gardena 1941 Palos Verdes Fault (right-reverse) 4.8 ML 33.82°N 33.78°N -118.22°W -118.25°W Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 10 Earthquake Name Year Fault and Fault Type Earthquake Magnitude* Epicenter Latitude Longitude Long Beach 1933 Newport-Inglewood Fault (right- lateral strike-slip) 6.4 Mw 33.63°N -118.00°W North San Jacinto 1923 San Jacinto Fault (right- lateral strike-slip) 6.3 ML 34.00°N -117.24°W San Jacinto 1918 San Jacinto Fault (right- lateral strike-slip) 6.7 Mw 33.65°N -117.43°W Elsinore 1910 Elsinore Fault (right- lateral strike-slip) 6 ML 33.75°N -117.45°W Fort Tejon 1857 South Central Segment of the San Andreas Fault (right- lateral strike-slip) 7.9 Mw 35.43°N -120.19°W *Mw refers to Moment Magnitude scale ML refers to Local Magnitude scale 6.3. Seismic Hazards and Potential for Surface Fault Rupture The engineering seismology study for the subject site included reviewing local and regional fault maps and the review of historical earthquake data. Specifically, the following engineering seismology issues were addressed: 6.3.1. Seismic Hazard Zones Maps of seismic hazard zones are issued by the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)) in accordance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act enacted in April 1997. The intent of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to provide for a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities and counties in developing compliance requirements to protect the public health and safety from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. Based on the review of the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CDMG, 1998), the proposed development is located within an area identified by the State of California as subject to the hazard of liquefaction, but is not located within an area identified to be subject to the hazard of landslide (Figure 6). 6.3.2. Surface Fault Rupture Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones were reviewed to evaluate the location of the project site relative to active fault zones. Earthquake Fault Zones (known as Special Studies Zones prior to 1994) have been established in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act enacted in 1972. The Act directs the State Geologist to delineate the regulatory zones that encompass surface traces of active faults that have a potential for future surface fault rupture. The Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 11 purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development near active faults in order to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. The site is not located within a designated Earthquake Fault Zone for fault surface rupture hazard. The surface traces of any active or potentially active faults are not known to pass directly through or project towards the site. Neither our field exploration nor literature review disclosed an active fault trace projecting to the ground surface in the project area. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low. 6.4. Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction of soils can be caused by ground shaking during earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, relatively clean granular soils and low plasticity silts are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement, whereas the stability of the majority of clayey silts, silty clays and clays are not typically adversely affected by ground shaking. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in saturated or near-saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than about 50 feet. 6.4.1. Soil Description Evaluation of liquefaction potential for the on-site materials was performed based on soil stratigraphy encountered in our field explorations. The on-site soil materials encountered during our field exploration generally consisted of fill soils (about 6.5 to 10 feet of loose to dense silty sand (SM) and clayey sand (SC) with scattered gravel), overlying native alluvium materials that predominately consisted of medium dense to dense well or poorly graded sand with silt (SP, SW, SP-SM) and silty sand (SM), and firm to stiff sandy silt (ML) and lean clay (CL). 6.4.2. Groundwater Level Groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 through B-6 at depths varying from about 20 to 43 feet during our field explorations. The historical high groundwater at the site was mapped by CDMG (Anaheim Quadrangle, 1998) at a depth of about 10 feet. Therefore, a groundwater depth of 10 feet was assumed for liquefaction analyses. 6.4.3. Liquefaction Seismic Demand Based on the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps website application (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php), the mapped Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) was estimated to be equal to approximately 0.69g for a soil type D (assumed vs = 259 m/s), for a ground motion corresponding to the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). From the Unified Hazard Tool website (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazard/interactive/) this ground motion corresponds to a predominant earthquake magnitude of Mw 7.3 located at a distance of approximately 10.3 km. These ground motion parameters were used in the liquefaction analyses. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 12 6.4.4. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential The liquefaction potential of cohesionless (sandy) soils was evaluated based on the SPT blowcounts and laboratory test results utilizing procedures published in Youd and Idriss (2001) consensus publication on liquefaction evaluation, and as recommended in the CDMG Special Publication 117A (CDMG, 2008). The analyses based on standard penetration test (SPT) considered the energy ratio correction factor CE of 1.3. This ratio is based on Table 5.2 of the Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (SCEC, 1999). For an automatic trip hammer the table suggests the energy ratio correction factor range from 0.9 to 1.6 (modified from Youd and Idriss, 1997). Consequently, the selected design energy ratio correction factor of 1.3 is an average and reflects a hammer efficiency of approximately 78 percent, which is consistent with our experience with similar equipment. The blowcounts recorded for soils driven with the 3-inch O.D. California Sampler with brass rings were converted to an equivalent SPT blowcounts using a reduction factor of 0.7. Borehole diameter correction factor CB of 1 based on the internal diameter of the hollow stem auger system used for the drilling was utilized in our liquefaction evaluation. Results of liquefaction analyses of granular soils are summarized in Table 2 in the next section of this report and presented in Appendix D. The analyses indicated that the on-site saturated well or poorly graded sand with silt (SW, SP, SP-SM) and silty sand (SM) is susceptible to liquefaction. 6.4.5. Dynamic Settlement Dynamic settlement can occur in both dry and saturated sands when loose to medium-dense granular soils undergo volumetric changes during ground shaking. Dynamic settlement can occur in saturated sands due to liquefaction or in dry sands due to densification of the soil matrix. The potential settlement due to soil liquefaction was estimated using the procedures outlined by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). The potential for dry dynamic settlement was calculated according to the procedures outlined by Pradel (1998a and 1998b). Table 2 presents the results of liquefaction analyses and dynamic settlement: Table 2 Results of Liquefaction Analyses Boring No. Assumed Groundwater Depth Liquefiable Zone Depth FSliq Liquefaction Settlement Settlement of Dry Sands Combined Dynamic Settlement (ft) (ft) – (inch) (inch) (in) B-1 10 30 – 35 0.38 0.9 1.2 2.1 B-3 10 10 – 15 20 – 40 0.19 – 0.83 3.5 0.1 3.6 The dynamic settlement was estimated to vary from about 2.1 to 3.6 inches. The dynamic settlement analyses are presented in Appendix D. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 13 7. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1. General Based upon the results of the field exploration and engineering analyses, it is Tetra Tech’s opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design plans and implemented during construction. Mat foundations established in competent engineered fills or native soils may be adopted for support of the proposed buildings. The primary considerations identified from a geotechnical standpoint include: The presence of loose to medium dense layers of granular soils which are susceptible to liquefaction under design earthquake events. The estimated seismically induced total settlements varied from about 2.1 to 3.6 inches. The presence of undocumented fill varying in thickness from about 6.5 to 10 feet within portions of the site. All the undocumented fill and other unsuitable materials within the footprints of the building areas should be removed prior to placement of engineered fills to achieve the design finish grades. The presence of a closed landfill within the proposed parking area in the north portion of the project site. The potential total and differential settlements of the underlying landfill refuse may impact the performance of the proposed pavement. The presence of landfill elements including a landfill gas interceptor trench, a buried landfill gas line, 4 gas probes, and one groundwater monitoring well that are in conflict with the proposed structures. These landfill elements need to be abandoned and relocated. Based on the laboratory testing, the on-site soils are not expected to cause injurious sulfate attack on concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 2,500 psi. Based on results of laboratory testing and our local experience with similar soils, the on-site soils are expected to exhibit moderate corrosion potential to ferrous metals. Expansion potential of the on-site soils are very low. The design recommendations presented below reflect these conditions. The design recommendations presented below are based on Tetra Tech’s current understanding of the project. Once the project configuration is finalized and the design is complete, Tetra Tech should review the plans and specifications to evaluate if the geotechnical design recommendations have been incorporated as intended. 7.2. Clearing and Grubbing The surface should be cleared of any pavement, structures, vegetation, trash and debris, prior to commencement of the earthwork. Any subterranean installations not to be preserved, such as pipes, utility collectors, tanks, landfill gas trench collectors, landfill gas line, landfill gas probes, groundwater monitoring wells, etc., should be abandoned in accordance with applicable regulations. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 14 7.3. Site Preparation 7.3.1. Overexcavation Based on the preliminary site grading plan prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. dated August 20, 2019, the existing grades need to be raised by about 2 to 8 feet to reach the design finish grades. In addition, undocumented fill, ranging from about 6.5 to 10 feet thick, was encountered in portions of the site (see Figure 2 for fill depths at each boring locations). Prior to the placement of any fills, removal of undocumented existing fills and other unsuitable materials should be performed in accordance with the recommendations below. All the undocumented fills and unsuitable materials within the proposed building footprints should be overexcavated and recompacted. To the extent practicable, the zone of overexcavation should extend outside the building footprints for a horizontal distance of at least 5 feet. All the undocumented fills and unsuitable materials within the proposed pavement areas should be overexcavated and recompacted to a depth of at least 3 feet below the existing grades, or to uniform acceptable soils, whichever is deeper. To the extent practicable, the zone of overexcavation should extend outside the perimeter of the pavement for a horizontal distance of at least 3 feet. It is acknowledged that complete removal of fills within the northern parking area will not be feasible due to the presence of the existing landfill. For project areas directly underlain by alluvial soils, the site should be overexcavated at least 2 feet below the existing grades, or to uniform acceptable soils, whichever is deeper. It is recognized that the existing landfill gas interceptor trench and buried gas line are in conflict with the proposed buildings and therefore will be abandoned and relocated. Removal of undocumented fill in this area may be coordinated with the abandonment of the landfill gas interceptor trench and buried gas line. The actual removal depths and limits of the undocumented fills should be confirmed by the Geotechnical Engineer in the field during site grading. 7.3.2. Fill Placement After completion of the removals, the exposed overexcavation grades should be probed and accepted by the Geotechnical Engineer, and the soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to a minimum of 110 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as evaluated by the latest version of ASTM D1557. Localized zones of loose and/or unstable soils may be encountered during the grading operations at the subgrade level and should be overexcavated and recompacted. All fill placement associated with the replacement of the overexcavated soils, fill placed to achieve finish grade or subgrade, or utility trench backfill should be moisture-conditioned to at least 110 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as evaluated by the latest version of ASTM D1557. The upper one foot of soils below Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 15 pavements and any flatwork should be processed and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D1557). Excavated on-site soils may be re-used as compacted fill provided they are free of organics, deleterious materials, debris and particles over 3 inches in largest dimension. Locally, particles up to 6 inches in largest dimension may be incorporated in the fill soils based on specific approval and placement recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer during grading. Any soil materials (including general fill, structural backfill or base course materials) imported to the site should be sampled, tested, and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to arrival on- site. In general, any soils imported to the site for use as fill should be predominantly granular and have an Expansion Index less than 30. Additional recommendations for site grading are provided in the “General Site Grading Recommendations” section of this report. 7.3.3. Construction Observation The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the excavation and fill placement progress so that appropriate modifications to the design may be recommended, if necessary, should conditions encountered during grading differ from the design assumptions. 7.4. Temporary Slope and Trench Excavations The on-site soils are not expected to pose unusual excavation difficulties, and therefore, conventional earth-moving equipment may be used. Localized sloughing/raveling of exposed soil intervals should be anticipated. All trench excavations should be performed in accordance with CalOSHA regulations. The on-site soils may be considered a Type C soil, as defined the current CalOSHA soil classification. Unsurcharged excavations: Sides of temporary, unsurcharged excavations less than 20 feet deep should be sloped back at an inclination of 1.5(H):1(V) or flatter. Where space for sloped sides is not available, shoring will be necessary. This office can provide appropriate shoring recommendations, once the excavation layout is known. Surcharge setback recommendations: Stockpiled (excavated) materials should be placed no closer than 4 feet from the top of the trench. A greater setback may be necessary when considering surcharge loads such as heavy vehicles, concrete trucks and cranes. Tetra Tech should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established for the used equipment. Alternatively, a shoring system may be designed to allow reduction in the setback distance. Personnel from Tetra Tech should observe the excavation progress so that appropriate modifications to the excavation design may be recommended, if necessary, due to encountered conditions differing from the design assumptions. The bottom of any trenches that are required for any underground utilities and piping should be kept outside a zone defined by a 1(H): 1(V) plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 16 footing. Backfill materials and procedures shall conform to the recommendations provided in the “Site Preparation” and “General Site Grading” sections of this report. If any piping needs to be placed within the zone of influence, the pipes should be designed to account for the increased surcharge which results from the applied footing pressures, and the pipes within that zone should be protected with concrete encasement or other suitable form of protection. The piping and encasement should be designed to withstand differential settlements of up to 1 inch in relation to the area outside of the zone of influence. 7.5. Setback Zones Based on the results of field explorations, landfill elements including an existing landfill gas interceptor trench, a buried landfill gas line, and 4 gas probes were located in the north portion of the project site, and are currently in conflict with the proposed structures. From a geotechnical standpoint, it is recommended that these landfill elements be abandoned and relocated at least 15 feet north of the proposed buildings. Abandonment and relocation of these landfill elements should also be performed in accordance with applicable regulations. The relocation of the landfill elements is pending verification of lack of refuse at the new locations during grading operations. 7.6. Mat Foundations In cases where settlement due to liquefaction is not excessive, structural design to mitigate the settlement is often utilized. According to Administrative Manual GS 045.0 – Liquefaction and Lateral Spread prepared by County of Los Angeles, Public Works dated October 1, 2014, structural mitigation is acceptable for up to 4 inches of total seismically induced settlement and ground modification for liquefaction mitigation is not required. Based on the estimated total seismically induced settlement varying from about 2.1 to 3.6 inches, it is recommended that the proposed multi-family buildings be supported on mat foundations. A mat foundation system can favorably mitigate the effects of seismically induced differential settlements. 7.6.1. Geotechnical Design Parameters Design of the mat foundations should be performed by the Structural Engineer in accordance with 2019 California Building Code. Geotechnical parameters for design of the mat foundations are provided in Table 3 below. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 17 Table 3 Geotechnical Design Parameters (Mat Foundations) Allowable Bearing Pressure Average allowable bearing pressure = 1,000 psf The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient live loads from wind and seismic loading. Estimated Settlement Approximately 1-inch total settlement (static). Approximately 0.5-inch differential settlement (static). Mat foundations should also be designed for seismically-induced total settlement up to about 4 inches and differential settlement up to about 2 inches. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction For design of mat foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction 𝑘ଵ of 150 pci derived for a bearing plate with 1 foot x 1 foot dimensions may be used. For the on-site sandy soils, the modulus of subgrade reaction for the design of a concrete element of a given dimension can be calculated as: )5.1 5.01 ()2 1(2 1 L B B Bkk Where B and L is the governing width and length of the element in feet, but no more than 14 times the thickness of the mat foundation. Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.35 for mass concrete on soils 0.15 for mass concrete underlain by a moisture vapor barrier Allowable Lateral Passive Resistance 160 pcf equivalent fluid density. The passive earth pressure value incorporates a Factor of Safety of 2. The total allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the friction resistance and passive resistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering transient wind or seismic loading. 7.6.2. Control of Moisture Vapor Migration through Mat Foundation Tetra Tech does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. However, to assist with the selection of the appropriate slab underlayment system, Table 4 below provides alternatives for control of moisture vapor transmission through concrete floor slab support placed on a properly prepared subgrade. The provided alternatives are based on local experience and may be considered appropriate for standard applications. If moisture vapor transmission is considered a risk to use and operation of the proposed structure, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction and to provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed appropriate. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 18 Table 4 Alternatives for Control of Moisture Vapor Migration through Concrete Slab Objective Recommendation “Best” protection against vapor intrusion Concrete floor slab-on-grade placed directly on a plastic membrane 10 mils in thickness1 (ACI 302.1R-06). The membrane should be placed on at least 2 inches of dry silty sand2. The dry silty sand should be separated from the underlying capillary break layer by non-woven geotextile, Mirafi 140N or equivalent. The geotextile should be placed on at least 4 inches of ¾-inch crushed rock3 or clean gravel4 to act as a capillary break. “Better” protection against vapor intrusion Concrete floor slab-on-grade placed directly on a plastic membrane 10 mils in thickness1 (ACI 302.1R-96). The membrane should be placed on at least 2 inches of silty sand2. Standard protection against vapor intrusion 2 inches of dry silty sand2; placed over plastic membrane 10 mils in thickness. The membrane should be placed on at least 2 inches of silty sand2. 1 If additional protection is desired, the plastic membrane may be replaced with a 10-mil thick moisture vapor retarder that meets the requirements of ASTM E 1745 Class C (for example, Stego Wrap or similar). 2 The silty sand should have a gradation between approximately 15 and 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and a plasticity index (PI) of less than 4. 3 The ¾-inch crushed rock should conform to Section 200-1.2 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). 4 The gravel should contain less than 10 percent of material passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. 7.6.3. Construction Observations The subgrade materials should be adequately compacted prior to the placement of concrete. The materials should be dry or moist and not be wetted or saturated prior to the placement of concrete. Care should be taken during placement of the concrete to prevent displacement of the subgrade materials. The concrete should be allowed to cure properly prior to placing vinyl or other moisture- sensitive floor covering. To evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations, mat excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and be clean of loosened soil and debris before placing steel or concrete. If soft or loose soils or other unsatisfactory materials are encountered, such materials should be removed and replaced with compacted fill prior to pouring the mat foundation. 7.7. Footing Foundations Conventional continuous / spread footing foundations for lightly loaded perimeter walls and ancillary structures may be founded on engineered fille prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation Section of this report. Recommendations for the design and construction of footing foundations are presented below. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 19 7.7.1. Design Parameters Footing foundations should be designed using the geotechnical design parameters presented in Table 5. Footings should be designed and reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer and should conform to the 2019 California Building Code. In addition, the designer must locate the footings so that they will be spaced at a safe distance from each other to avoid significant overlapping of their zone of influence. Table 5 Geotechnical Design Parameters (Isolated and Continuous Footing Foundations) Dimensions At least 2 feet wide Depth of Embedment At least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade Allowable Bearing Pressure 1,500 psf The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient live loads from wind and seismic loading. Estimated Settlement Approximately 1-inch total settlement. Approximately 0.5-inch differential settlement between supports or over a distance of 30 feet. Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.35 for mass concrete on soils Allowable Lateral Passive Resistance 160 pcf equivalent fluid density. The passive resistance derived from the upper 12 inches should be neglected. The passive earth pressure value incorporates a Factor of Safety of 2. The total allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the friction resistance and passive resistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering transient wind or seismic loading. 7.7.2. Footing Observations To evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations, footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and be clean of loosened soil and debris before placing steel or concrete. If soft or loose soils or other unsatisfactory materials are encountered, such materials should be removed and replaced with compacted fill prior to pouring the footing. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 20 7.8. Seismic Design Parameters The seismic design coefficients provided below in Table 6 are based on Chapter 16 of the 2019 California Building Code. Table 6 Site Categorization and 2019 CBC Site Coefficients Site coordinates N 33.832556o and W 117.991786o Parameter Design Value Site Class (Table 20.3-1 ASCE 7) D* Short Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter Ss 1.466** 1-sec. Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter S1 0.518** Short Period Design Spectral Acceleration Parameter SDS 0.977** 1-sec. Period Design Spectral Acceleration Parameter SD1 0.629** * Based on site geology and soils encountered in the borings ** Values based on the ASCE 7-16 obtained for from SEAOC / OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool website, https:// seismicmaps.org/. 7.9. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Based on the soil classification, the on-site soils were anticipated to have a very low Expansive Indices. The recommendations provided in the section of “Site Preparation” and in this section are intended to provide a firm bearing subgrade to help reduce the occurrence of cracks in concrete and associated horizontal separation and vertical offset. However, it should be understood that the concrete slabs may still crack due to structural design or detailing, curing, or construction execution even when these recommendations are implemented. If cracking of the concrete is desired to be minimized, the reinforcement, concrete mix, and curing specifications should be designed appropriately by the Structural Engineer and Concrete Specialist. As a minimum for exterior walkways, it is recommended that narrow strip concrete slabs, such as sidewalks, be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars placed longitudinally at 24 inches on center. Wide exterior slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars placed 24 inches on center, each way. Reinforcement should extend through the control joints to reduce the potential for differential movement. Control joints should be constructed in accordance with recommendations from the Structural Engineer and Architect. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 21 7.10. Pavement Sections 7.10.1. Subgrade Preparation The subgrade preparation and fill placement in paved areas should conform to the recommendations provided in the “Site Preparation” and “General Site Grading” sections of this report. In the north portion of the project site the proposed pavement areas are probably underlain by a closed landfill. Limit and distribution of the refuse are unknown, and evaluation of the potential total and differential settlement of the underlying refuse is beyond the scope of this study. However, the landfill potential settle may have commensurate impacts on the proposed pavement. In order to mitigate the effects of differential settlement, it is recommended that one layer of high strength biaxial geogrid (e.g., Tensar BX1500 or equivalent) or triaxial geogrid (e.g., TX160 or equivalent) or high strength geotextile (Mirafi RS580i or equivalent) be installed in the pavement subgrade. The geogrid / geotextile should be installed within 8 to 10 inches below the bottom of the pavement aggregate base and extend at least 5 feet beyond the edge of the pavements, whenever feasible. 7.10.2. Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design For preliminary pavement design, average daily truck traffic and traffic indexes have been assumed in order to develop design pavement sections. Flexible pavement sections have been evaluated in general accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual method for flexible pavement design using a 20-year design life period. Based on the results of laboratory R-value testing on a selected bulk sample, a conservative R-value value of 20 was used for pavement design purposes. The recommended new pavement sections for various Traffic Indices are presented in Table 7 below. Table 7 Flexible Pavement Sections Location R- Value Assumed Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete (inches) Aggregate Base (inches) Full Depth Asphalt Concrete Alternative Parking / drive aisles 20 4 3.0 4.5 5.0 Light to moderate traffic 6 3.5 9.5 8.0 Moderate to heavy traffic 8 5.0 13.5 11.0 Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should conform to the Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) Sections 203-6 and 200-2, respectively. The aggregate base course should be compacted to 95 percent or more of the maximum dry density, as evaluated by the latest version of ASTM D1557. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 22 7.10.3. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Design Assuming the pavement subgrade will be prepared as recommended in this report, the following Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement sections in Table 8 may be used. It is recommended that the PCC pavement sections be placed directly on uniformly compacted subgrade soils to reduce potential for moisture infiltration and degradation of the subgrade. Optionally, the pavement sections may be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center, each way, to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Table 8 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections Category ADTT Pavement Traffic Description Section Thickness (inches) A 0 Car parking areas and access lanes Autos, pickups and panel trucks only 3.5 B 25 Bus parking areas and interior lanes Single-unit truck parking areas and interior lanes 5.5 C 300 Single-unit truck entrance and exterior lanes Multiple-unit truck entrance and exterior lanes 6.5 The average daily truck traffic (ADTT) was not available for this project as of this writing. The client or their representative should review these numbers and, if needed, contact Tetra Tech for a revised pavement section thickness design. The PCC pavement sections were designed for a theoretical 20-year design life based on the procedures suggested by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 330 (ACI 330R-01, 2001). Contraction, construction and isolation joints should be placed per ACI recommendations. The design assumes that the Portland cement concrete will have a 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture determined by the third-point method) of at least 600 psi. A modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 150 pci was assumed for the top of the compacted subgrade soils. 7.10.4. Observation The preparation of the pavement subgrade and the placement of base course and pavement sections should be observed by The Geotechnical Engineer. Careful observation is recommended to evaluate that the pavement subgrade is uniformly compacted and the recommended pavement and base course thickness are achieved. Paved areas should be properly sloped, and surface drainage facilities should be established to reduce water infiltration into the pavement subgrade. Curbing located adjacent to paved areas should be founded in the soil subgrade in order to provide a cutoff to reduce water infiltration into the base course. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 23 7.11. Soil Corrosion The corrosion potential of the on-site materials to buried steel and concrete was evaluated based on laboratory testing. Table 9 below presents the results of the corrosivity testing. Table 9 Corrosivity Test Results Location Sample Depth (feet) pH CTM 643 Minimum Resistivity CTM 643 Soluble Sulfate Content CTM 417 Soluble Chloride Content CTM 422 B-4 SK-1 0 – 5 8.6 2,742 0.0061% 0.0034% Per 2019 CBC, Section 1904.1, concrete subject to exposure to sulfates shall comply with the requirements set forth in ACI 318, Section 4.3. Based on the measured water soluble sulfate results the exposure of buried concrete to sulfate attack should be considered “not applicable”, i.e., exposure class S0 per ACI 318, Table 4.2.1. Consequently, injurious sulfate attack is not a concern for concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 2,500 psi. Per 2019 CBC, Section 1904.1, concrete reinforcement should be protected from corrosion and exposure to chlorides in accordance with ACI 318, Section 4.3. The evaluation of potential for corrosion of buried metals was based on the minimum resistivity and our experience with similar soils. The on-site soils are anticipated to likely have a “moderate” corrosion potential to buried ferrous metals. As a consequence of these conditions, we recommend that consideration be given to using plastic piping instead of metal. Alternatively, a corrosion specialist should be consulted regarding suitable types of piping and necessary protection for underground metal conduits. The corrosion potential of the on-site soils should be verified during construction for each encountered soil type. Imported fill materials should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is not more severe than assumed for the project. 7.12. Drainage Control The intent of this section is to provide general information regarding the control of surface water. The control of surface water is essential to the satisfactory performance of the building construction and site improvements. Surface water should be controlled so that conditions of uniform moisture are maintained beneath and adjacent to the structure, even during periods of heavy rainfall. The following recommendations should be considered as minimal. Ponding and areas of low flow gradients should be avoided. Paved surfaces within 10 feet from the building foundation should be provided with a gradient of at least 2 percent sloping away from improvements. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 24 Bare soil, e.g., planters, within 10 feet of the structure should be sloped away from the improvement at a gradient of 5 percent. Positive drainage devices, such as graded swales, paved ditches, and/or catch basins should be employed to accumulate and convey water to appropriate discharge points. Concrete walks and flatwork should not obstruct the free flow of surface water. Brick flatwork should be sealed by mortar or be placed over an impermeable membrane. Area drains should be recessed below grade to allow free flow of water into the basin. Enclosed raised planters should be sealed at the bottom and provided with an ample flow gradient to a drainage device. Recessed planters and landscaped areas should be provided with area inlet and subsurface drain pipes. To the extent practicable, planters should not be located adjacent to the structure. If planters are to be located adjacent to the structure, the planters should be positively sealed, should incorporate a subdrain, and should be provided with free discharge capacity to a drainage device. Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage. Wherever possible, the grade of exposed soil areas should be established above adjacent paved grades. Drainage devices and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planted areas. Gutter and downspout systems should be provided to capture discharge from roof areas. The accumulated roof water should be conveyed to an off-site disposal area by a pipe or concrete swale system. Landscape watering should be performed judiciously to preclude either soaking or desiccation of soils. The watering should be such that it just sustains plant growth without excessive infiltration. Sprinkler systems should be checked periodically to detect leakage and irrigation efforts should be reduced or halted during the rainy season. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 25 8. GENERAL SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this section is to provide general information regarding the site grading. Site grading operations should conform with applicable local building and safety codes and to the rules and regulations of those governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the subject construction. The grading contractor is responsible for notifying governmental agencies, as required, and a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer at the start of site cleanup, at the initiation of grading, and any time that grading operations are resumed after an interruption. Each step of the grading should be accepted in a specific area by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer, and where required, should be approved by the applicable governmental agencies prior to proceeding with subsequent work. The following site grading recommendations should be regarded as minimal. The site grading recommendations should be incorporated into the project plans and specifications. 1. Prior to grading, existing vegetation, trash, surface structures and debris should be removed and disposed off-site at a legal dumpsite. Any existing utility lines, or other subsurface structures which are not to be utilized, should be removed, destroyed, or abandoned in compliance with current governmental regulations. 2. Subsequent to cleanup operations, and prior to initial grading, a reasonable search should be made for subsurface obstructions and/or possible loose fill or detrimental soil types. This search should be conducted by the contractor, with advice from and under the observation of a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer. 3. Prior to the placement of fill or foundations within the building area, the site should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the section “Site Preparation” of this report. All undocumented fill or disturbed soils within the building areas should be removed and processed as recommended by the representative of the Geotechnical Engineer. 4. The exposed subgrade and/or excavation bottom should be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for conformance with the intent of the recommendations presented in this report and prior to any further processing or fill placement. It should be understood that the actual encountered conditions may warrant excavation and/or subgrade preparation beyond the extent recommended and/or anticipated in this report. 5. On-site inorganic granular soils that are free of debris or contamination are considered suitable for placement as compacted fill. Any rock or other soil fragments greater than 6 inches in size should not be placed within 5 feet of the foundation subgrade. 6. Any imported fill material required for backfill or grading should be tested and approved prior to delivery to the site. 7. Visual observations and field tests should be performed during grading by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer. This is necessary to assist the contractor in obtaining the proper Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 26 moisture content and required degree of compaction. Wherever, in the opinion of a representative of Geotechnical Engineer, an unsatisfactory condition is being created in any area, whether by cutting or filling, the work should not proceed in that area until the condition has been corrected. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 27 9. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Geotechnical review of plans and specifications and participation during construction are an integral part of the geotechnical design practice. The following sections present our recommendations relative to the review of construction documents and the monitoring of construction activities. 9.1. Plans and Specifications The design plans and specifications should be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to bidding and construction, as the geotechnical recommendations may need to be re-evaluated in the light of the actual design configuration and loads. This review is necessary to evaluate whether the recommendations contained in this report have been incorporated into the project plans and specifications as intended. 9.2. Construction Monitoring Site preparation, pile installation, and other site grading operations should be observed and tested. The subgrade soils exposed during the construction may differ from those anticipated in the preparation of this report. Continuous observation by a Geotechnical Engineer should be implemented during construction to allow for evaluation of the soil conditions as they are encountered, and to provide the opportunity to recommend appropriate revisions as needed. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 28 10. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on Tetra Tech’s review of background documents and on information obtained from field explorations and associated laboratory testing. It should be noted that this study did not evaluate the possible presence of hazardous materials on any portion of the site. Due to the limited nature of the field explorations, conditions not observed and described in this report may be present on the site. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory testing can be performed upon request. It should be understood that conditions different from those anticipated in this report may be encountered during grading operations, for example, the extent of unsuitable soil and the associated additional effort required to mitigate them. Site conditions, including groundwater level, can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites. Changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Tetra Tech has no control. Therefore, this report should be reviewed and recertified by Tetra Tech if it were to be used for a project design commencing more than one year after the date of issuance of this report. Tetra Tech’s recommendations for this site are, to a high degree, dependent upon appropriate quality control of subgrade preparation, fill placement, and foundation construction. Accordingly, the recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for Tetra Tech to observe grading operations and foundation excavations for the proposed construction. If parties other than Tetra Tech are engaged to provide such services, such parties are automatically assuming complete responsibility as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the project and are deemed concurring with the recommendations in this report and/or are obligated to provide alternative recommendations. This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Tetra Tech should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. Reliance by others on the data presented herein or for purposes other than those stated in the text is authorized only if so permitted in writing by Tetra Tech. It should be understood that such an authorization may incur additional expenses and charges. Tetra Tech has endeavored to perform its evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical professionals with experience in this area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 29 11. SELECTED REFERENCES California Building Standards Commission, 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Based on the 2018 International Building Code. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117A. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, State of California, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation for the Anaheim 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Official Map, released April 15, 1998, Scale 1:24,000. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California. C&V Consulting, Inc., 2019. Preliminary Site Grading Plan, Commons Residential Development, Anaheim, California, dated August 20, 2019. Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI), 2010. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Anaheim Westgate Center, NEC Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Project No. 2302.1, dated May 24, 2010. Jennings, C. W., and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey, Data Map No. 6, Map scale 1:750,000. Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’x60’ Quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217, version 1.0, map scale: 1:100,000. Pradel, D., 1998a, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated April, pp. 364-368. Pradel, D., 1998b, Erratum to Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated October, p. 1048. Seed, H.B., and Whitman, R.V. 1970, Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads.” ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 103-147. Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. Dated March. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 30 Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of settlement in sand due to earthquake shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113(8), p. 861-878. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M. (eds.), 1998, Summary Report in Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, pp. 1-40. Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report of NCEER 1996 and 1998 NCEER/SF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated April, pp. 297-313. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 Figures CEMEX – ROCKFIELD AGGREGATE PLANT SITE SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 CEM 19-23E DEC 2019 TAC DML 21700 Copley Drive, Suite 200, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 TEL 909.860.7777 www.tetratech.com 0 1 2mi Millerton LakeFriant Project Location Map 39 Commons Residential Development – Anaheim, CA GEN 20-27E February 2020 MAS YL 21700 Copley Drive #200, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phone: (909) 860-7777 Fax: (909) 860-8017 900 ft Be a c h B l v d . V a n N u y s B l v d Reference: Google Earth Pro (2016) 0 1000 Feet500 Feet SITE Lincoln Ave. FIGURE 1 GP-25 Existing Gas Interceptor Trench Initial Hollow Stem Auger Borings (2020) Existing Gas Line GP-26GP-27GP-28 GP-25Gas Probe EB-10 (12’) Supplemental Hollow Stem Auger Borings HA-3Supplemental Hand Auger Excavation MW-14D Groundwater Monitoring Well (10’) Project Layout and Boring Location Map EB-4 (10’) EB-3 (10’) EB-1 (10’) EB-2 (10’) EB-4 EB-5 (11’) EB-6 (11’) EB-7 (10’) EB-8 (10’) EB-9 (11’) EB-10 (12’) HB-3 HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 MW-14D (10’) (0’) (6.5’) (0’) (0’) (10’) (10’) (7’) (7’) Hollow Stem BoringsLEGENDBasemap Reference: Tetra Tech, GCCS Modification Plan,Sheet 1 of 1, dated 2-12-2020 FIGURE 2EB-5EB-6EB-7 EB-8EB-9EB-10EB-1EB-2EB-3 EB-1005025EB-4 Hand Auger Borings HB-3HB-3HB-1 HB-2EB-4 GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim, CA GEN 20-27E February 2020 MAS YL 21700 Copley Drive #200, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tel 909.860.7777 0 1 mile0.5 mile SITE Artificial levee fill; may be engineered and/or non-engineered. Active wash deposits within major river channels; composed of unconsolidated silt, sand and gravel Latest Holocene stream terrace deposits, deposited in point bar and overbank settings associated with unit Qw; composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted, clayey sand sandy clay with gravel Latest Holocene alluvial deposits, deposited as overbank material associated with unit Qw, recognized by scour and incised channeling features: composed of unconsolidated,poorly sorted, clayey sand with some gravel. May include terrace deposits (Qht) Alluvial fan deposits (late Pleistocene to Holocene) - Deposited on gently sloping, relatively undissected alluvial surfaces where deposits might be of either late Pleistocene or Holocene age, composed of moderately to poorly sorted sand, gravel, silt, and clay Source: Geologic Map of the Saticoy 7.5’ Quadrangle, and Oxanrd 7.5’ Quadrangle Ventura County, CA California Geologic Survey and USGS (2004) 01 0.5 Source: Geologic Map of the Saticoy 7.5’ Quadrangle, and Oxanrd 7.5’ Quadrangle Ventura County, CA California Geologic Survey and USGS (2004) 0 1 0.5 2 miles Source: Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California. Compiled by Morton and Miller (2006) 0 1 0.5 2 miles FIGURE 4 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim, CA GEN 20-27E February 2020 MAS YL 21700 Copley Drive #200, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tel 909.860.7777 SITE Source: Department of Conservation “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for The Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California (1997, revised 2001) 01 mile0.5 mile 0 1 mile0.5 HISTORIC GROUNDWATER DEPTH MAP 1812 1 1918 1994 2 141922 1971 1933 3 8 4 1938 1970 1973 1990 2008 1979 1941 5 7 9 13 1710 6 198711 1988 1995 1997 2014 12 1516 18 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim, CA REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP JOB NO. DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY GEN 20-27E February 2020 MAS YL FIGURE 5 21700 Copley Drive #200, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tel 909.860.7777 M 5.0 to 5.9 M 6.0 to 6.9 M 7.0 to 7.9 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EVENTS Map Reference: Excerpt of Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California; California Geologic Survey, Date Map No. 6, map scale ~ 1:750,00 Used in permission from California Geologic Survey. Earthquake epicenters from SP 116 M6.9 M6.7 M6.5 M6.4 M5.2 M5.1 M5.2 M6.6 M5.3 M5.2 M5.9 M5.0 M5.5 M6.7 M5.0 M5.1 M5.4 M5.1 1) 1812 Wrightwood 2) 1918 San Jacinto-Hemet 3) 1922 Camarillo 4) 1933 Newport Beach 5) 1938 Trubuco Canyon 6) 1941 Lomita 7) 1970 Lytle Creek 8) 1971 Agua Dulce 9) 1973 Malibu 10) 1979 Malibu Beach 11) 1987 Rosemead 12) 1988 Pasadena 13) 1990 Claremont 14) 1994 Northridge 15) 1995 Valencia 16) 1997 Piru 17) 2008 Chino Hills 18) 2014 Brea 0 6.25 25 mi12.5 Geologic Time Scale Qu a t e r n a r y La t e Q u a t e r n a r y Holocene Historic Years Before Present (Approx.) Fault Symbol Recency of Movement ON LAND OFFSHORE DESCRIPTION MAP SYMBOLS Displacement during historic time (e.g. San Andreas fault 1096). Includes areeas of known fault creep. Displacement during Holocene time. Fault showing evidence of displacement during late Quaternary time. Undivided Quaternary faults - most faults in this category show evidence of displacement during the last 1,600,00 years; possible exceptions are faults which displace rocks of undifferentiated Plio- Pleistocene age. Faults without recognized Quaternary displacement or showing evidence of no displacement during Quaternary time. Not necessarily inactive. Faults offsets sea floor sediments or strata of Holocene age. Faults cuts strata of LatePleistocene age. Faults cuts strata of Quaternary age. Faults cuts strata of Pliocene or older age. Triangle - termination portion data. Square - fault creep slippage. Hachure - linear extent of fault creep. (other symbols - see below) Approximate located trace Location uncertain Bar and ball on dowthrown side Arrows along fault indicate relative or apparent direction of lateral movement. Direction of fault dip Low angle fault (barbs on upper plate) Numbers refer to annotations listed in explanatory text of map. Pl e i s t o c e n e Pre- Quaternary Ea r l y Qu a t e r n a r y 1,600,000 700,000 11,700 200 ?? ? ??? ? ? EXPLANATION Subject Site Location SITE FIGURE 6 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim, CA GEN 20-27E February 2020 MAS YL 21700 Copley Drive #200, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tel 909.860.7777 01 mile0.5 mile 0 1 mile0.5 mile SITE Source: California Geological Survey, Anaheim Quadrangle “Seismic Hazard Zones Map” (1998) SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONE MAP Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 Appendix A Logs of Exploratory Borings Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 Appendix A Logs of Exploratory Borings Bulk and relatively undisturbed drive samples were obtained in the field during our subsurface evaluation. The samples were tagged in the field and transported to our laboratory for observation and testing. The drive samples were obtained using the California Split Barrel Drive and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler as described below. California Split Barrel Drive Sampler The split barrel drive sampler was driven with a 140-pound hammer allowed to drop freely 30 inches. The number of blows per foot recorded during sampling is presented in the logs of exploratory borings. The sampler has external and internal diameters of approximately 3.0 and 2.4 inches, respectively, and the inside of the sampler is lined with 1-inch-long brass rings. The relatively undisturbed soil sample within the rings is removed, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for observation and testing. Standard Penetration Test Sampler The standard penetration test sampler is driven with a 140-pound hammer allowed to drop freely 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D1586. The number of blows (N-value) required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches is shown on the borings logs. The sampler has external and internal diameters of approximately 2.0 and 1.4 inches respectively. The sampling tube consists of an unlined split-tube barrel. The disturbed soil sample is removed, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Key to Log of Boring Ma t e r i a l T y p e REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONDe p t h ( f e e t ) Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet). 2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. 4 Sample Number: Sample identification number. 5 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft: Number of blows to advance driven sampler one foot (or distance shown) beyond seating interval using the hammer identified on the boring log. 6 Material Type: Type of material encountered. 7 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered. 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. 9 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample, expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample. 10 Dry Unit Weight, pcf: Dry weight per unit volume of soil sample measured in laboratory, in pounds per cubic foot. 11 REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test DS: Direct Shear EI: Expansion Index LL: Liquid Limit, percent PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL) SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) SILT, SILT w/SAND, SANDY SILT (ML) Silty SAND (SM) Silty SAND to Sandy SILT (SM-ML) Silty to Clayey SAND (SM-SC) Poorly graded SAND (SP) Poorly graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Well graded SAND (SW) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Bulk Sample 3-inch-OD California w/ brass rings 2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT) OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting) Minor change in material properties within a stratum Inferred/gradational contact between strata ?Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Figure C-1 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-1 Date(s) Drilled 01-16-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured 43 feet Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)California, SPT Location Latitude: 33.83241, Longitude: -117.99215 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 51.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 74 feet Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM CL-ML ML SM CL-ML ML SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS LL/PL/PI = 31/23/8 #200 = 53% G/S/F = 0/23/77% LL/PL/PI = 41/25/16 Gr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 21.3 24.8 21.3 32.2 21.4 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 99 100 106 90 99 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, loose, light olive (5Y 5/4), moist, fine grained, micaceous ...(5 ft) mottled grey brown, same as above Silty CLAY, stiff, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2) to olive (5Y 5/4), very moist, becomes sandy, fine grained, micaceous Sandy SILT, hard, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2), moist, fine to medium grained layers ...(20 ft) very stiff, olive (5Y 5/4) ...(25 ft) wet, with some fine sand lenses, micaceous Silty SAND, medium dense, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2), wet, fine grained, micaceous Silty CLAY, stiff, grey (N 6/1), wet, some fine sand, laminated SILT, stiff, pale olive (5Y 6/4) to light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2), wet, some blue grey irregular shaped concretions Silty SAND, very dense, light olive grey (5Y 6/2), wet, fine to medium grained, with some layers of fine sand and silt, micaceous ...(50 ft) loose, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2), fine to coarse grained Notes: -Total depth of 51.5 ft -Groundwater measured at 43 ft, wet material encountered at 25 ft -Caving to 5 ft, wet from 25 ft -Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r SPT-1 R-2 SPT-3 R-4 SPT-5 R-6 SPT-7 R-8 SPT-9 R-10 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 3-4-4 3-6-7 14-50/6" 10-14-28 6-10-25 6-10-12 4-4-7 5-6-9 20-50/6" 5-6-7 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-2 Date(s) Drilled 01-17-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured 20 feet Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)California, SPT Location Latitude: 33.83285, Longitude: -117.99218 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 31.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 80 feet Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM SP-SM SM ML REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS DS LL/PL/PI = 24/21/3 Gr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 16.9 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 108 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, medium dense, brown (10YR 4/3), moist ...(5 ft) dense, some asphalt debris [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, medium dense, light olive grey (5Y 6/2), very moist, mottled Poorly-graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light olive grey (5Y 6/2), moist, fine grained, layers of silty sand, micaceous Silty SAND, medium dense, light olive grey (5Y 6/2), wet (saturated), fine gravel, with silt lenses Sandy SILT, stiff, olive grey (5Y 4/2), wet, with fine sand, micaceous ...(30 ft) no recovery Notes: -Total depth of 31.5 ft -Groundwater encountered at 20 ft -Caving to 10 ft -Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r SPT-1 R-2 SPT-3 R-4 SPT-5 R-6 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 13-18-14 7-13-15 7-8-8 4-8-10 3-4-6 2-3-5 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-3 Date(s) Drilled 01-16-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured 34 feet Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)Bulk, Ring, SPT Location Latitude: 33.83293, Longitude: -117.9917 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 51 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 81 feet Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM-SC SW SM ML SW SM ML CL SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS #200 = 3% #200 = 17% LL/PL/PI = 32/25/7 G/S/F = 0/32/68% Gr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 8.5 2.2 27.8 25.2 29.5 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 114 99 99 101 94 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND and Clayey SAND, loose to medium dense, brown (10YR 4/2), fine grained, some gravel of brick and concrete ...(5 ft) medium dense, gravel of asphalt grindings [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Well-graded SAND, medium dense, tan (10YR 5/3), slightly moist, fine grained ...(10 ft) fine to medium grained ...(15 ft) dense, fine grained, with thin layers of medium to coarse grained sand Silty SAND, medium dense, olive (5Y 5/4), wet, fine grained, micaceous SILT, soft, olive (5Y 4/3), very moist, layered, with some fine sand Well-graded SAND, medium dense, tan (10Y 5/5), with olive (5Y 5/4) sandy silt, wet, fine to medium grained, micaceous Silty SAND, medium dense, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2), saturated, fine grained, micaceous SILT, firm, olive (2.5Y 4/3), wet, layered/laminated, minor clay, with layers of oxidized brown and grey, micaceous Lean CLAY, firm, olive (5Y 4/3), wet, with light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2) silty sand, fine to medium grained, wet Silty SAND, very dense, olive grey (5Y 4/2), wet, fine to medium grained Notes: -Total depth of 51 ft -Groundwater measured at 34 ft -Caving to 25 ft -Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r SK-1 R-2 SPT-3 R-4 SPT-5 R-6 SPT-7 R-8 SPT-9 R-10 SPT-11 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 23-20-18 6-8-10 5-30-35 6-8-9 3-2-3 2-3-7 5-11-20 1-2-3 1-1-6 4-50/6" El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-4 Date(s) Drilled 01-16-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured 25 feet Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)Bulk, California, SPT Location Latitude: 33.83273, Longitude: -117.99135 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 31.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 77 feet Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SP-SM ML SW REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS Res = 2742 ohm-cm pH = 8.6 Cl = 36 ppm SO4 = 65 ppm CONSOL Gr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 9.7 23.3 19.9 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 91 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, loose to medium dense, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, fine grained, with minor clay, rootlets ...(5 ft) pale tan (10YR 8/3), fine to medium grained, trace of silt ...(10 ft) moist to wet, fine grained, laminations, some micaceous Sand to Silty SAND, dense, tan (10YR 8/3) to light brown (10YR 4/3), saturated, fine to medium grained SILT, firm, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist to very moist, micaceous Well-graded SAND, loose to medium dense, tan (10YR 8/3), saturated, micaceous ...(30 ft) wet, no sample recovery Notes: -Total depth of 31.5 ft -Groundwater measured at 25 ft -Caving to 12 ft -Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r SK-1 SPT-2 R-3 SPT-4 R-5 SPT-6 R-7 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 10-14-13 6-8-10 12-20-20 3-3-7 3-4-6 8-8-24 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-5 Date(s) Drilled 01-16-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured 21 feet Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)California, SPT Location Latitude: 33.83267, Longitude: -117.99182 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 31 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 74 feet Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SP-SM SM-ML REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS CONSOL DS Gr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 15.7 17.1 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 107 108 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, loose to medium dense, olive (5Y 5/4), moist, fine grained ...(5 ft) medium dense, moist Poorly-graded SAND with silt, medium dense, light olive grey (5Y 6/2), wet, layered, some layers of fine to coarse sand, some layers of silt, micaceous Silty SAND to Sandy SILT, medium dense/stiff, light olive grey (5Y 6/2), wet, fine to medium grained ...(20 ft) more silt ...(25 ft) no recovery ...(30 ft) very dense, fine to coarse grained, layered, with fine silty sand micaceous Notes: -Total depth of 31 ft -Groundwater measured at 21 ft -Caving to 11 ft -Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r R-1 SPT-2 R-3 SPT-4 R-5* SPT-5 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 7-10-10 3-6-5 8-9-15 2-2-8 10-50/5" 8-50/5" El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-6 Date(s) Drilled 01-17-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured 20 feet Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)California, SPT Location Latitude: 33.83236, Longitude: -117.99104 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 31.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 80 feet Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SP SM SM-ML ML REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS DS Gr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 7.4 1.5 7.4 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 103 98 103 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, loose to medium dense, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, with gravel, some debris of asphalt and brick ...(5 ft) medium dense [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Poorly-graded SAND, medium dense, tan (10YR 8\3), slightly moist to wet, fine to coarse grained, with some silt Silty SAND, medium dense, olive grey (5Y 4/2), moist, fine to medium grained Silty SAND to Sandy SILT, medium dense/stiff, olive grey (5Y 4/2), moist, fine grained, micaceous SILT, firm, olive grey (5Y 4/2), wet, layered, micaceous Notes: -Total depth of 31.5 ft -Groundwater encountered at 20 ft -Backfilled with cement grout -Caving to 13 ft De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r R-1 SPT-2 R-3 SPT-4 R-5 SPT-6 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 7-7-7 4-6-9 8-8-14 7-8-9 8-8-9 4-4-5 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-7 Date(s) Drilled 01-17-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not encountered Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)California Location Latitude: 33.83236, Longitude: -117.99104 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 11.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 79 ft Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM SP-SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 8.8 5.5 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 120 99 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, loose to medium dense, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, trace gravel of asphalt, brick, and concrete fragments [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, very dense, brown (10YR 4/2), moist Poorly-graded SAND with silt, medium dense, olive (5Y 5/4), slightly moist, fine grained, micaceous Notes: -Total depth of 11.5 ft -Groundwater not encountered -Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r R-1 R-2 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 21-35-50 13-11-13 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring B-8 Date(s) Drilled 01-17-2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME 75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not encountered Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor ABC Liovin Sampling Method(s)Bulk, California Location Latitude: 33.83301, Longitude: -117.99213 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 11.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 81 ft Hammer Data Automatic trip hammer 140 lb, 30 inch drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS R-value = 34 Gr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 12.5 5.9 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 111 98 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, medium dense, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, trace brick and asphalt fragments [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, dense, olive (5Y 5/4), slightly moist to dry, fine grained Notes: -Total depth of 11.5 ft -Groundwater not encountered -Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sa m p l e N u m b e r SK-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f t 18-24-25 11-15-13 15-32-16 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-1 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 6 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-27 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 12 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, brown (10YR 4/3), some gravel, occasional brick or concrete fragments ...(5 ft) geogrid and gravel ...(7 ft) occasional gravel [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, micaceous, fine grained, some oxidation, interbedded 1/4" layers of silt and sand Notes: 1. Total depth - 12.0 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-2 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 11 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-27 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 11.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, occasional gravel ...(3 ft) geogrid and gravel [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, olive (5Y 5/4), moist, fine grained, laminated Notes: 1. Total depth - 11.5 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-3 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 20 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-27 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 12 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, abundant gravel ...(3 ft) geogrid and gravel ...(5 ft) Silty SAND, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, gravels, some asphalt debris [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, olive (5YR 5/4), moist, oxidized, fine grained Notes: 1. Total depth - 12.0 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-4 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 30 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-27 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 16.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, with gravel ...(5.5 ft) geogrid in Silty SAND with Gravel, brown (10YR 4/3), moist, dense [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, light olive (5Y 6/4), moist, micaceous ...(15 ft) Silty SAND, olive (5Y 5/4), some gravel, fine grained, moist Notes: 1. Total depth - 16.5 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-5 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 10 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-26 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 16.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM SP REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, dark brown (7.5YR 3/4), moist, occasional gravels, asphalt chunks ...(7 ft) geogrid and concrete debris [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, olive (5Y 5/4), moist, fine grained ...(15 ft) Poorly Graded SAND, loose, moist, fine to medium grained Notes: 1. Total depth - 16.5 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-6 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 25 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-26 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 12 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, brown (10YR 5/3), moist, gravels, brick fragments ...(7 ft) geogrid encountered ...(10 ft) sample - geogrid on top of native [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, pale tan to olive gray (5Y 6/2), slightly moist, medium dense, fine grained, layered laminated, micaceous Notes: 1. Total depth - 12.0 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-7 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 40 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-26 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 20.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SP REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [COVER FILL] Silty SAND, brown (10YR 5/3), moist, medium dense to dense, occasional gravels ...(7 ft) geogrid encountered [REFUSE] abundant concrete and asphalt fragments ...(15 ft) sample refusal, concrete in shoe, rig chatter in gravel [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Poorly Graded SAND, tan, dry, fine grained, some coarse layers Notes: 1. Total depth - 20.5 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-8 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 15 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-25 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 12.0 Feet Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, brown (10YR 5/3), moist, medium dense to dense, occasional gravels ...(6 ft) geogrid encountered [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Silty SAND, pale olive (5Y 6/4), dry, fine grained, layered Notes: 1. Total depth - 12.0 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-9 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 30 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-25 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 17.5 Feet Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SP REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [COVER FILL] Silty SAND, brown (10YR 5/3), moist, medium dense to dense, occasional gravels ...(6 ft) geogrid encounted [REFUSE] abundant asphalt and brick in silty SAND ...(15 ft) sample has concrete asphalt brick [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Poorly Graded SAND, tan, dry, fine grained, some coarse layers Notes: 1. Total depth - 17.5 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Project:39 Commons Residential Development Project Location:Anaheim, CA Project Number:GEN 20-27 Log of Boring EB-10 Date(s) Drilled 1/24/2020 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type CME75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured N/A Borehole Backfill Cement grout Logged By SMS Drill Bit Size/Type 8" Drilling Contractor BC2 Sampling Method(s)No samples collected Location 45 ft north of existing landfill gas interceptor trench / existing gas probe GP-25 Checked By PMK Total Depth of Borehole 18.0 Feet Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data Hammer not used Ma t e r i a l T y p e SM SP REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGr a p h i c L o g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION [FILL] Silty SAND, brown, moist, gravels, pieces of asphalt, brick, and concrete ...(6 ft) fill on the top and geogrid on the bottom of sample ...(10 ft) geogrid in sample [NATIVE] Alluvium (Qal) Poorly Graded SAND, tan, dry, fine grained, some coarse layers Notes: 1. Total depth - 18.0 feet 2. No caving 3. No groundwater encountered 4. Backfilled with cement grout De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e N u m b e r Sa m p l e T y p e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Sheet 1 of 1 Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 Appendix B Geophysical Survey Results 1 0 1 8 1 8 1 828 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 0 4 0 4 04050 60 3 2 4 8 0 6 0 3 2 5 2 0 6 0 3 2 5 6 0 6 0 3 2 6 0 0 6 0 3 2 6 4 0 6 0 3 2 6 8 0 6 0 3 2 7 2 0 6 0 32 7 6 0 6 0 3 2 8 0 0 6 0 3 2 8 4 0 6 0 3 2 8 8 0 6 0 3 2 9 2 0 6 0 3 2 9 6 0 6 0 3 3 0 0 0 Ea s t i n g , U . S . F e e t , C A S t a t e P l a n e Z o n e V I , N A D 8 3 60 3 2 4 8 0 6 0 3 2 5 2 0 6 0 3 2 5 6 0 6 0 3 2 6 0 0 6 0 3 2 6 4 0 6 0 3 2 6 8 0 6 0 3 2 7 2 0 6 0 32 7 6 0 6 0 3 2 8 0 0 6 0 3 2 8 4 0 6 0 3 2 8 8 0 6 0 3 2 9 2 0 6 0 3 2 9 6 0 6 0 3 3 0 0 0 22 5 1 1 0 0 22 5 1 1 4 0 22 5 1 1 8 0 22 5 1 2 2 0 22 5 1 2 6 0 22 5 1 3 0 0 225110022511402251180225122022512602251300 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 60 3 2 4 8 0 6 0 3 2 5 2 0 6 0 3 2 5 6 0 6 0 3 2 6 0 0 6 0 3 2 6 4 0 6 0 3 2 6 8 0 6 0 3 2 7 2 0 6 0 32 7 6 0 6 0 3 2 8 0 0 6 0 3 2 8 4 0 6 0 3 2 8 8 0 6 0 3 2 9 2 0 6 0 3 2 9 6 0 6 0 3 3 0 0 0 Ea s t i n g , U . S . F e e t , C A S t a t e P l a n e Z o n e V I , N A D 8 3 60 3 2 4 8 0 6 0 3 2 5 2 0 6 0 3 2 5 6 0 6 0 3 2 6 0 0 6 0 3 2 6 4 0 6 0 3 2 6 8 0 6 0 3 2 7 2 0 6 0 32 7 6 0 6 0 3 2 8 0 0 6 0 3 2 8 4 0 6 0 3 2 8 8 0 6 0 3 2 9 2 0 6 0 3 2 9 6 0 6 0 3 3 0 0 0 22 5 1 1 0 0 22 5 1 1 4 0 22 5 1 1 8 0 22 5 1 2 2 0 22 5 1 2 6 0 22 5 1 3 0 0 225110022511402251180225122022512602251300 Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 Appendix C Results of Laboratory Testing Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 Appendix C Results of Laboratory Testing Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil classifications are indicated on the log of the exploratory boring in Appendix A. In-Place Moisture and Dry Density Tests The moisture contents and dry densities of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory boreholes were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D2937. The test results are presented on the log of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. Particle Size Analysis An evaluation of the particle size analysis for selected soil samples were performed in general accordance with ASTM D422. The results of the analysis are presented the borehole logs in Appendix A and in the back of this Appendix C. Percent Passing #200 Sieve An evaluation of the percent passing #200 sieve for selected soil samples were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1140. The results of the analysis are presented the borehole logs in Appendix A and in the back of this Appendix C. Atterberg Limits Tests Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of selected and representative on-site materials were performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318. The results of this test are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A and in the back of this Appendix C. Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D2435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. Load versus deformation curves are presented in the back of this Appendix C. Direct Shear Tests The sample were tested under three different normal loads. The samples were sheared at a constant rate of strain selected in general accordance with the consolidation characteristics of the soils (Section 7.3 of ASTM D3080). The samples were inundated during shearing to represent potentially adverse field conditions. The strain rate used for shear tests was 0.002 inches per minute. Shearing of the specimens was continued until the shear stress became essentially constant or until a deformation of approximately 10 percent of the original diameter had been reached. The results of 3-point direct shear tests are presented in the back of this Appendix C. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 R Value The R value of a selected bulk sample was evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 301. Results of the R-value test are presented in the back of this Appendix C Corrosivity Series The corrosivity of a selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method (CTM) No. 417, 422 and 643. The results of this test are presented in Table 9 in the report and in the back of this Appendix C. 1 2 1 2 3 4 35 24 16 F10 F3 P39 T16 S19 grams 25.40 24.80 48.10 50.00 52.80 grams 22.90 22.50 42.90 44.10 45.90 grams 12.40 12.40 25.30 25.30 25.40 grams 2.50 2.30 5.20 5.90 6.90 grams 10.50 10.10 17.60 18.80 20.50 %23.8 22.8 29.5 31.4 33.7 23 31.5 CL-ML 8 ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D4318 Job Name: 39 Commons Residential Date Sampled:1/16/2020 Job Number: GEN-20-27 Date Completed:1/29/2020 Tested By:MG Sample Identification:B-1, R-2 * Moisture Content PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Test No. Weight of Container * Moisture Weight * Weight of Dry Soil Sample Description: Brownish Gray, CL-ML Note:Sample Depth:10ft Number of Blows Container ID Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. Plastic Limit Liquid Limit USCS Classification Plasticity Index 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P l a s t i c i t y I n d e x (%) Liquid Limit (%) Plasticity Chart CH or OH MH or OH ML or OL CL or OL CL or ML 1360 Valley Vista Drive * Diamond Bar, CA 91765 * Tel: (909) 860-7777 1 2 1 2 3 4 32 23 17 F4 N4 T38 P13 N10 grams 20.80 22.60 50.50 51.10 50.40 grams 19.10 20.60 43.60 43.60 42.90 grams 12.40 12.40 25.80 25.40 25.50 grams 1.70 2.00 6.90 7.50 7.50 grams 6.70 8.20 17.80 18.20 17.40 %25.4 24.4 38.8 41.2 43.1 25 41 CL-ML 16 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit USCS Classification Plasticity Index Number of Blows Container ID Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. * Moisture Content PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Test No. Weight of Container * Moisture Weight * Weight of Dry Soil Sample Description: Brownish Gray, ML-CL Note:Sample Depth:35ft Job Number: GEN-20-27 Date Completed:1/29/2020 Tested By:MG Sample Identification:B-1, SPT-7 ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D4318 Job Name: 39 Commons Residential Date Sampled:1/16/2020 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P l a s t i c i t y I n d e x (%) Liquid Limit (%) Plasticity Chart CH or OH MH or OH ML or OL CL or OL CL or ML 1360 Valley Vista Drive * Diamond Bar, CA 91765 * Tel: (909) 860-7777 1 2 1 2 3 4 33 26 18 P11 P24 S12 T20 N4 grams 27.40 28.20 52.40 51.00 55.10 grams 24.80 25.40 47.60 46.10 49.20 grams 12.40 12.40 26.00 25.70 25.90 grams 2.60 2.80 4.80 4.90 5.90 grams 12.40 13.00 21.60 20.40 23.30 %21.0 21.5 22.2 24.0 25.3 21 24 ML 3 ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D4318 Job Name: 39 Commons Residential Date Sampled:1/16/2020 Job Number: GEN-20-27 Date Completed:1/29/2020 Tested By:MG Sample Identification:B-2, SPT-5 * Moisture Content PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Test No. Weight of Container * Moisture Weight * Weight of Dry Soil Sample Description: Olive Brown, ML Note:Sample Depth:25ft Number of Blows Container ID Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. Plastic Limit Liquid Limit USCS Classification Plasticity Index 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P l a s t i c i t y I n d e x (%) Liquid Limit (%) Plasticity Chart CH or OH MH or OH ML or OL CL or OL CL or ML 1360 Valley Vista Drive * Diamond Bar, CA 91765 * Tel: (909) 860-7777 1 2 1 2 3 4 27 22 15 P1 P2 P3 M7 T23 grams 19.40 21.10 55.10 59.15 52.00 grams 18.00 19.40 48.20 50.90 45.40 grams 12.40 12.40 25.60 25.70 26.00 grams 1.40 1.70 6.90 8.25 6.60 grams 5.60 7.00 22.60 25.20 19.40 %25.0 24.3 30.5 32.7 34.0 25 31.5 ML 7 ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D4318 Job Name: 39 Commons Residential Date Sampled:1/16/2020 Job Number: GEN-20-27 Date Completed:1/29/2020 Tested By:MG Sample Identification:B-3, R-6 * Moisture Content PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Test No. Weight of Container * Moisture Weight * Weight of Dry Soil Sample Description: Brownish Gray, ML Note:Sample Depth:25ft Number of Blows Container ID Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. Plastic Limit Liquid Limit USCS Classification Plasticity Index 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P l a s t i c i t y I n d e x (%) Liquid Limit (%) Plasticity Chart CH or OH MH or OH ML or OL CL or OL CL or ML 1360 Valley Vista Drive * Diamond Bar, CA 91765 * Tel: (909) 860-7777 ASTM D1140 MG Address: Date Sampled: Boring Number Sample Number Depth (ft) Weight Before Wash - Dry (grams) Weight After Wash - Dry (grams) Percent Passing # 200 Sieve USCS Classification B-1 R-4 20ft 415.5 194 53%ML B-3 SPT-3 10ft 255.8 249 3%SW B-3 SPT-5 20ft 451.5 373.9 17%SM PERCENT PASSING # 200 SIEVE Job Name: Tested By : Job Number: Date Completed: 39 Commons Residential GEN-20-27 January 16, 2020 January 29, 2020 1360 Valley Vista Drive * Diamond Bar, CA 91765 * Tel.: (909) 860-7777 Ad d r e s s : Da t e S a m p l e d : Sy m b o l Bo r i n g No . Sa m p l e # D e p h ( f e e t ) L L P I G r a v e l S a n d F i n e s 2 μ B- 1 S P T - 7 3 5 f t 4 1 1 6 0% 2 3 % 7 7 % 2 9 % GR A I N S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N A N A L Y S I S AS T M C 1 3 6 / C 1 1 7 / D 4 2 2 MG Ja n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 2 0 B- 1 , S P T - 7 Jo b N a m e : Jo b N u m b e r : Te s t e d B y : Da t e C o m p l e t e d : Sa m p l e N u m b e r : 39 C o m m o n s R e s i d e n t i a l GE N - 2 0 - 2 7 US C S CL - M L Ja n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 2 i n 1 1 / 2 i n 1 i n 3 / 4 i n 1 / 2 i n 3 / 8 i n # 4 # 8 # 1 0 # 1 6 # 3 0 # 4 0 # 5 0 # 8 0 # 1 0 0 # 2 0 0 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 0.001 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 10 10 0 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T GR A I N S I Z E ( m m ) U. S . S t a n d a r d S i e v e S i z e 2 1 7 0 0 C o p l e y D r i v e * D i a m o n d Ba r , C A 9 1 7 6 5 * T e l . : ( 9 0 9 ) 8 60 ‐ 7 7 7 7 Ad d r e s s : Da t e S a m p l e d : Sy m b o l Bo r i n g No . Sa m p l e # D e p h ( f e e t ) L L P I G r a v e l S a n d F i n e s 2 μ B- 3 S P T - 9 4 0 f t 0% 3 2 % 6 8 % 1 7 % GR A I N S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N A N A L Y S I S AS T M C 1 3 6 / C 1 1 7 / D 4 2 2 MG Ja n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 2 0 B- 3 , S P T - 9 Jo b N a m e : Jo b N u m b e r : Te s t e d B y : Da t e C o m p l e t e d : Sa m p l e N u m b e r : 39 C o m m o n s R e s i d e n t i a l GE N - 2 0 - 2 7 US C S ML Ja n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 2 i n 1 1 / 2 i n 1 i n 3 / 4 i n 1 / 2 i n 3 / 8 i n # 4 # 8 # 1 0 # 1 6 # 3 0 # 4 0 # 5 0 # 8 0 # 1 0 0 # 2 0 0 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 0.001 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 10 10 0 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T GR A I N S I Z E ( m m ) U. S . S t a n d a r d S i e v e S i z e 1 3 6 0 V a l l e y V i s t a D r i v e * D i a mo n d B a r , C A 9 1 7 6 5 * T e l . : ( 9 09 ) 8 6 0 ‐ 7 7 7 7 Project Name:39 Commons Residential Anaheim, CA Tested By:LS Date:01/24/20 Project No.:GEN 20‐27 Computed By:NR Date:01/27/20 Boring No.:B‐2 Checked by:AP Date:01/30/20 Sample No.:R‐2 Depth (ft):10 Sample Type:Mod. Cal. Soil Description:Silty Sand Test Condition:Inundated Shear Type:Regular Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Degree Saturation (%) Final Degree Saturation (%) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Shear Stress (ksf) Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 1 0.804 0.708 2 1.428 1.332 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 105.9 92.4 14.7 29.6 48 97 0 1 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Shear Deformation (Inches) 1 ksf 2 ksf 0 1 2 3 0123456 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Ultimate Normal Stress: CORROSION TEST RESULTS Client Name: Tetra Tech AP Job No.: 20-0138 Project Name: 39 Commons Residential Anaheim, CA Date: 01/23/20 Project No.: GEN 20-27 Boring Sample Depth Soil pH Sulfate Content Chloride Content No. No. (feet) Description (ppm) (ppm) B-4 SK-1 0-5 Silty Sand 8.6 65 36 NOTES: Resistivity Test and pH: California Test Method 643 Sulfate Content : California Test Method 417 Chloride Content : California Test Method 422 ND = Not Detectable NA = Not Sufficient Sample NR = Not Requested Resistivity Minimum (ohm-cm) 2742 Boring No. : B-4 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 90.9 Sample No.: R-3 Initial Moisture Content (%): 9.7 Depth (feet): 10 Final Moisture Content (%): 27.4 Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7 Soil Description: Poorly-Graded Sand w/silt Initial Void Ratio: 0.85 Remarks: Collapse=0.13% upon inundation Project Name:39 Commons Residential Anaheim, CA Project No.:GEN 20-27 Date: AP No:20-0138 Figure No:1 CONSOLIDATION CURVE ASTM D 2435 1/23/2020 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.1 1 10 100 CO N S O L I D A T I O N ( P e r c e n t o f S a m p l e T h i c k n e s s ) VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) At Field Moisture After Saturation Boring No. : B-5 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 106.8 Sample No.: R-1 Initial Moisture Content (%): 15.7 Depth (feet): 5 Final Moisture Content (%): 19.0 Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7 Soil Description: Silty Sand Initial Void Ratio: 0.58 Remarks: Collapse=0.05% upon inundation Project Name:39 Commons Residential Anaheim, CA Project No.:GEN 20-27 Date: AP No:20-0138 Figure No:1 CONSOLIDATION CURVE ASTM D 2435 1/23/2020 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.1 1 10 100 CO N S O L I D A T I O N ( P e r c e n t o f S a m p l e T h i c k n e s s ) VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) At Field Moisture After Saturation Project Name:39 Commons Residential Anaheim, CA Tested By:LS Date:01/24/20 Project No.:GEN 20‐27 Computed By:NR Date:01/27/20 Boring No.:B‐5 Checked by:AP Date:01/30/20 Sample No.:R‐3 Depth (ft):15 Sample Type:Mod. Cal. Soil Description:Silty Sand Test Condition:Inundated Shear Type:Regular Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Degree Saturation (%) Final Degree Saturation (%) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Shear Stress (ksf) Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 1.5 1.176 1.056 3 2.243 2.064100 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 125.9 107.6 17.1 21.0 81 0 1 2 3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Shear Deformation (Inches) 1.5 ksf 3 ksf 0 1 2 3 0123456 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Ultimate Normal Stress: Project Name:39 Commons Residential Anaheim, CA Tested By:LS Date:01/24/20 Project No.:GEN 20‐27 Computed By:NR Date:01/27/20 Boring No.:B‐6 Checked by:AP Date:01/30/20 Sample No.:R‐3 Depth (ft):15 Sample Type:Mod. Cal. Soil Description:Poorly‐Graded Sand Test Condition:Inundated Shear Type:Regular Wet Unit Weight (pcf) Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) Initial Degree Saturation (%) Final Degree Saturation (%) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Shear Stress (ksf) Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 1.5 1.296 0.960 3 2.304 1.932 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 99.4 98.0 1.5 24.3 6 91 0 1 2 3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Shear Deformation (Inches) 1.5 ksf 3 ksf 0 1 2 3 0123456 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Ultimate Normal Stress: Project Name:39 Commons Residential Anaheim, CA Project Number: GEN 20-27 Boring No.: B-8 Sample No.: SK-1 Depth (ft.): 0-5 Location: N/A Soil Description: Clayey Sand Mold Number F D E Water Added, g 32 45 58 Compact Moisture(%) 10.7 12.0 13.4 Compaction Gage Pressure, psi 250 100 50 Exudation Pressure, psi 406 173 139 Sample Height, Inches 2.4 2.5 2.6 Gross Weight Mold, g 2944 3052 3054 Tare Weight Mold, g 1868 1964 1954 Net Sample Weight, g 1077 1089 1100 Expansion, inchesx10-4 27 0 0 Stability 2,000 (160 psi) 30/68 44/103 50/115 Turns Displacement 3.95 4.63 4.83 R-Value Uncorrected 46 23 17 R-Value Corrected 43 23 18 Dry Density, pcf 122.7 117.8 113.1 Traffic Index 8.0 8.0 8.0 G.E. by Stability 1.08 1.47 1.57 G.E. by Expansion 0.09 0.00 0.00 Gf = 1.34, and 1.3 % Retained on the ¾" *Not ApplicableRe m a r k s By Exudation: By Expansion: At Equilibrium: (by Exudation) R- V A L U E 34 *N/A 34 R-VALUE TEST DATA ASTM D2844 Tested By: Computed By: 01/27/20 Date: Date: Date: 01/23/20 01/30/20Checked By: ST KM AP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0100200300400500600700800 R- V A L U E EXUDATION PRESSURE - PSI 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 CO V E R T H I C K N E S S B Y S T A B I L O M E T E R ( F T . ) COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION (FT.) Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. GEN 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development - Anaheim February 19, 2020 Appendix D Liquefaction Analyses Project: Boring: Engineer: Date: Total thickness of evaluated profile 50 feet Profile thickness susceptible to liquefaction 10 feet Number of evaluated intervals 10 Number of potentially liquefiable intervals 7 Average Factor of Safety of sandy intervals 2.20 Dry sand settlement 1.17 inches Liquefaction settlement 0.94 inches Total earthquake-induced settlement 2.11 inches Liquefaction behavior Plasticity Index threshold Saturated settlement threshold Dry settlement threshold Cyclic softening Plasticity Index threshold In-situ Design SPT-N N1,60 N1,60,cs feet feet pcf pcf % – bpf bpf bpf – in in 0 10 117.6 117.6 20 n/plastic 8.0 15.9 20.4 – – - no groundwater 1.17 2.11 10 5 118.874 118.9 60 8 8.7 13.5 19.1 – – - clay-like behaviour 0.00 0.94 15 5 124.8 124.8 53 5 99.0 146.6 152.3 4.23 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 0.94 20 5 124.8 124.8 53 5 28.1 38.9 44.5 3.78 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 0.94 25 5 117.6 117.6 60 n/plastic 35.0 46.7 52.3 3.50 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 0.94 30 5 128.578 128.6 20 n/plastic 14.7 17.6 22.1 0.38 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.94 0.94 35 5 117.6 117.6 77 16 11.0 12.0 17.5 – – - clay-like behaviour 0.00 0.00 40 3 117.18 117.2 60 n/plastic 10.1 10.3 15.9 0.26 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.00 0.00 43 2 117.18 117.2 60 n/plastic 10.1 10.1 15.7 0.26 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.00 0.00 45 5 117.6 117.6 20 n/plastic 99.0 218.5 223.0 3.02 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 0.00 263.00 50.00 1201.81 1201.81 483.00 34.00 323.69 530.14 582.76 15.42 0.00 2.11 6.82 Checks In-Situ Groundwater depth 43.00 feet M 7.3 Groundwater depth check OK DESIGN Groundwater depth 10.00 feet PGA 0.69 Design groundwater/excavation depth check OK DESIGN Excavation depth 0.00 feet Fines correction method compatibility OK DESIGN Surcharge (fill) 0.00 feet Idris & Boulanger, 2004 method for CN not used Cetin 2009 settlement method not used Summary of Liquefaction and Earthquale-Induced Settlement Analysis Commons Residential Development B-1 1/28/2020 Liquefaction Evaluation Method Liquefaction Analysis Statistics Correction for fines content Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Correction for overburden CN Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Cyclic resistance ratio of soil CRRCS Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Stress reduction factor rD Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Dry settlement Pradel, 1998a,b Correction for overburden Kσ Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Magnitude scaling factor MSF Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Liquefaction settlement Tokimatsu & Seed, 1984 – no adjustment less or equal to 7 Depth to Layer Top Layer Thickness Total Unit Weight Fines %Plasticity Index Considered Blowcounts less or equal to 50% fines greater or equal to 18 less or equal to 50% fines Factor of Safety Liquefaction potential rationale Layer Settlement Cumulative SettlementLiquefactionCyclic softening Profile Earthquake loading Version v2 2018-07 Printed on 2/13/2020 at 5:01 PM Page 1 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Design excavation depth 0.00 feet Design groundwater depth 10.00 feet B-1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening (middle of the layer) FS = 1.3 LIQUEFACTION NO LIQUEFACTION 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 00.511.522.533.5 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Settlement (in) Printed on 2/13/2020 at 5:01 PM Page 2 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Project: Boring: Engineer: Date: Total thickness of evaluated profile 50 feet Profile thickness susceptible to liquefaction 25 feet Number of evaluated intervals 11 Number of potentially liquefiable intervals 7 Average Factor of Safety of sandy intervals 1.00 Dry sand settlement 0.09 inches Liquefaction settlement 3.46 inches Total earthquake-induced settlement 3.55 inches Liquefaction behavior Plasticity Index threshold Saturated settlement threshold Dry settlement threshold Cyclic softening Plasticity Index threshold In-situ Design SPT-N N1,60 N1,60,cs feet feet pcf pcf % – bpf bpf bpf – in in 0 7 123.69 123.7 20 n/plastic 25.5 44.1 48.5 – – - no groundwater 0.05 3.55 7 3 123.69 123.7 3 n/plastic 25.5 37.0 37.0 – – - no groundwater 0.04 3.50 10 5 101.178 101.2 3 n/plastic 18.0 27.2 27.2 0.83 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.63 3.46 15 5 101.178 101.2 3 n/plastic 43.6 65.0 65.0 4.24 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 2.83 20 5 126.819 126.8 17 n/plastic 17.0 23.3 27.1 0.64 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.73 2.83 25 5 126.819 126.8 60 7 3.4 3.9 9.5 0.19 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.00 2.10 30 4 117.6 117.6 3 n/plastic 10.0 11.5 11.5 0.21 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 1.17 2.10 34 1 117.6 117.6 3 n/plastic 10.0 11.0 11.0 0.20 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.29 0.93 35 5 126.452 126.5 20 n/plastic 20.8 25.1 29.6 0.74 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.64 0.64 40 5 126.452 126.5 68 15 5.0 5.2 10.8 – – - clay-like behaviour 0.00 0.00 45 5 121.73 121.7 60 15 4.7 4.7 10.3 – – - clay-like behaviour 0.00 0.00 261.00 50.00 1313.21 1313.21 260.00 37.00 183.28 257.93 287.52 7.03 0.00 3.55 21.95 Checks In-Situ Groundwater depth 34.00 feet M 7.3 Groundwater depth check OK DESIGN Groundwater depth 10.00 feet PGA 0.69 Design groundwater/excavation depth check OK DESIGN Excavation depth 0.00 feet Fines correction method compatibility OK DESIGN Surcharge (fill) 0.00 feet Idris & Boulanger, 2004 method for CN not used Cetin 2009 settlement method not used Summary of Liquefaction and Earthquale-Induced Settlement Analysis Commons Residential Development B-3 1/28/2020 Liquefaction Evaluation Method Liquefaction Analysis Statistics Correction for fines content Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Correction for overburden CN Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Cyclic resistance ratio of soil CRRCS Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Stress reduction factor rD Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Dry settlement Pradel, 1998a,b Correction for overburden Kσ Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Magnitude scaling factor MSF Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Liquefaction settlement Tokimatsu & Seed, 1984 – no adjustment less or equal to 7 Depth to Layer Top Layer Thickness Total Unit Weight Fines %Plasticity Index Considered Blowcounts less or equal to 50% fines greater or equal to 18 less or equal to 50% fines Factor of Safety Liquefaction potential rationale Layer Settlement Cumulative SettlementLiquefactionCyclic softening Profile Earthquake loading Version v2 2018-07 Printed on 2/13/2020 at 5:02 PM Page 1 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Design excavation depth 0.00 feet Design groundwater depth 10.00 feet B-3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening (middle of the layer) FS = 1.3 LIQUEFACTION NO LIQUEFACTION 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 012345 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Settlement (in) Printed on 2/13/2020 at 5:02 PM Page 2 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience - 42- Appendix A.2 – Response to City’s Review Comments on Geotechnical Study Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. BAS 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development May 13, 2020 Page 2 Comment No.2. The existing landfill, although potentially outside the limits of the building envelope, may still have impact to site drainage. The settlement of the landfill should be analyzed and its impact to future improvements should be addressed. Response No.2: The landfill refuse is interpreted to underlie a portion of the proposed parking lots and driveways on the northern side of the residential development. As shown in Figure 1, the landfill cover fill is about 10 feet thick, which will be overexcavated and recompacted to at least 3 feet below the existing grade, or to uniform acceptable soils, whichever is deeper. Settlement of the cover fill and the underlying landfill refuse due to the traffic loads is anticipated to be minimal. The time-dependent static secondary settlement of the landfill refuse under self-weight can be estimated using the following equation (Sowers, 1973): ∆𝐻 ൌ 𝛼 ∗ 𝐻 ∗ log 𝑡2 𝑡1 Where: ∆𝐻… long term secondary settlement H … fill thickness 𝛼… coefficient of secondary settlement 𝑡ଵ … starting time for settlement estimation since the start of secondary consolidation 𝑡ଶ … ending time for settlement estimation since the start of secondary consolidation There is no information regarding the specific values of the secondary settlement coefficient for inert debris fills. The Nu-Way Arrow Pit in Irwindale, California was backfilled with inert construction debris, which is similar to the refuse materials in the former Anderson Pit. Settlement monitoring data from the Nu-Way Arrow Pit for a period of about 2.5 years from 2010 to 2013 indicated a coefficient of secondary settlement of 0.0005 to 0.0022 (AES, 2013). Knowing that the former Anderson Pit ceased operations in early 1960s and conservatively assuming the start of secondary consolidation at 1965, the anticipated long term settlement of the landfill refuse during the project design life time of 50 years starting in 2020, i.e., 𝑡ଵ ൌ 55 years and 𝑡ଶ ൌ 105 years, for α taken conservatively as 0.01, and refuse thickness of 15 feet, is estimated to be about 0.5 inches, which is about 0.28 percent of the landfill refuse thickness. Therefore, the potential impact on the site drainage due to the settlement of the underlying landfill refuse is anticipated to be minimal. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. BAS 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development May 13, 2020 Page 3 Comment No.3. The consultant's liquefaction analysis indicates some layers that are liquefiable, however, no settlement of the liquefiable layer is indicated. The layers of interest are 40 to 45 feet within boring B-1 and 25 to 30 within boring B-3. Please explain. Response No.3: Acknowledged. The liquefaction analyses for B-1 and B-3 have been updated in Appendix A. The calculated liquefaction settlement within the identified layers of interest of 40 to 45 feet within boring B-1 and 25 to 30 within boring B-3 was about 0.80 and 0.60 inches, respectively. For the updated liquefaction analysis, the potential settlement due to soil liquefaction was estimated using the procedures outlined by Yoshimine et. Al. (2006). The potential for dry dynamic settlement was calculated according to the procedures outlined by Pradel (1998a and 1998b). Cetin et al (2009) recommended applying weighting factors to seismic-induced settlement with depth to limit the influence of liquefaction at great depth since the deeper deposit’s settlement may not propagate to the surface as much as the shallow deposits. The rationale behind the use of a depth weighting factor is based on the following: Upward seepage, triggering void ratio redistribution, resulting in unfavorably higher void ratios for the shallower soil sublayers; Reduced induced shear stresses and number of shear stress cycles transmitted to deeper soil layers due to initial liquefaction of surficial soil sublayers; and Possible arching effects due to non-liquefied soil layers. In this study, the volumetric depth weighting factors was applied to the estimated dynamic settlements of soils encountered in Borings B-1 and B-3. The depth-corrected dynamic settlement varied from about 2.8 inches to 4.2 inches. The updated liquefaction and dynamic settlement analyses are presented in Appendix A. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. BAS 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development May 13, 2020 Page 4 Comment No.4. The consultant's liquefaction analysis of boring B-3 indicates no liquefaction potential between 40 and 45 feet due to clay-like behavior. The consultant's boring logs indicate silt in this zone. Please revise the analysis accordingly or justify the clay-like behavior. Response No.4: Acknowledged. The liquefaction analysis for B-3 have been updated in Appendix A. The silt encountered between 40 and 45 feet is considered liquefiable. Comment No.5. The consultant's log of Boring B-1 terminates on a loose zone of silty sand soils. Please address the potential impact of this loose zone to the liquefaction analysis. Note that Special Publication 117 states that soils borings should be extended such that the borings are terminated into at least 10 feet of nonliquefiable soils. Response No.5: Acknowledged. To address the potential effect of the loose zone of silty sand on the potential liquefaction settlement, we have included this loose zone in the updated liquefaction analysis by extending this loose zone by 10 feet to a depth of 60 feet below the ground surface. The calculated dynamic settlement of soils encountered in boring B-1 is about 2.84 inches, which is less than the calculated dynamic settlement of 4.2 inches based on boring B-3, which governs the mat foundation design. Therefore, assuming a deeper extent of the loose sand in boring B-1 will not have a significant effect on the project design. Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. BAS 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development May 13, 2020 Page 5 CLOSURE We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Yonglang Li, Ph.D., P.E. Project Engineer Shannon Siegel, P.G. Project Geologist 03-31-21 Doug Bell, G.E. Supervising Engineer Distribution: Addressee (4 hard copies + pdf by email alan.toffoli@gmail.com) Filename: Response to City's Review Comments 2020-05-13.docx ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 – Boring Location and Interpreted Landfill Limits Figure 2 – Schematic Cross-Section A-A’ Appendix A – Results of Liquefaction Analyses Hollow Stem BoringsLEGENDBasemap Reference: Tetra Tech, GCCS Modification Plan,Sheet 1 of 1, dated 2-12-2020 FIGURE 2 EB-5EB-6EB-7 EB-8EB-9EB-10EB-1EB-2EB-3 EB-1005025EB-4 Hand Auger Borings HB-3HB-3HB-1 HB-2EB-4 MAY 2020 FIGURE 1 GP-25 Existing Gas Interceptor Trench Initial Hollow Stem Auger Borings (2020) (fill thickness) Existing Gas Line GP-27GP-28 GP-25Gas Probe EB-10 (12’) Supplemental Hollow Stem Auger Borings Outside LF limit- artificial fill thickness Inside LF limit- cover fill thickness HA-3Supplemental Hand Auger Excavation MW-14D Groundwater Monitoring Well (10’) Boring Location and Interpreted Landfill Limit Map Interpreted Landfill Limit Former Anderson Pit A A’ EB-4 (10’) EB-3 (10’) EB-1 (10’) EB-2 (10’) EB-4 EB-5 (11’) EB-6 (11’) EB-7 (10’) EB-8 (10’) EB-9 (11’) EB-10 (12’) HB-3 HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 MW-14D (10’) (0’) (6.5’) (0’) (0’) (10’) (10’) (7’) (7’) 21700 Copley Drive #200,Diamond Bar,CA 91765 TEL 909.860.7777 www.tetratech.com 39 COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - ANAHEIM, CA GP-26 21700 Copley Drive #200,Diamond Bar,CA 91765 TEL 909.860.7777 www.tetratech.com 39 COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - ANAHEIM, CA SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION A-A’ FIGURE 2 GEN 20-27E MAY 2020 SCM YL JOB NO. DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY Landll Cover Fill (SM) Project Site Refuse (SM with construction debris) Alluvium (SP, SM) NOT TO SCALE EB-7 EB-6 EB-5 GP-26 Articial Fill (SM)~10’ ~8’ A A’ Landll Limit Toffoli Investments, LLC Project No. BAS 20-27E 39 Commons Residential Development May 13, 2020 APPENDIX A Results of Liquefaction Analyses Project: Boring: Engineer: Date: Total thickness of evaluated profile 60 feet Profile thickness susceptible to liquefaction 25 feet Number of evaluated intervals 10 Number of potentially liquefiable intervals 7 Average Factor of Safety of sandy intervals 1.80 Dry sand settlement 1.17 inches Liquefaction settlement 1.67 inches Total earthquake-induced settlement 2.84 inches Liquefaction behavior Plasticity Index threshold Saturated settlement threshold Dry settlement threshold Cyclic softening Plasticity Index threshold In-situ Design SPT-N N1,60 N1,60,cs feet feet pcf pcf % – bpf bpf bpf – in in 0 10 117.6 117.6 20 n/plastic 8.0 15.9 20.4 – – - no groundwater 1.17 2.84 10 5 118.874 118.9 60 8 8.7 13.5 19.1 – – - clay-like behaviour 0.00 1.67 15 5 124.8 124.8 53 5 99.0 146.6 152.3 4.23 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 1.67 20 5 124.8 124.8 53 5 28.1 38.9 44.5 3.78 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 1.67 25 5 117.6 117.6 60 n/plastic 35.0 46.7 52.3 3.50 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 1.67 30 5 128.578 128.6 20 n/plastic 14.7 17.6 22.1 0.38 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.57 1.67 35 5 117.6 117.6 77 16 11.0 12.0 17.5 – – - clay-like behaviour 0.00 1.10 40 3 117.18 117.2 49 n/plastic 10.1 10.3 15.9 0.26 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.29 1.10 43 2 117.18 117.2 49 n/plastic 10.1 10.1 15.7 0.26 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.17 0.81 45 15 117.6 117.6 20 n/plastic 9.0 8.4 12.9 0.22 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.64 0.64 263.00 60.00 1201.81 1201.81 461.00 34.00 233.69 320.01 372.66 12.63 0.00 2.84 14.85 Checks In-Situ Groundwater depth 43.00 feet M 7.3 Groundwater depth check OK DESIGN Groundwater depth 10.00 feet PGA 0.69 Design groundwater/excavation depth check OK DESIGN Excavation depth 0.00 feet Fines correction method compatibility OK DESIGN Surcharge (fill) 0.00 feet Idris & Boulanger, 2004 method for CN not used Cetin 2009 settlement method not used Summary of Liquefaction and Earthquale-Induced Settlement Analysis Commons Residential Development B-1 5/13/2020 Liquefaction Evaluation Method Liquefaction Analysis Statistics Correction for fines content Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 YLI Correction for overburden CN Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Cyclic resistance ratio of soil CRRCS Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Stress reduction factor rD Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Dry settlement Pradel, 1998a,b Correction for overburden Kσ Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Magnitude scaling factor MSF Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Liquefaction settlement Yoshimine et al., 2006 – w/ depth correction less or equal to 7 Depth to Layer Top Layer Thickness Total Unit Weight Fines %Plasticity Index Considered Blowcounts less or equal to 50% fines greater or equal to 18 less or equal to 50% fines Factor of Safety Liquefaction potential rationale Layer Settlement Cumulative Settlement Liquefaction Cyclic softening Profile Earthquake loading Version v2 2018-07 Printed on 5/12/2020 at 1:29 PM Page 1 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Design excavation depth 0.00 feet Design groundwater depth 10.00 feet B-1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening (middle of the layer) FS = 1.3 LIQUEFACTION NO LIQUEFACTION 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 00.511.522.533.5 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Settlement (in) Printed on 5/12/2020 at 1:29 PM Page 2 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Project: Boring: Engineer: Date: Total thickness of evaluated profile 50 feet Profile thickness susceptible to liquefaction 30 feet Number of evaluated intervals 11 Number of potentially liquefiable intervals 8 Average Factor of Safety of sandy intervals 0.90 Dry sand settlement 0.09 inches Liquefaction settlement 4.06 inches Total earthquake-induced settlement 4.15 inches Liquefaction behavior Plasticity Index threshold Saturated settlement threshold Dry settlement threshold Cyclic softening Plasticity Index threshold In-situ Design SPT-N N1,60 N1,60,cs feet feet pcf pcf % – bpf bpf bpf – in in 0 7 123.69 123.7 20 n/plastic 25.5 44.1 48.5 – – - no groundwater 0.05 4.15 7 3 123.69 123.7 3 n/plastic 25.5 37.0 37.0 – – - no groundwater 0.04 4.10 10 5 101.178 101.2 3 n/plastic 18.0 27.2 27.2 0.83 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.53 4.06 15 5 101.178 101.2 3 n/plastic 43.6 65.0 65.0 4.24 – - too dense – (N1)60,CS > 32 0.00 3.54 20 5 126.819 126.8 17 n/plastic 17.0 23.3 27.1 0.64 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.55 3.54 25 5 126.819 126.8 49 n/plastic 3.4 3.9 9.5 0.19 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 1.23 2.98 30 4 117.6 117.6 3 n/plastic 10.0 11.5 11.5 0.21 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.76 1.75 34 1 117.6 117.6 3 n/plastic 10.0 11.0 11.0 0.20 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.18 0.99 35 5 126.452 126.5 20 n/plastic 20.8 25.1 29.6 0.74 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.22 0.82 40 5 126.452 126.5 49 n/plastic 5.0 5.2 10.8 0.19 – - liquefieable - FS < 1.3 0.60 0.60 45 5 121.73 121.7 60 15 4.7 4.7 10.3 – – - clay-like behaviour 0.00 0.00 261.00 50.00 1313.21 1313.21 230.00 15.00 183.28 257.93 287.57 7.23 0.00 4.15 26.53 Checks In-Situ Groundwater depth 34.00 feet M 7.3 Groundwater depth check OK DESIGN Groundwater depth 10.00 feet PGA 0.69 Design groundwater/excavation depth check OK DESIGN Excavation depth 0.00 feet Fines correction method compatibility OK DESIGN Surcharge (fill) 0.00 feet Idris & Boulanger, 2004 method for CN not used Cetin 2009 settlement method not used Summary of Liquefaction and Earthquale-Induced Settlement Analysis Commons Residential Development B-3 YLI 5/13/2020 Liquefaction Evaluation Method Liquefaction Analysis Statistics Correction for fines content Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Correction for overburden CN Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Idriss & Boulang. 2014 (N1)60cs Cyclic resistance ratio of soil CRRCS Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2004, 2014 Stress reduction factor rD Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Idriss 1999, I&B 2008,2014 Dry settlement Pradel, 1998a,b Correction for overburden Kσ Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2008, 2014 Magnitude scaling factor MSF Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Idriss & Boulang. 2014 Liquefaction settlement Yoshimine et al., 2006 – w/ depth correction less or equal to 7 Depth to Layer Top Layer Thickness Total Unit Weight Fines %Plasticity Index Considered Blowcounts less or equal to 50% fines greater or equal to 18 less or equal to 50% fines Factor of Safety Liquefaction potential rationale Layer Settlement Cumulative Settlement Liquefaction Cyclic softening Profile Earthquake loading Version v2 2018-07 Printed on 5/12/2020 at 1:30 PM Page 1 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience Design excavation depth 0.00 feet Design groundwater depth 10.00 feet B-3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening (middle of the layer) FS = 1.3 LIQUEFACTION NO LIQUEFACTION 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0123456 De p t h b e l o w O r i g i n a l G r a d e ( f t ) Settlement (in) Printed on 5/12/2020 at 1:30 PM Page 2 of 2 Tetra Tech BAS GeoScience - 43- Appendix B – Preliminary WQMP :DWHU4XDOLW\0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ :403 Ϯϵϱϯt͘>ŝŶĐŽůŶǀĞ͕͘ŶĂŚĞŝŵϵϮϴϬϭ 7RIIROL,QYHVWPHQWV//& ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͛ƐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ EŽƌƚŚKWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJtYDWdĞŵƉůĂƚĞƵŐƵƐƚϭϳϮϬϭϭ WĂŐĞŝŝ Preparer (Engineer): Philip Malcomson, P.E. Title President PE Registration # 67819 Company C&V Consulting, Inc. Address 6 Orchard, Suite 200, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Email pmalcomson@cvcǦinc.net Telephone # (949) 916-3800 I hereby certify that this Water Quality Management Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order No. R8-2009-0030/NPDES No. CAS618030, of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Preparer Signature Date Place Stamp Here 5/5/20 Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Table of Contents North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page iii Contents Page No. Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance .......... 1 Section II Project Description .................................................................................. 2 Section III Site Description ........................................................................................ 7 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) ...................................................... 11 Section V Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs ................................. 25 Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) .......................................................................... 29 Section VII Educational Materials ............................................................................. 30 Attachments Attachment A . .................................................................................. Educational Materials Attachment B . .............................................................................................. WQMP Exhibit Attachment C . .......................................................................... BMP Fact Sheets & Details Attachment D . ..........................................................................TGD Worksheets & Figures Attachment E .. ................................................................... Operation & Maintenance Plan Attachment F .. .............................................................. Soils Report & GeoTracker Exhibit Attachment G . ........................................................................................ Notice of Transfer Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section I North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 1 Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance Project Infomation Permit/Application No. (If applicable) OTH2019-01193 Grading or Building Permit No. (If applicable) TBD Address of Project Site (or Tract Map and Lot Number if no address) and APN 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 TTM 19021 APN: 258-031-05 Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance applied to this project. (Please list verbatim.) Conditions of Approval have not been provided at this time. Conceptual WQMP Was a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan previously approved for this project? Refer to the Preliminary WQMP prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc., dated August 2019. Watershed-Based Plan Conditions Provide applicable conditions from watershed - based plans including WIHMPs and TMDLS. Heavy Metals (Technical TMDL1) 1 This TMDL has been adopted for Coyote/San Gabriel River by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 4); however, it applies to the areas of Orange County that drain to Coyote Creek and San Gabriel River Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 2 Section II Project Description II.1 Project Description Description of Proposed Project Development Category (From Model WQMP, Table 7.11-2; or -3): 1. New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. This category includes commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions, mixed-use, and public projects on private or public property that falls under the planning and building authority or the Permittees. Project Area (ft2): 170,737* Number of Dwelling Units: 64 SIC Code: n/a Project Area Pervious Impervious Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Pre-Project Conditions 3.75 ac 96% 0.17 ac 4% Post-Project Conditions 0.74 ac 19% 3.18 ac 81% Drainage Patterns/Connections Drainage at the site currently percolates onsite via an existing onsite desilting basin, and excess flows sheet flow overland in a southwesterly direction to the southwest corner of the site and then offsite on to W. Lincoln Avenue. An existing 16’ catch basin is located along the project frontage as is an existing 24” storm drain system located along the project frontage within W. Lincoln Avenue. The existing onsite desilting basin currently receives offsite run‐on from a larger development area that has previously been mass graded. As part of the proposed development, the existing onsite desilting basin will be relocated. Refer to the separately prepared Hydrology and Hydraulics Study by C&V Consulting, Inc. for more information. Narrative Project Description: (Use as much space as necessary.) The proposed project consists of approximately 3.92 gross acres located at 2953 W. Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, California. The existing project site is currently vacated, open space land consisting of dirt and overgrown grass areas. The project site is part of a former landfill area. The proposed development will consist of 10 buildings comprising 64 townhome units and private drive aisles for access to each building with one proposed driveway entrance along W. Lincoln Avenue. Each unit will be accompanied with a 2‐car garage, and additional guest parking is provided throughout the site. Additional amenities include outdoor recreational areas. Landscaping will be incorporated in open‐space common areas. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 3 Proposed drainage will be directed as surface flow and through a series of area drains towards proposed catch basins within the proposed private drive aisles. Proposed catch basins will be equipped with Dvert systems which divert low flows to proposed Modular Wetlands Systems (MWS) Biofiltration Vaults for water quality treatment. Treated stormwater is returned to the proposed catch basins below the Dvert systems and is conveyed to the existing 24” storm drain facility within W. Lincoln Avenue via proposed underground storm drain. During larger storm events and when the MWS Biofiltration Vaults are at capacity, an internal bypass will allow high flows to bypass treatment and continue directly to the discharge location**. Carbon Canyon Creek flows in the southwesterly direction and intersects with Coyote Creek which drains to San Gabriel River Estuary and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. In order to meet ultimate right‐of‐way width requirements for W. Lincoln Avenue, there is a proposed right‐of‐way dedication to the City of Anaheim along the project’s southerly boundary. This area will undergo minor improvements as part of the proposed development, however it will ultimately be part of future street widening by the City of Anaheim. Refer to the WQMP Exhibit located within Attachment B of this report for additional information. *The total project area includes all improvement areas within the right‐of‐way (approximately 0.26 acres). Improvements within right‐of‐way include trenching for proposed storm drain installation, drive approach modifications, and parkway improvements. Onsite BMPs have been oversized to account for these offsite areas. HSC BMPs have been incorporated to the maximum extent feasible within the parkway to promote stormwater retention in the interim condition prior to future street widening of Lincoln Avenue. **Underground detention piping is provided directly upstream of the point of connection to the existing 24” storm drain within W. Lincoln Avenue. The proposed storage will temporarily detain larger storm events and mitigate peak flow rates. Refer to the separately prepared Hydrology and Hydraulics Study by C&V Consulting, Inc. for additional information on proposed detention and desilting basin relocation information. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 4 II.2 Potential Stormwater Pollutants Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Check One for each: E=Expected to be of concern N=Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Suspended-Solid/ Sediment E N Residential Development Nutrients E N Residential Development Heavy Metals E N Drive Aisle/ Parking Areas Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E N Residential Development Pesticides E N Landscaping Areas Oil and Grease E N Drive Aisles/ Parking Areas Toxic Organic Compounds E N Drive Aisles/ Parking Areas Trash and Debris E N Residential Development Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 5 II.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern No – Show map. See Calculations below. Yes – Describe applicable hydrologic conditions of concern below. Per the TGD Figure 1, Susceptibility Analysis San Gabriel‐Coyote Creek, the project location is not susceptible to hydrologic conditions of concern. Refer to Attachment D for the TGD Figure 1. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 6 II.4 Post Development Drainage Characteristics Post‐development drainage will be consistent with a proposed, attached multi‐family residential project. The tributary areas and direction of run‐off flows for the proposed site are delineated on the attached WQMP Exhibit based on the grading and drainage design. Refer to Attachment B of this report for the WQMP Exhibit. Currently, the existing project site drains overland towards an existing onsite desilting basin near the geometric center of the site. Stormwater ponds near the center of the project site and ultimately overflows in the southwesterly direction and into the right‐of‐way of W. Lincoln Avenue. Within W. Lincoln Avenue, stormwater is captured and conveyed to an existing City of Anaheim 24” storm drain facility within W. Lincoln Avenue which discharges to the existing Carbon Canyon Creek. Carbon Canyon Creek flows in the southwesterly direction and ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean. Proposed drainage will be conveyed as surface flow and through a series of area drains to the proposed private drive aisle. Within the private drive aisle, proposed curb‐inlet catch basins equipped with a Dvert system will convey low flows to proposed MWS Biofiltration vaults for water quality treatment prior to discharging to the existing City storm drain within W. Lincoln Avenue. During larger storm events and when the MWS Biofiltration Vaults are at capacity, stormwater will bypass the treatment system and be conveyed to a proposed detention system prior to discharging to the existing storm drain facility within W. Lincoln Avenue. The proposed drainage pattern matches that of the existing condition of the site. Refer to the separately prepared Hydrology and Hydraulics Study by C&V Consulting, Inc. for additional drainage and detention information. II.5 Property Ownership/Management The proposed project will be maintained by an appointed Homeowner’s Association (HOA) selected by the Developer, Toffoli Investments, LLC. The HOA will be responsible for maintaining and provided regular inspections on all of the post‐construction BMPs. Toffoli Investments, LLC 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 768‐2535 Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section III North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 7 Section III Site Description III.1 Physical Setting Name of Planned Community/Planning Area (if applicable) n/a Location/Address 2953 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 General Plan Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Medium Zoning Existing Zone: SP 2017-1 Beach Boulevard Specific Plan Proposed Zone: SP 2017-1 Beach Boulevard Specific Plan Acreage of Project Site 3.92 ac (including right-of-way dedication area and extents of right- of-way improvements) Predominant Soil Type Soil Type A Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section III North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 8 III.2 Site Characteristics Site Characteristics Precipitation Zone The site is located within 0.90 inches (85th percentile rainfall) from Figure XVI-1 (Rainfall Zones) from Orange County Technical Guidance Document. Topography The site is generally flat with elevations above sea level ranging between 89.4 feet and 78.0 feet. The existing site is entirely dirt and grass areas with no trees or dense vegetation. Drainage Patterns/Connections Drainage at the site currently percolates onsite via an existing onsite desilting basin, and excess flows overflow to the southwest corner of the site and proceeds offsite onto W. Lincoln Avenue. There are no existing storm drain systems onsite although there is an existing 16’ catch basin located along the project frontage in the public right of way as well as an existing 24” storm drain system located along the project frontage within W. Lincoln Avenue. Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties A Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. dated May 24, 2010 describes the underlying soils as, “… a subsurface profile consisting of fill soils overlying native soils…the depth of fills was relatively shallow overlying the native soils.” “… the fills consist of gravelly sands, sandy silts, and silty sands overlying native soils…encountered fills ranging in thickness from 0 to 3 feet.” “…the native soils in the upper 40 feet, in general, consists of sands and silty sands that are medium dense to dense and moist to very moist. The upper silts are, in general, firm to stiff and very moist. These soils exhibit moderate strength and moderate compressibility.” Infiltration properties were not discussed in the available Soils Report although it can be noted that the site consists of Soil Type A which typically display excellent infiltration rates. Refer to Attachment F within this report for a copy of the project’s soils report. Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions A Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. dated May 24, 2010 describes the groundwater levels as, “Groundwater was encountered at depths of 33 to 35 feet below existing grades in [the soils engineer’s] borings. Groundwater was encountered by others…at a depth of 32 to 35 feet below the existing ground surface. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section III North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 9 A historical depth to groundwater has been determined for the site to be approximately 10 feet below existing grades…” Per the GeoTracker website, the project site is part of a former landfill area which is restricted by RWQCB from infiltration due to potential for groundwater contamination. A copy of the GeoTracker map of the project site has been included in Attachment F of this report. Refer to Attachment F within this report for a copy of the project’s soils report. Geotechnical Conditions (relevant to infiltration) Percolation and Infiltration testing has not been conducted at this stage, and no information regarding geotechnical condition relevant and specific to infiltration is currently available. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. dated May 24, 2010 suggests a difficulty in proposing infiltration BMPs as: 1. Historical groundwater depth approximately 10 feet below grade would not allow for 10 feet of separation from the bottom of the infiltration device – ie drywells, subsurface galleries, vaults, basins, and trenches. 2. “A high potential for caving of soils within the relatively clean sands both above and below the groundwater…should be assumed.” 3. In case infiltrated water reaches the existing landfill areas “the introduction of water into the existing landfill materials can induce and accelerate subsidence.” Off-Site Drainage The site was previously a part of a larger proposed development. The existing project site contains a desilting basin to which the larger development is tributary to, therefore the project site is subject to off‐site run‐on. Offsite run‐on is currently conveyed to the existing desilting basin via drainage swales and existing onsite storm drain pipes. The existing onsite desilting basin will be relocated as part of the proposed development, and all existing onsite storm drains will be removed/relocated as part of the proposed development. Offsite run‐on will be captured by existing offsite inlets and conveyed through the site via the relocated storm drain towards the new location of the basin. Off‐site run‐on will not be treated, nor will it comingle with treatment flows. Refer to the separately prepared Hydrology and Hydraulics Study by C&V Consulting, Inc. for more information. Utility and Infrastructure Information An existing underground storm drain system is located off‐site within the W. Lincoln Avenue street frontage. Existing domestic Water and Sewer mains are located within W. Lincoln Avenue. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section III North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 10 III.3 Watershed Description Receiving Waters Carbon Canyon Creek, Coyote Creek Channel, San Gabriel River Reach 1, San Gabriel River Estuary, Pacific Ocean 303(d) Listed Impairments Carbon Canyon Creek is not listed for any 303(d) impairments. Coyote Creek Channel is listed for Dissolved Copper, Indicator Bacteria, Iron, Malathion, pH, and Toxicity. San Gabriel River Reach 1 is listed for pH and Water Temperature. San Gabriel River Estuary is listed for Copper, Dioxin, Indicator Bacteria, Nickel, and Dissolved Oxygen. Applicable TMDLs Applicable TMDLs for each downstream water body include the following: Carbon Canyon Creek: Chloride, Sulfates Coyote Creek Channel: Abnormal Fish Histology (Lesions), Aluminum, Ammonia, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chloride, Chlorpyrifos, Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Dissolved Copper, Cyanide, Diazinon, Endosulfan, Endrin, Excess Algal Growth, Fluoride, Heptachlor Epoxide, Indicator Bacteria, Iron, Lead, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane, Malathion, Mercury, Nickel, Ammonia Nitrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, Pentachlorophenol, pH, Selenium, Silver, Water Temperature, Toxaphene, Toxicity, Zinc San Gabriel River Reach 1: Abnormal Fish Histology (Lesions), Ammonia, Arsenic, Bifenthrin, Cadmium, Chlorpyrifos, Chromium, Copper, Cyfluthrin, Lambda Cyhalothrin, Cypermethrin, DDD, DDE, DDT, Deltamethrin, Diazinon, Dieldrin, Endrin, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Excess Algal Growth, Fenpropathrin, Indicator Bacteria, Iron, Lead, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane, Mercury, Methyl Parathion, Nickel, Dissolved Oxygen, Permethrin, pH, Selenium, Silver, Water Temperature, Toxicity, Zinc San Gabriel River Estuary: Abnormal Fish Histology (Lesions), Ammonia, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chlordane, Chromium, Copper, Dioxin, Indicator Bacteria, Iron, Lead, Nickel, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Selenium, Silver, Water Temperature, Toxicity, Zinc Pollutants of Concern (POC) for the Project Primary POC: Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus), Pesticides, Heavy Metals, Nutrients, Toxic Organic Compounds Other POC: Suspended Solids/Sediment, Oil & Grease, Trash & Debris Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological Significant Areas Per the Water Board GeoTracker website, the project site is a part of a former landfill area. Therefore, infiltration BMPs were not considered for this project due to potential for groundwater contamination and restrictions set by the RWQCB. Refer to Attachment F for the GeoTracker exhibit. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 11 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) IV. 1 Project Performance Criteria (NOC Permit Area only) Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional basis? YES NO If yes, describe WIHMP feasibility criteria or regional/sub-regional LID opportunities. n/a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 12 Project Performance Criteria If HCOC exists, list applicable hydromodification control performance criteria (Section 7.II- 2.4.2.2 in MWQMP) Per the TGD Figure 1, Susceptibility Analysis San Gabriel‐Coyote Creek, the project location is not susceptible to hydrologic conditions of concern and does not drain to any unstable, natural channels. Therefore, downstream erosion is not a concern. Refer to Attachment D for the TGD Figure 1. List applicable LID performance criteria (Section 7.II-2.4.3 from MWQMP) Per 7.II‐2.4.3 of the Model WQMP, the LID implementation criteria are as follows: Priority Projects must infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85th percentile, 24‐hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). A properly designed biotreatment system may only be considered if infiltration, harvest and use, and evapotranspiration (ET) cannot be feasibly implemented for the full design capture volume. In this case, infiltration, harvest and use, and ET practices must be implemented to the greatest extent feasible and biotreatment may be provided for the remaining design capture volume. Since infiltration and harvest and use are infeasible onsite, the project will utilize biotreatment BMPs to treat the required treatment flowrate. Refer to Section IV.3.4 for more information on proposed BMPs. List applicable treatment control BMP performance criteria (Section 7.II- 3.2.2 from MWQMP) Per 7.II‐2.4.2.3 of the Model WQMP, if the LID performance criteria is not feasibly met by retention and/or biotreatment, then sizing of onsite treatment control BMPs are requiremed. Sizing of these treatment control BMPs will include, if applicable any Water Quality credits as calculated per the Technical Guidance Document. If the additional required volume cannot be met, however has a medium to high effectiveness, then a waiver application and participation in an alternative program may be not required. If the cost of providing treatment control BMPs greatly outweighs the pollution control benefits, a waiver of treatment control and LID requirements can be requested. Calculate LID design storm capture volume for Project. The DCV for each DMA was calculated using the TGD Worksheet B as follows: DMA 1: Vdesign = (0.768)(0.9)(1.14 acres)(43,560 sf/acre)(1 foot/12 inches) = 2,851 cf DMA 2: Vdesign = (0.752)(0.9)(1.91 acres)(43,560 sf/acre)(1 foot/12 inches) = 4,702 cf DMA 3*: Vdesign = (0.764)(0.9)(0.87 acres)(43,560 sf/acre)(1 foot/12 inches) = 2,166 cf The Design Flowrate for each DMA was calculated using the TGD Worksheet D as follows: DMA 1: Qdesign = (0.768)(0.26 in/hr)(1.14 acres) = 0.227 cfs DMA 2: Qdesign = (0.752)(0.26 in/hr)(1.91 acres) = 0.374 cfs DMA 3*: Qdesign = (0.764)(0.26 in/hr)(0.87 acres) = 0.172 cfs See Attachment D of this report for DCV and treatment flowrate calculations. Biotreatment BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment of the DCV and will have a flow‐based design. *DMA 3 area includes offsite right‐of‐way dedication/improvement areas. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 13 IV.2. Site Design and Drainage The proposed development has been divided into three (3) Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) based on the site’s grading and drainage design. The storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed via surface flow and through area drains towards three (3) proposed curb‐inlet catch basins within the proposed private drive aisle which are equipped with Dvert system to divert low flows to three (3) proposed MWS Biofiltration vaults for water quality treatment. During large storm events and when the proposed MWS Biofiltration Vaults are at capacity, storm water runoff will bypass treatment devices and be conveyed to proposed underground detention piping (per separate Hydrology Study) which discharges to the existing 24” City storm drain facility within W. Lincoln Avenue to follow the historic drainage pattern. The Modular Wetland Biofiltration Systems are designed to provide a 3 phase treatment train. Initially, when the stormwater enters the system, a trash rack, filter media and settling chamber will capture large trash/ debris and sediment in the stormwater before entering into the plant media. This system is designed to treat stormwater flow horizontally. Before the stormwater enters the planting or “wetland” chamber, the runoff flows through the 2nd phase, a pre‐filter cartridge which captures fines TSS, metals, nutrients and bacteria. The pre‐filter chamber eliminates additional maintenance of the planting area. The wetland chamber is the 3rd phase of the system which provides final treatment through a combination of physical, chemical and biological processes. The proposed landscaped area locations are shown on the WQMP Exhibit located within Attachment B of this report. Refer to Worksheets B and D in Attachment D of this report. Drainage Management Areas (DMA) Table: Drainage Area No. (DMA) Area (ac) Design Flow Rate (cfs) Design Capture Volume (cf) BMP 1 1.14 0.227 2,851 MWS Biofiltration 2 1.91 0.374 4,702 MWS Biofiltration 3* 0.87 0.172 2,166 MWS Biofiltration ∑ 3.92 0.773 9,719 MWS Biofiltration *DMA 3 includes offsite right‐of‐way dedication/improvement areas. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 14 IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) Name Included? Localized on-lot infiltration Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) Street trees (canopy interception) Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) Green roofs/Brown roofs Blue roofs Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Impervious area dispersion has been incorporated within offsite parkway improvements (included within DMA 3) to promote stormwater retention of drainage tributary to this area until future street widening of W. Lincoln Avenue occurs. Calculations for impervious area dispersion are provided in Attachment D, Worksheet A. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 15 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Name Included? Bioretention without underdrains Rain gardens Porous landscaping Infiltration planters Retention swales Infiltration trenches Infiltration basins Drywells Subsurface infiltration galleries French drains Permeable asphalt Permeable concrete Permeable concrete pavers Other: Other: Infiltration Feasibility: Infiltration BMPs were not considered for this project due to an existing RWQCB restriction on infiltration on a landfill site. In addition, due to the historic high groundwater level of 10 feet below grade, conformance with the minimum required separation between groundwater and infiltration BMPs would be impossible to achieve. Per correspondence with Keith Linker at the City of Anaheim, infiltration testing was not required to determine infiltration feasibility for this project. The existing contamination potential and historic high groundwater level provide sufficient reasoning against onsite infiltration. Refer to Attachment F of this report for GeoTracker landfill information and the soils report which indicates the level of historic high groundwater. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 16 IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Name Included? All HSCs; See Section IV.3.1 Surface-based infiltration BMPs Biotreatment BMPs Above-ground cisterns and basins Underground detention Other: Other: Other: Evaptranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs will not be utilized for the proposed development and have been deemed infeasible due to site design constraints. Refer to Worksheet J within Attachment D of this report for more information. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 17 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs Name Included? Bioretention with underdrains Stormwater planter boxes with underdrains Rain gardens with underdrains Constructed wetlands Vegetated swales Vegetated filter strips Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems Wet extended detention basin Dry extended detention basins Other: Other: Biotreatment: Modular Wetland Stormwater (MWS) Biofiltration Systems will utilize to capture and treat the stormwater runoff before leaving the site. The Biofiltration Systems utilizes a 3 phase treatment train by collecting the stormwater runoff in a Pre‐Treatment Chamber, Planting or “Wetland” Chamber and Discharge Chamber. Treated stormwater runoff will be conveyed to an existing City 24” storm drain facility within W. Lincoln Avenue which drains to the Carbon Canyon Creek and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. Refer to Attachment C for additional MWS Biofiltration System BMP information. The MWS Biofiltration System was sized primarily on flow‐based calculations. Refer to Worksheet D in Attachment D for additional calculations. Drainage Area No. (DMA) Area (ac) Design Flow Rate (cfs) Proposed MWS Model MWS Flowrate Capacity (cfs) 1 1.14 0.227 MWS‐L‐8‐8‐V 0.231 2 1.91 0.374 MWS‐L‐8‐12‐V** 0.377 3* 0.87 0.172 MWS‐L‐8‐8‐V 0.231 ∑ 3.92 0.773 ‐ 0.839 *DMA 3 accounts for offsite right‐of‐way dedication/improvement areas. **Modified depth will be utilized to provide required treatment flowrate. Project‐specific details will be provided prior to final approval. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 18 IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs Hydromodification Control BMPs BMP Name BMP Description n/a IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs n/a IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Treatment Control BMPs BMP Name BMP Description n/a n/a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 19 IV.3.8 Non-structural Source Control BMPs Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions N3 Common Area Landscape Management N4 BMP Maintenance N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Title 22 CCR Compliance does not apply. N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance Residential development. N7 Spill Contingency Plan Residential development N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No proposed underground storage tanks N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance No proposed hazardous materials. N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation N11 Common Area Litter Control N12 Employee Training N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks No proposed loading docks. N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets Residential development. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 20 N1: Education for Property Owners, Tenants & Occupants Project conditions of approval will require that the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) periodically provide environmental awarness education materials, made available by the municipalities, to all of its members. Among other things, these materials will be descrive the use of chemcials (including household type) that should be limited to the property, with no discharge of wastes via hosing or other direct discharge to gutters, catch basins and storm drains. Educational materials available from the County of Orange can be downloaded here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/PublicEd/resources/default.aspx N2: Activity Restrictions Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) must be prepared by the developer for the appointed HOA for the purpose of surface water quality protection. The CC&Rs shall incorporate the restrictions based on the Project WQMP. N3: Common Area Landscape Management All common landscaping and/ or open space areas shall have on‐going landscape maintenance by an appointed professional landscaping maintenance company as selected by the HOA. Maintenance shall incorporate all current County Water Conservation Resolution usage and follow the Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers per the DAMP Section 5.5. Refer to Section 5 of this report for additional landscape maintenance requirements. N4: BMP Maintenance Refer to Section 5 and Attachment E of this report for additional non‐structural BMP maintenance requirements, responsibility and frequency. N10: Uniform Fire Code Implementation HOA is responsible for compliance with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code enforced by the local fire protection agency. N11: Common Area Litter Control HOA to implement trash management and litter control procedures in the common areas aimed at reducing pollution of drainage water. HOA to contract with landscape maintenance company to provide this service during regularly scheduled maintenance, which will consist of litter patrol, emptying of trash receptacles in common areas, and noting trash disposals violations by homeowners, tenants or occupants and reporting the violations to the HOA for investigation. N12: Employee Training HOA to provide Educational Materials and Property Management manuals to all employees upon initial hiring. Any updated information shall be provided to employees within a timely manner along with information on implementation. N14: Common Area Catch Basin Inspections HOA to inspect, clean and repair common area catch basins within the development to verify that the private drainage system is working properly. All trash/ debris and sediment build up is removed and any repairs/ replacements are conducted. Cleaning should take place in late summer/ early fall prior to the start of the raining season. Drainage facilities include catch basins (storm drain inlets), detention basins, retention basins, sediment basins, open drainage channels, area drains, and lift stations. Records shall be kept onsite to document the annual maintenance. N15: Street Sweeping of Private Streets & Parking Lots HOA to schedule at a minimum street sweeping of private streets and parking areas prior to the start of the rainy seasons, in late summer or early fall. Additional sweeping may be required to remove landscaping foliage and/ or pollution. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 21 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction No proposed outdoor storage areas. S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Individual Trash Bins per Unit S4 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation No proposed slopes or channels. Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit) Not applicable. S6 Dock areas No proposed dock areas. S7 Maintenance bays No proposed maintenance bays. S8 Vehicle wash areas No proposed vehicle wash areas. S9 Outdoor processing areas No proposed outdoor processing areas. S10 Equipment wash areas No proposed equipment wash areas. S11 Fueling areas No proposed fueling areas. S12 Hillside landscaping Development not located within hillside area. S13 Wash water control for food preparation areas No proposed wash control areas for food preparation areas. S14 Community car wash racks No proposed community car wash areas. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 22 S1 (CASQA Fact Sheet SD-13): Storm Drain Stenciling & Signage HOA to inspect, repair and/ or replace storm drain stenciling and signage immediately. Inspection of stenciling and signage shall occur at least once per month and prior to the start of the raining season. Storm Drain stenciling and signage with a reference that indicates “Drains to Ocean” per CASQA BMP SD‐13 Fact Sheet is required. S4 (CASQA Fact Sheet SD-12): Use Efficient Irrigation Systems & Landscape Design HOA shall implement the timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the storm drain systems. HOA to implement the following methods to reduce excessive irrigation water runoff, where applicable: Employ rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation Utilizing landscape specific irrigation water requirements Utilize flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by pressure drop to control water loss due to broken sprinkler heads Implement landscaping practices per the County Water Conservation Resolution or City agency equivalent Group plants or landscaping with similar water consumption in order to promote surface infiltration Refer to CASQA BMP Fact Sheet SD‐12 for additional information. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 23 IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (If Applicable) IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Description of Proposed Project Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits (Select all that apply): Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. Brownfield redevelopment, meaning redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real property which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, and which have the potential to contribute to adverse ground or surface WQ if not redeveloped. Higher density development projects which include two distinct categories (credits can only be taken for one category): those with more than seven units per acre of development (lower credit allowance); vertical density developments, for example, those with a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance). Mixed use development, such as a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that can demonstrate environmental benefits that would not be realized through single use projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with the potential to reduce sources of water or air pollution). Transit-oriented developments, such as a mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation; similar to above criterion, but where the development center is within one half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, rail, light rail or commuter train station). Such projects would not be able to take credit for both categories, but may have greater credit assigned Redevelopment projects in an established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant city area including core City Center areas (to be defined through mapping). Developments with dedication of undeveloped portions to parks, preservation areas and other pervious uses. Developments in a city center area. Developments in historic districts or historic preservation areas. Live-work developments, a variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs together – similar to criteria to mixed use development; would not be able to take credit for both categories. In-fill projects, the conversion of empty lots and other underused spaces into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas. Calculation of Water Quality Credits (if applicable) The entire DCV for the project site is being treated by a LID BMP. Water quality credits will not be used. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 24 IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information n/a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 25 Section V Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs The property is currently owned by Toffoli Investments, LLC. The Owner will be responsible for the long‐term maintenance of the project’s storm water facilities and conformance to this WQMP after construction is complete. A Notice of Transfer of Responsibility is located in Attachment G of this report and should be executed as part of any ownership transfer after construction is complete. The owner may appoint a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to provide long term BMP maintenance for the proposed development upon completion of construction. Owner/Developer: Toffoli Investments, LLC 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 Alan Toffoli, Principal (949) 768‐2535 The owner is aware of the maintenance responsibilities of the proposed BMPs. A funding mechanism is in place to maintain the BMPs at the frequency stated in the WQMP. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 26 BMP Inspection/Maintenance BMP Reponsible Party(s) Inspection/ Maintenance Activities Required Minimum Frequency of Activities Education for Property Owners, Tenants, Occupants & Employees Homeowner’s Association (HOA) HOA to provide education material, a copy of the approved WQMP and Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M) to new property owners, tenants, occupants & employees. At time of hiring, leasing and/ or home purchase. Activity Restrictions HOA HOA employees notified of activities that are prohibited by homeowners. Restrictions identified in Employee Manual and reviewed yearly by employees. Common Area Landscape Management HOA HOA to hire professional landscape company to conduct maintenance of landscaping to meet current water efficiency and keep plants healthy and bio areas maintained with proper soil amendments. Regular maintenance once a week and monthly inspection to determine deficiencies. BMP Maintenance HOA HOA to hire professional BMP maintenance company to conduct regular inspections, repairs and cleanings per manufacturer’s specifications. A minimum 2 inspections/ cleanings per year per manufacturer’s specifications prior to October 1st (before rainy season) Uniform Fire Code Implementation HOA HOA to comply with fire regulations and keep informed of the latest rules and requirements. Comply with annual fire inspections and maintain building and access per the latest fire codes. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 27 Common Area Litter Control HOA HOA to provide litter removal of site parking lot and landscape areas and to empty common area trash bins. Once per week. Employee Training HOA The distribution of these materials will be the reasonability of the HOA at the initial hiring of the employee. At time of hiring. Private Street & Parking Lot Sweeping HOA HOA to provide maintenance of Parking Lot and provide Street Sweeping services. Weekly basis. Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control HOA HOA to provide maintenance of landscaping to meet current water efficiency standards, and keep plants healthily. Regular maintenance once a week and monthly inspection to determine any water deficiencies. Common Area Catch Basin Inspections HOA HOA shall inspection common areas where catch basins are located within the surrounding area and remove any trash/ debris. Inspections/ Cleaning shall occur at least twice per month. Storm Drain System Stencilling & Signage HOA HOA to inspect and repair as needed all onsite storm drain stencilling & signage. Inspection should occur at minimum twice per year. Modular Wetlands System (MWS) Biofiltration Vaults HOA HOA will be required to hire a professional maintenance company to provide regular inspections, repairs and cleaning per manufacturer’s specifications. Maintenance/cleaning should include removing trach from screening device, removing sediment from separation chamber, replacing cartridge Inspections/ Cleanings should occur at least two times per year and before the start of the rainy season (October 1st). Refer to Attachment C for additional information and manufacturer’s specifications. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 28 and down drain filter media, and trimming vegetation. Refer to Attachment E for manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. Modular Trough Diversion System HOA HOA to inspect system and schedule maintenance when deficiencies are noted. Area near system to be kept free of debris and cleanings shall be scheduled to remove silt from trough as needed Inspections should occur at least two times per year and before the start of the rainy season (October 1st). ADS Detention Piping HOA HOA to inspect detention piping and schedule maintenance/cleanings when deficiencies or sediment build- up/ trash/ debris is observed. HOA to check for standing water following major storm events and contact manufacturer if standing water does not drain within 48 hours. Inspections should occur at least two times per year and before the start of the rainy season (October 1st). Inspect for standing water 48 hours after major storm events. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section VI North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 29 Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) VI.1 BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) Refer to Attachment B of this report for the WQMP Exhibit. VI.2 Submittal and Recordation of Water Quality Management Plan Following approval of the Final Project-Specific WQMP, three copies of the approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be submitted. In addition, these documents shall be submitted in a PDF format. Each approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be recorded in the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s Office, prior to close-out of grading and/or building permit. Educational Materials are not required to be included. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2953 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92801 Toffoli Investments, LLC Section VII North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 30 Section VII Educational Materials Education Materials Residential Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Applicable Business Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Applicable The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Household Tips Other Material Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank System Responsible Pest Control Sewer Spill Tips for the Home Improvement Projects Tips for Horse Care Tips for Landscaping and Gardening Tips for Pet Care Tips for Pool Maintenance Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains Tips for Projects Using Paint Attachment A Educational Materials Please visit www.ocwatersheds.com for educational materials. Attachment B WQMP Exhibit 1 " = 3 0 ' 0 1 5 3 0 6 0 V I C I N I T Y M A P N O T T O S C A L E Attachment C BMP Fact Sheets & Details 1. 4 1 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 . 1 2 . 2 2 . 3 2 . 4 2 . 5 2 . 6 2 . 7 2 . 8 2 . 9 3 . 0 3 . 1 3 . 2 3 . 3 3.4 3.5 3 . 6 3 . 6 5 3 . 7 0 3 . 7 5 3 . 8 0 3 . 8 5 3 . 9 0 3 . 9 5 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐4 6. 7 0 1 . 0 0. 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 2 9 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 4 0 . 0 3 5 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 0 4 6 0 . 0 4 8 0 . 0 4 9 0 . 0 5 1 0.052 0.054 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 5 6 0 . 0 5 7 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 5 9 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 0 6 1 MW S ‐L ‐3 ‐6 10 . 0 6 1 . 0 0. 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 5 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 3 9 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4 6 0 . 0 4 8 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 6 5 0 . 0 6 7 0 . 0 6 9 0 . 0 7 2 0 . 0 7 4 0 . 0 7 6 0.078 0.081 0 . 0 8 3 0 . 0 8 4 0 . 0 8 5 0 . 0 8 7 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 0 8 9 0 . 0 9 0 0 . 0 9 1 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐6 9. 3 0 1 . 0 0. 0 3 0 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 4 0 . 0 3 6 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 0 4 7 0 . 0 4 9 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 6 4 0 . 0 6 6 0 . 0 6 8 0 . 0 7 0 0.073 0.075 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 0 7 8 0 . 0 7 9 0 . 0 8 0 0 . 0 8 1 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 8 3 0 . 0 8 4 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐8 14 . 8 0 1 . 0 0. 0 4 8 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 6 5 0 . 0 6 8 0 . 0 7 1 0 . 0 7 5 0 . 0 7 8 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 8 5 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 0 9 2 0 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 9 9 0 . 1 0 2 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 1 0 9 0 . 1 1 2 0.115 0.119 0 . 1 2 2 0 . 1 2 4 0 . 1 2 6 0 . 1 2 7 0 . 1 2 9 0 . 1 3 1 0 . 1 3 2 0 . 1 3 4 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐13 18 . 4 0 1 . 0 0. 0 5 9 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 0 6 8 0 . 0 7 2 0 . 0 7 6 0 . 0 8 0 0 . 0 8 4 0 . 0 8 9 0 . 0 9 3 0 . 0 9 7 0 . 1 0 1 0 . 1 0 6 0 . 1 1 0 0 . 1 1 4 0 . 1 1 8 0 . 1 2 2 0 . 1 2 7 0 . 1 3 1 0 . 1 3 5 0 . 1 3 9 0.144 0.148 0 . 1 5 2 0 . 1 5 4 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 1 5 8 0 . 1 6 0 0 . 1 6 3 0 . 1 6 5 0 . 1 6 7 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐15 22 . 4 0 1 . 0 0. 0 7 2 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 8 7 0 . 0 9 3 0 . 0 9 8 0 . 1 0 3 0 . 1 0 8 0 . 1 1 3 0 . 1 1 8 0 . 1 2 3 0 . 1 2 9 0 . 1 3 4 0 . 1 3 9 0 . 1 4 4 0 . 1 4 9 0 . 1 5 4 0 . 1 5 9 0 . 1 6 5 0 . 1 7 0 0.175 0.180 0 . 1 8 5 0 . 1 8 8 0 . 1 9 0 0 . 1 9 3 0 . 1 9 5 0 . 1 9 8 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 2 0 3 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐17 26 . 4 0 1 . 0 0. 0 8 5 0 . 0 9 1 0 . 0 9 7 0 . 1 0 3 0 . 1 0 9 0 . 1 1 5 0 . 1 2 1 0 . 1 2 7 0 . 1 3 3 0 . 1 3 9 0 . 1 4 5 0 . 1 5 1 0 . 1 5 8 0 . 1 6 4 0 . 1 7 0 0 . 1 7 6 0 . 1 8 2 0 . 1 8 8 0 . 1 9 4 0 . 2 0 0 0.206 0.212 0 . 2 1 8 0 . 2 2 1 0 . 2 2 4 0 . 2 2 7 0 . 2 3 0 0 . 2 3 3 0 . 2 3 6 0 . 2 3 9 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐19 30 . 4 0 1 . 0 0. 0 9 8 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 1 1 9 0 . 1 2 6 0 . 1 3 3 0 . 1 4 0 0 . 1 4 7 0 . 1 5 3 0 . 1 6 0 0 . 1 6 7 0 . 1 7 4 0 . 1 8 1 0 . 1 8 8 0 . 1 9 5 0 . 2 0 2 0 . 2 0 9 0 . 2 1 6 0 . 2 2 3 0 . 2 3 0 0.237 0.244 0 . 2 5 1 0 . 2 5 5 0 . 2 5 8 0 . 2 6 2 0 . 2 6 5 0 . 2 6 9 0 . 2 7 2 0 . 2 7 6 MW S ‐L ‐4 ‐21 34 . 4 0 1 . 0 0. 1 1 1 0 . 1 1 8 0 . 1 2 6 0 . 1 3 4 0 . 1 4 2 0 . 1 5 0 0 . 1 5 8 0 . 1 6 6 0 . 1 7 4 0 . 1 8 2 0 . 1 8 9 0 . 1 9 7 0 . 2 0 5 0 . 2 1 3 0 . 2 2 1 0 . 2 2 9 0 . 2 3 7 0 . 2 4 5 0 . 2 5 3 0 . 2 6 1 0.268 0.276 0 . 2 8 4 0 . 2 8 8 0 . 2 9 2 0 . 2 9 6 0 . 3 0 0 0 . 3 0 4 0 . 3 0 8 0 . 3 1 2 MW S ‐L ‐6 ‐8 18 . 8 0 1 . 0 0. 0 6 0 0 . 0 6 5 0 . 0 6 9 0 . 0 7 3 0 . 0 7 8 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 8 6 0 . 0 9 1 0 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 9 9 0 . 1 0 4 0 . 1 0 8 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 1 1 6 0 . 1 2 1 0 . 1 2 5 0 . 1 2 9 0 . 1 3 4 0 . 1 3 8 0 . 1 4 2 0.147 0.151 0 . 1 5 5 0 . 1 5 7 0 . 1 6 0 0 . 1 6 2 0 . 1 6 4 0 . 1 6 6 0 . 1 6 8 0 . 1 7 0 MW S ‐L ‐8 ‐8 29 . 6 0 1 . 0 0. 0 9 5 0 . 1 0 2 0 . 1 0 9 0 . 1 1 5 0 . 1 2 2 0 . 1 2 9 0 . 1 3 6 0 . 1 4 3 0 . 1 4 9 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 1 6 3 0 . 1 7 0 0 . 1 7 7 0 . 1 8 3 0 . 1 9 0 0 . 1 9 7 0 . 2 0 4 0 . 2 1 1 0 . 2 1 7 0 . 2 2 4 0.231 0.238 0 . 2 4 5 0 . 2 4 8 0 . 2 5 1 0 . 2 5 5 0 . 2 5 8 0 . 2 6 2 0 . 2 6 5 0 . 2 6 8 MW S ‐L ‐8 ‐12 44 . 4 0 1 . 0 0. 1 4 3 0 . 1 5 3 0 . 1 6 3 0 . 1 7 3 0 . 1 8 3 0 . 1 9 4 0 . 2 0 4 0 . 2 1 4 0 . 2 2 4 0 . 2 3 4 0 . 2 4 5 0 . 2 5 5 0 . 2 6 5 0 . 2 7 5 0 . 2 8 5 0 . 2 9 6 0 . 3 0 6 0 . 3 1 6 0 . 3 2 6 0 . 3 3 6 0.346 0.357 0 . 3 6 7 0 . 3 7 2 0 . 3 7 7 0 . 3 8 2 0 . 3 8 7 0 . 3 9 2 0 . 3 9 7 0 . 4 0 2 MW S ‐L ‐8 ‐16 59 . 2 0 1 . 0 0. 1 9 0 0 . 2 0 4 0 . 2 1 7 0 . 2 3 1 0 . 2 4 5 0 . 2 5 8 0 . 2 7 2 0 . 2 8 5 0 . 2 9 9 0 . 3 1 2 0 . 3 2 6 0 . 3 4 0 0 . 3 5 3 0 . 3 6 7 0 . 3 8 0 0 . 3 9 4 0 . 4 0 8 0 . 4 2 1 0 . 4 3 5 0 . 4 4 8 0.462 0.476 0 . 4 8 9 0 . 4 9 6 0 . 5 0 3 0 . 5 0 9 0 . 5 1 6 0 . 5 2 3 0 . 5 3 0 0 . 5 3 7 MW S ‐L ‐8 ‐20 74 . 0 0 1 . 0 0. 2 3 8 0 . 2 5 5 0 . 2 7 2 0 . 2 8 9 0 . 3 0 6 0 . 3 2 3 0 . 3 4 0 0 . 3 5 7 0 . 3 7 4 0 . 3 9 1 0 . 4 0 8 0 . 4 2 5 0 . 4 4 2 0 . 4 5 9 0 . 4 7 6 0 . 4 9 3 0 . 5 0 9 0 . 5 2 6 0 . 5 4 3 0 . 5 6 0 0.577 0.594 0 . 6 1 1 0 . 6 2 0 0 . 6 2 8 0 . 6 3 7 0 . 6 4 5 0 . 6 5 4 0 . 6 6 2 0 . 6 7 1 MW S ‐L ‐10 ‐20 or MW S ‐L ‐8 ‐24 88 . 8 0 1 . 0 0. 2 8 5 0 . 3 0 6 0 . 3 2 6 0 . 3 4 6 0 . 3 6 7 0 . 3 8 7 0 . 4 0 8 0 . 4 2 8 0 . 4 4 8 0 . 4 6 9 0 . 4 8 9 0 . 5 0 9 0 . 5 3 0 0 . 5 5 0 0 . 5 7 1 0 . 5 9 1 0 . 6 1 1 0 . 6 3 2 0 . 6 5 2 0 . 6 7 3 0.693 0.713 0 . 7 3 4 0 . 7 4 4 0 . 7 5 4 0 . 7 6 4 0 . 7 7 4 0 . 7 8 5 0 . 7 9 5 0 . 8 0 5 4' x ' 4 me d i a ca g e 14 . 8 0 1 . 0 0 . 0 4 8 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 6 5 0 . 0 6 8 0 . 0 7 1 0 . 0 7 5 0 . 0 7 8 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 8 5 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 0 9 2 0 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 9 9 0 . 1 0 2 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 1 0 9 0 . 1 1 2 0.115 0.119 0 . 1 2 2 0 . 1 2 4 MW S MO D E L SI Z E WE T L A N D PE R M I T E R LE N G T H LO A D I N G RA T E GP M / S F HG L HE I G H T SH A L L O W MO D E L S STANDARD HEIGHT MODEL HIGH CAPACITY MODELS MW S L i n e a r 2 . 0 H G L S i z i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s MWS Linear Advanced Stormwater Biofiltration Contents 1 Introduction 2 Applications 3 Configurations 4 Advantages 5 Operation 6 Orientations | Bypass 7 Performance | Approvals 8 Sizing 9 Installation | Maintenance | Plants www.ModularWetlands.com The Urban Impact For hundreds of years natural wetlands surrounding our shores have played an integral role as nature’s stormwater treatment system. But as our cities grow and develop, these natural wet- lands have perished under countless roads, rooftops, and parking lots. Plant A Wetland Without natural wetlands our cities are deprived of water purification, flood control, and land stability. Modular Wetlands and the MWS Linear re-establish nature’s presence and rejuvenate water ways in urban areas. MWS Linear The Modular Wetland System Linear represents a pioneering breakthrough in stormwater tech- nology as the only biofiltration system to utilize patented horizontal flow, allowing for a smaller footprint and higher treatment capacity. While most biofilters use little or no pre-treatment, the MWS Linear incorporates an advanced pre-treatment chamber that includes separation and pre- filter cartridges. In this chamber sediment and hydrocarbons are removed from runoff before it enters the biofiltration chamber, in turn reducing maintenance costs and improving performance. Parking Lots Parking lots are designed to maximize space and the MWS Linear’s 4 ft. standard planter width al- lows for easy integration into parking lot islands and other landscape medians. Mixed Use The MWS Linear can be installed as a raised plant- er to treat runoff from rooftops or patios, making it perfect for sustainable “live-work” spaces. Industrial Many states enforce strict regulations for dis- charges from industrial sites. The MWS Linear has helped various sites meet difficult EPA mandated effluent limits for dissolved metals and other pol- lutants. Residential Low to high density developments can benefit from the versatile design of the MWS Linear. The system can be used in both decentralized LID de- sign and cost-effective end-of-the-line configura- tions. Streets Street applications can be challenging due to limited space. The MWS Linear is very adaptable, and offers the smallest footprint to work around the constraints of existing utilities on retrofit pro- jects. Commercial Compared to bioretention systems, the MWS Lin- ear can treat far more area in less space - meeting treatment and volume control requirements. Applications The MWS Linear has been successfully used on numerous new construction and retrofit projects. The system’s superior versatility makes it beneficial for a wide range of stormwater and waste water applications - treating rooftops, streetscapes, parking lots, and industrial sites. More applications are available on our website: www.ModularWetlands.com/Applications • Agriculture • Reuse • Low Impact Development • Waste Water www.ModularWetlands.com Configurations The MWS Linear is the preferred biofiltration system of Civil Engineers across the country due to its versatile design. This highly versatile system has available “pipe-in” options on most models, along with built-in curb or grated inlets for simple integration into your stormdrain design. Curb Type The Curb Type configuration accepts sheet flow through a curb opening and is commonly used along road ways and parking lots. It can be used in sump or flow by conditions. Length of curb opening varies based on model and size. Grate Type The Grate Type configuration offers the same features and benefits as the Curb Type but with a grated/drop inlet above the systems pre-treatment chamber. It has the added benefit of allowing for pedestrian access over the inlet. ADA compliant grates are available to assure easy and safe access. The Grate Type can also be used in scenarios where runoff needs to be intercepted on both sides of landscape islands. Downspout Type The Downspout Type is a variation of the Vault Type and is designed to accept a vertical downspout pipe from roof top and podium areas. Some models have the option of utilizing an internal bypass, simplifying the overall design. The system can be installed as a raised planter and the exterior can be stuccoed or covered with other finishes to match the look of adjacent buildings. Vault Type The system’s patented horizontal flow biofilter is able to accept inflow pipes directly into the pre-treatment chamber, meaning the MWS Linear can be used in end-of-the-line installations. This greatly improves feasibility over typical decentralized designs that are required with other biofiltration/bioretention systems. Another benefit of the “pipe in” design is the ability to install the system downstream of underground detention systems to meet water quality volume requirements. Page 3 Cartridge Housing Pre-filter Cartridge Curb Inlet Individual Media Filters Advantages & Operation The MWS Linear is the most efficient and versatile biofiltration system on the market, and the only system with horizontal flow which improves performance, reduces footprint, and minimizes maintenance. Figure-1 and Figure-2 illustrate the invaluable benefits of horizontal flow and the multiple treatment stages. • Horizontal Flow Biofiltration • Greater Filter Surface Area • Pre-Treatment Chamber • Patented Perimeter Void Area • Flow Control • No Depressed Planter Area Separation • Trash, sediment, and debris are separated before entering the pre-filter cartridges • Designed for easy maintenance access Pre-Filter Cartridges • Over 25 ft2 of surface area per cartridge • Utilizes BioMediaGREEN filter material • Removes over 80% of TSS & 90% of hydrocarbons • Prevents pollutants that cause clogging from migrating to the biofiltration chamber Pre-Treatment1 1 2 Drain-Down Line 1 2Vertical Underdrain Manifold Featured Advantages www.ModularWetlands.com Fig. 1 Horizontal Flow • Less clogging than downward flow biofilters • Water flow is subsurface • Improves biological filtration Patented Perimeter Void Area • Vertically extends void area between the walls and the WetlandMEDIA on all four sides. • Maximizes surface area of the media for higher treatment capacity WetlandMEDIA • Contains no organics and removes phosphorus • Greater surface area and 48% void space • Maximum evapotranspiration • High ion exchange capacity and light weight Flow Control • Orifice plate controls flow of water through WetlandMEDIA to a level lower than the media’s capacity. • Extends the life of the media and improves performance Drain-Down Filter • The Drain-Down is an optional feature that completely drains the pre-treatment chamber • Water that drains from the pre-treatment chamber between storm events will be treated 2x to 3x More Surface Area Than Traditional Downward Flow Bioretention Systems.Fig. 2 - Top View Biofiltration2 Discharge3 Perimeter Voi d A r e a 3 4 3Flow Control Riser Drain-Down Line Outlet Pipe Page 5 Orientations Bypass Internal Bypass Weir (Side-by-Side Only) The Side-By-Side orientation places the pre-treat- ment and discharge chambers adjacent to one an- other allowing for integration of internal bypass. The wall between these chambers can act as a by- pass weir when flows exceed the system’s treatment capacity, thus allowing bypass from the pre-treat- ment chamber directly to the discharge chamber. External Diversion Weir Structure This traditional offline diversion method can be used with the MWS Linear in scenarios where run- off is being piped to the system. These simple and effective structures are generally configured with two outflow pipes. The first is a smaller pipe on the upstream side of the diversion weir - to divert low flows over to the MWS Linear for treatment. The second is the main pipe that receives water once the system has exceeded treatment capacity and water flows over the weir. Flow By Design This method is one in which the system is placed just upstream of a standard curb or grate inlet to intercept the first flush. Higher flows simply pass by the MWS Linear and into the standard inlet down- stream. End-To-End The End-To-End orientation places the pre-treat- ment and discharge chambers on opposite ends of the biofiltration chamber therefore minimizing the width of the system to 5 ft (outside dimension). This orientation is perfect for linear projects and street retrofits where existing utilities and sidewalks limit the amount of space available for installation. One limitation of this orientation is bypass must be ex- ternal. Side-By-Side The Side-By-Side orientation places the pre-treat- ment and discharge chamber adjacent to one an- other with the biofiltration chamber running paral- lel on either side. This minimizes the system length, providing a highly compact footprint. It has been proven useful in situations such as streets with di- rectly adjacent sidewalks, as half of the system can be placed under that sidewalk. This orientation also offers internal bypass options as discussed below. This simple yet innovative diversion trough can be installed in existing or new curb and grate inlets to divert the first flush to the MWS Linear via pipe. It works similar to a rain gutter and is installed just below the opening into the inlet. It captures the low flows and channels them over to a connecting pipe exiting out the wall of the inlet and leading to the MWS Linear. The DVERT is perfect for retrofit and green street applications that allows the MWS Lin- ear to be installed anywhere space is available. DVERT Low Flow Diversion DVERT Trough www.ModularWetlands.com Rhode Island DEM Approved Approved as an authorized BMP and noted to achieve the following minimum removal efficiencies: 85% TSS, 60% Pathogens, 30% Total Phosphorus for discharges to freshwater systems, and 30% Total Nitrogen for discharges to saltwater or tidal systems. MASTEP Evaluation The University of Massachusetts at Amherst – Water Resources Research Center, issued a technical evaluation report noting removal rates up to 84% TSS, 70% Total Phosphorus, 68.5% Total Zinc, and more. Washington State DOE Approved The MWS Linear is approved for General Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic, En- hanced, and Phosphorus treatment at 1 gpm/ft2 loading rate. The highest performing BMP on the market for all main pollutant categories. Approvals The MWS Linear has successfully met years of challenging technical reviews and testing from some of the most prestigious and demanding agencies in the nation, and perhaps the world. DEQ Assignment The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality assigned the MWS Linear, the highest phosphorus removal rating for manufactured treatment devices to meet the new Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Technical Criteria. VA TSS Total Phosphorus Ortho Phosphorus Nitrogen Dissolved Zinc Dissolved Copper Total Zinc Total Copper Motor Oil 85%64%67%45%66%38%69%50%95% Performance The MWS Linear continues to outperform other treatment methods with superior pollutant removal for TSS, heavy metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons and bacteria. Since 2007 the MWS Linear has been field tested on nu- merous sites across the country. With it’s advanced pre-treatment chamber and innovative horizontal flow biofilter, the system is able to effectively remove pollutants through a combination of physical, chemical, and biological filtration processes. With the same biological processes found in natural wetlands, the MWS Linear harnesses natures ability to process, transform, and remove even the most harmful pollutants. Page 7 Treatment Flow Sizing Table Model #Dimensions WetlandMedia Surface Area Treatment Flow Rate (cfs) MWS-L-4-4 4’ x 4’23 ft2 0.052 MWS-L-4-6 4’ x 6’32 ft2 0.073 MWS-L-4-8 4’ x 8’50 ft2 0.115 MWS-L-4-13 4’ x 13’63 ft2 0.144 MWS-L-4-15 4’ x 15’76 ft2 0.175 MWS-L-4-17 4’ x 17’90 ft2 0.206 MWS-L-4-19 4’ x 19’103 ft2 0.237 MWS-L-4-21 4’ x 21’117 ft2 0.268 MWS-L-8-8 8’ x 8’100 ft2 0.230 MWS-L-8-12 8’ x 12’151 ft2 0.346 MWS-L-8-16 8’ x 16’201 ft2 0.462 Flow Based Sizing The MWS Linear can be used in stand alone applica- tions to meet treatment flow requirements. Since the MWS Linear is the only biofiltration system that can ac- cept inflow pipes several feet below the surface it can be used not only in decentralized design applications but also as a large central end-of-the-line application for maximum feasibility. Volume Based Sizing Many states require treatment of a water quality volume and do not offer the option of flow based design. The MWS Linear and its unique horizontal flow makes it the only biofilter that can be used in volume based design installed downstream of ponds, detention basins, and underground storage systems. Treatment Volume Sizing Table Model #Treatment Capacity (cu. ft.) @ 24-Hour Drain Down Treatment Capacity (cu. ft.) @ 48-Hour Drain Down MWS-L-4-4 1140 2280 MWS-L-4-6 1600 3200 MWS-L-4-8 2518 5036 MWS-L-4-13 3131 6261 MWS-L-4-15 3811 7623 MWS-L-4-17 4492 8984 MWS-L-4-19 5172 10345 MWS-L-4-21 5853 11706 MWS-L-8-8 5036 10072 MWS-L-8-12 7554 15109 MWS-L-8-16 10073 20145 www.ModularWetlands.com Installation The MWS Linear is simple, easy to install, and has a space efficient design that offers lower excavation and in- stallation costs compared to traditional tree-box type systems. The structure of the system resembles pre-cast catch basin or utility vaults and is installed in a similar fashion. The system is delivered fully assembled for quick in- stallation. Generally, the structure can be unloaded and set in place in 15 minutes. Our experienced team of field technicians are available to supervise installations and provide technical support. Plant Selection Abundant plants, trees, and grasses bring value and an aesthetic benefit to any urban setting, but those in the MWS Linear do even more - they increase pollutant removal. What’s not seen, but very important, is that below grade the stormwater runoff/flow is being subjected to nature’s secret weapon: a dynamic physical, chemi- cal, and biological process working to break down and remove non-point source pollutants. The flow rate is controlled in the MWS Linear, giving the plants more “contact time” so that pollutants are more successfully decomposed, volatilized and incorporated into the biomass of The MWS Linear’s micro/macro flora and fauna. A wide range of plants are suitable for use in the MWS Linear, but selec- tions vary by location and climate. View suitable plants by selecting the list relative to your project location’s hardy zone. Please visit www.ModularWetlands.com/Plants for more information and various plant lists. Maintenance Reduce your maintenance costs, man hours, and materials with the MWS Linear. Unlike other biofiltration systems that provide no pre-treatment, the MWS Linear is a self-contained treatment train which incorporates simple and effective pre-treatment. Maintenance requirements for the biofilter itself are almost completely eliminated, as the pre-treatment chamber removes and isolates trash, sediments, and hydrocarbons. What’s left is the simple maintenance of an easily accessible pre-treatment chamber that can be cleaned by hand or with a standard vac truck. Only periodic replacement of low- cost media in the pre-filter cartridges is required for long term opera- tion and there is absolutely no need to replace expensive biofiltration media. Page 9 MWS – Linear Hybrid Stormwater Filtration System SPECIFICATIONS Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. www.modularwetlands.com P.O. Box 869 P 760-433-7640 Oceanside, CA 92049 F 760-433-3179 MWS – Linear Hybrid Stormwater Filtration System Save valuable space with small otprint for urban sites. d tropical ndscape plants. er and ss expensive maintenance ystem unoff is in d ischarge chamber the rate of discharge is controlled by valves set to a desired rate”. ested Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: fo Improve BMP aesthetics with attractive native an la Reduce lifetime costs with saf le “The MWS – Linear hybrid stormwater treatment system is described as a self contained treatment train. This system utilizes an innovative combination of l treatment processes. Stormwater runoff flows into the s via pipe or curb/grate type catch basin opening. Polluted runoff first encounters a screening device to remove larger pollutants and then enters a hydrodynamic separation chamber which settles out the sediments and larger suspended solids. Next the r treated by a revolutionary filter media, BioMediaGREEN that removes fines and associated pollutants, including bacteria. From there runoff enters of bioretention filter the form of a subsurface flow vegetated gravel wetland. Within the wetland physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms remove the remaining particulate and dissolve pollutants. The purified runoff leaves the system via the discharge chamber. In the d T Removal Di d Removal D Removal TPH Removal Removal TSS ssolve Lead issolved Copper E. coli Turbidity 98% 81% 92% 99% 60.2% 92% “Nature and Harmony Working Together in Perfect Harmony” SPECIFICATIONS – MWS- LINEAR gaged in the engineering design and roduction of treatment systems for stormwater. treat the entire water quality olume when used with pre-storage and properly sized. ls. g ¾” x 1 nels are g ted of UV protected/marine grade berglass and stainless steel hinge and mount. uires tails of this are provided in the installation section of the WS-Linear Design Kit. Track Record: The MWS- Linear Hybrid Stormwater Treatment System is manufactured by a company whom is regularly en p Coverage: The MWS- Linear is designed to treat the water quality volume or water quality flow. For flow based design, high flow bypass is internal, for volume based design, high flow bypass is external and prior to pre-detention system. For offline volume based designs the MWS - Linear has the ability to v Non-Corrosive Materials: The MWS – Linear is designed with non-corrosive materia All internal piping is SD35 PVC. Catch basin filter components, including mountin hardware, fasteners, support brackets, filtration material, and support frame are constructed of non-corrosive materials (316 stainless steel, and UV protected/marine grade fiberglass). Fasteners are stainless steel. Primary filter mesh is 316 stainless steel welded screens. Filtration basket screens for coarse, medium and fine filtration is ¾“expanded, 10 x 10 mesh, and 35 x 35 mesh, respectively. No polypropylene, monofilament netting or fabrics shall be used in this system. Media Protective Pa constructed of UV protected/marine grade fiberglass. Mounts are constructed of stainless steel. BioMediaGREEN is an inert rock substrate and is non-corrosive. Perimeter filter structure is constructed of lightweight injection molded plastic. Mountin brackets are constructed of SD40 PVC and are mounted with 3/8” diameter stainless steel redheads. Drain down filter cover is construc fi Weight: Each complete unit weighs approximately 29,000 to 40,000 pounds and req a boom crane to install. De M Transportation: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is designed to be transported a standard flat bed t on ruck. The unit easily fits on a flat bed truck without the need of pecial permitting. d noff can enter the system through a pipe, and/or a uilt in curb or grate type opening. etland System – Linear is completely passive and quires no external energy sources. he tation. As a precaution a footing can lso be built into the systems concrete structure. re o slippage, breaking, or tearing. All filters are warranted for a minimum of five (5) years. e hydrocarbon removal abilities. Within the wetland filter biological processes capture and s Alternative Technology Configurations: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is modular is design. Each module will be up to 22 feet long and 5 feet wide. The system can be made in lengths varying from 13 to 100s of feet long. For lengths longer than 22 feet the system will shipped in modules and assembled on site. The Modular Wetlan System – Linear has many alternative configurations. This allows the system to be adapted to many site conditions. Ru b Energy Requirements: The Modular W re Buoyancy Issues: Buoyancy is only a an issue when ground water levels rise above t bottom of the Modular Wetland System – Linear’s concrete structure. With 8.5 cubic yards of wetland media there is no concern of floa a Durability: The structure of the box will be precast concrete. The concrete will be 28 day compressive strength fc = 5,000 psi. Steel reinforcing will be ASTM A – C857. Structu will support an H20 loading as indicted by AASHTO. The joint between the concrete sections will ship lap and joint sealed with ram-nek. Filter (excluding oil absorbent media) and support structures are of proven durability. The filter and mounting structures are of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the filter is full, with n Oil Absorbent Media: The MWS – Linear utilizes both physical and biological mechanisms to capture and filter oil and grease. A skimmer and boom system will b positioned on the internal perimeter of the catch basin insert. The primary filtration media, BioMediaGreen, utilized in the perimeter and drain down filters, has excellent break down oil and grease. Much of the breakdown and transformation of oil and grease performed by natural occurring bacteria. n system. For eak flows that exceed internal bypass capacity, external bypass is use. for internally bypassed flows. External bypass will bypass of eatment processes. ze. Annual een and quarter-scale boratory tests on the MWS – Linear flow based system. POLLUTANT FICIENCY is Overflow Protection: The grate and curb type MWS – Linear are designed with an internal bypass consisting of two SD PVC pipes which direct high flows around the perimeter and wetland filter, directly into the discharge chamber. For the volume based vault type configuration, bypass should be located prior to the pre-detentio p Filter Bypass: Runoff will bypass filtration (BioMediaGREEN and wetland filter) components of the MWS - Linear. The system will still provide screening and settling during higher flow rates tr Pollutant Removal Efficiency: The MWS - Linear is capable of removing over 90% of the net annual total suspended solids (TSS) load based on a 20-micron particle si TSS removal efficiency models are based on documented removal efficiency performance from full-scale laboratory tests on BioMediaGr la REMOVAL EF Trash & Litter 99% TPH (mg/L) 99% TSS (mg/L) 98% E. Coli (MPN/100ml) 60% Turbidity (NTU) 92% Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 76% Non-Scouring: During heavy storm events the runoff bypasses perimeter and wetland lter components. The system will not re-suspend solids at design flows. rticle diameter = 19 microns Sil-Co-Sil 106. Mean pa fi Uniqueness: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is a complete self contain treatment train that incorporates capture, screening, sedimentation, filtration, bioretention, high flow bypass, and flow control into a single modular structure. This system provides four stages of treatment making it the only 4 stage treatment train stormwater filtration system, therefore making it unique to the industry. Other s not incorporate all the necessary attributes to make it a complete stormwater management device as ed ystems do with the Modular Wetland System – Linear. Therefore, no equal xists for this system. ter management system no external retreatment of preconditioning is necessary. PECIFICATIONS – BioMediaGREEN se nd is also biodegradable. It is stable with no nown adverse environmental effects. injection) studies have hown that the products disappear very rapidly from the lung. dies that show no relation between inhalation exposure nd the development of tumors. e Pretreatment & Preconditioning: Since the Modular Wetland System – Linear is a complete capture and treatment train stormwa p S BioMediaGREEN is a proprietary engineered filter media. Made of a unique combination of the inert naturally occurring material this product is non-combustible and do not po a fire hazard, stable and non-reactive, a k This product has been tested in long-term carcinogenicity studies [inhalation and intraperitoneal injection (i.p.)] with no significant increase in lung tumors or abdominal tumors. Short-term biopersistent (inhalation and intra-tracheal s In October 2001, IARC classified this product as Group 3, "not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans". The 2001 decision was based on the latest epidemiological studies and animal inhalation stu a The product can typically be disposed of in an ordinary landfill (local regulations may apply). If you are unsure of the regulations, contact your local Public Health Department r the local office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). nt REEN ut ut filters, catch basin inserts, ater polishing units, and hydrodynamic separators. ve Materials: The BioMediaGreen material is made of non-corrosive aterials. MediaGREEN material has been tested through gorous flow and loading conditions. has been proven to capture and tain hydrocarbons. and liage, sediments, TSS, particulate and dissolved etals, nutrients, and bacteria. le o Coverage: When properly installed BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks provide sufficie contact time, at rated flows, of passing contaminate water. The BioMediaG material will capture and retain most pollutants that pass through it. The BioMediaGREEN material is made of a proprietary blend of inert substances. The BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks can be used in different treatment devices, including b not limited to flume filters, trench drain filters, downspo w Non-Corrosi m Durability: The BioMediaGREEN material has been chosen for its proven durability, with an expected life of 2 plus years. The BioMediaGREEN material is of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the media is at maximum flow; with no slippage, breaking, or tearing. The Bio ri Oil Absorbent Media: The BioMediaGREEN material re Pollutant Removal Efficiency: The BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks are designed to capture high levels of Hydrocarbons including but not limited to oils & grease, gasoline, diesel, and PAHs. BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks have the physical ability to block filter trash and litter, grass and fo m BioMediaGREEN technology is based on a proprietary blend of synthetic inert natural substances aimed at removal of various stormwater pollutants. BioMediaGREEN was created to have a very porous structure capable of selectively removing pollutants whi allowing high flow through rates for water. As pollutants are captured by its structure, ioMediaGREEN captures most pollutants and maintains porosity and filtering rge percentage of TSS, hydrocarbons, nutrients, and heavy metals. Microbial reduction ary depending on colony size, flow rates and site specific conditions. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY B capabilities. Field and laboratory tests have confirmed the BioMediaGREEN capability to capture la efficiency will v POLLUTANT Oil & Grease (mg/L) 90% TPH (mg/L) 99% TSS (mg/L) 85% Turbidity (NTU) 99% Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 69.6% Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 75.6% Replacement: Removal and replacement of the blocks is simple. Remove blocks from ltration system. Replace with new block of equal size. Sil-Co-Sil 106. Mean particle diameter = 19 microns fi TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-5 December 20, 2013 HSC-2: Impervious Area Dispersion Impervious area dispersion refers to the practice of routing runoff from impervious areas, such as rooftops, walkways, and patios onto the surface of adjacent pervious areas. Runoff is dispersed uniformly via splash block or dispersion trench and soaks into the ground as it move slowly across the surface of pervious areas. Minor ponding may occur, but it is not the intent of this practice to actively promote localized on-lot storage (See HSC-1: Localized On-Lot Infiltration). Feasibility Screening Considerations Impervious area dispersion can be used where infiltration would otherwise be infeasible, however dispersion depth over landscaped areas should be limited by site-specific conditions to prevent standing water or geotechnical issues. Opportunity Criteria Rooftops and other low traffic impervious surface present in drainage area. Soils are adequate for infiltration. If not, soils can be amended to improve capacity to absorb dispersed water (see MISC-2: Amended Soils). Significant pervious area present in drainage area with shallow slope Overflow from pervious area can be safely managed. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Soils should be preserved from their natural condition or restored via soil amendments to meet minimum criteria described in Section . □ A minimum of 1 part pervious area capable of receiving flow should be provided for every 2 parts of impervious area disconnected. □ The pervious area receiving flow should have a slope ≤ 2 percent and path lengths of ≥ 20 feet per 1000 sf of impervious area. □ Dispersion areas should be maintained to remove trash and debris, loose vegetation, and protect any areas of bare soil from erosion. □ Velocity of dispersed flow should not be greater than 0.5 ft per second to avoid scour. Calculating HSC Retention Volume The retention volume provided by downspout dispersion is a function of the ratio of impervious to pervious area and the condition of soils in the pervious area. Determine flow patterns in pervious area and estimate footprint of pervious area receiving dispersed flow. Calculate the ratio of pervious to impervious area. Check soil conditions using the soil condition design criteria below; amend if necessary. Look up the storm retention depth, dHSC from the chart below. Simple Downspout Dispersion Source: toronto.ca/environment/water.htm Also known as: Downspout disconnection Impervious area disconnection Sheet flow dispersion TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-6 December 20, 2013 The max dHSC is equal to the design storm depth for the project site. Soil Condition Design Criteria □ Maximum slope of 2 percent □ Well-established lawn or landscaping □ Minimum soil amendments per criteria in MISC-2: Amended Soils. Configuration for Use in a Treatment Train Impervious area disconnection is an HSC that may be used as the first element in any treatment train The use of impervious area disconnection reduces the sizing requirement for downstream LID and/or treatment control BMPs Additional References for Design Guidance SMC LID Manual (pp 131) http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/guest75/pub/All_Projects/SoCal_LID_Manual/SoCalL ID_Manual_FINAL_040910.pdf City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. 2010. How to manage stormwater – Disconnect Downspouts. http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=43081&a=177702 Seattle Public Utility: http://www.cityofseattle.org/util/stellent/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/sp u01_006395.pdf Thurston County, Washington State (pp 10): http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/stormwater/manual/docs-faqs/DG-5-Roof-Runoff- Control_Rev11Jan24.pdf 1 Pervious area used in calculation should only include the pervious area receiving flow, not pervious area receiving only direct rainfall or upslope pervious drainage. Attachment D TGD Worksheets & Figures Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet A: Hydrologic Source Control Calculation Form Drainage area ID 3 Total drainage area 0.87 acres Total drainage area Impervious Area (IAtotal) 0.71 acres HSC ID HSC Type/ Description/ Reference BMP Fact Sheet Effect of individual HSCi per criteria in BMP Fact Sheets (XIV.1) (dHSCi)1 Impervious Area Tributary to HSCi (IAi) di × IAi HSC-2 Impervious Area Dispersion 0.90 0.05 0.045 Box 1:∑ di × IAi = 0.045 Box 2:IAtotal = 0.71 [Box 1]/[Box 2]: dHSC total = 0.06 Percent Capture Provided by HSCs (Table III.1) ~8% 1 - For HSCs meeting criteria to be considered self-retaining, enter the DCV for the project. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx DMA 1 Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d= 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.90 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres)A= 1.14 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.82 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.768 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 2,851 cu-ft Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate N/A 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr) (Appendix VII) Kmeasured= In/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal= 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= In/hr Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T= Hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12)Dmax= feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax Amin= sq-ft Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx DMA 2 Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d= 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.90 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres)A= 1.91 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.80 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.752 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 4,702 cu-ft Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate N/A 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr) (Appendix VII) Kmeasured= In/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal= 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= In/hr Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T= Hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12)Dmax= feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax Amin= sq-ft Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx DMA 3 Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d= 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0.00 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.90 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres)A= 0.87* acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.82 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.764 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 2,166 cu-ft Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate N/A 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr) (Appendix VII) Kmeasured= In/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal= 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= In/hr Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T= Hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12)Dmax= feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax Amin= sq-ft *DMA 3 includes right-of-way dedication/improvement areas. HSCs have been incorporated within right-of-way improvement areas, however the HSC deduction has not been applied to this worksheet since Lincoln Avenue will undergo street widening in the future and HSC BMPs will no longer be in effect. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx DMA 1 Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2) Tc=5.00 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1 I1= 0.26 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2 (Worksheet A) Y2=0 % 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2 I2= 0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, Idesign= I1-I2 Idesign= 0.26 in/hr Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 1.14 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.82 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.768 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) Qdesign= 0.227 cfs Supporting Calculations Describe system: Surface runoff will be conveyed through the private street to proposed curb inlet catch basins equipped with a Dvert System that diverts low flows to proposed Biofiltration Vault for water quality treatment prior to discharging offsite. Provide time of concentration assumptions: The time of concentration was assumed to be 5 minutes for conservative purposes. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx DMA 2 Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2) Tc=5.00 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1 I1= 0.26 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2 (Worksheet A) Y2=0 % 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2 I2= 0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, Idesign= I1-I2 Idesign= 0.26 in/hr Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 1.91 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.80 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.752 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) Qdesign= 0.374 cfs Supporting Calculations Describe system: Surface runoff will be conveyed through the private street to proposed curb inlet catch basins equipped with a Dvert System that diverts low flows to proposed Biofiltration Vault for water quality treatment prior to discharging offsite. Provide time of concentration assumptions: The time of concentration was assumed to be 5 minutes for conservative purposes. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx DMA 3 Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2) Tc=5.00 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1 I1= 0.26 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2 (Worksheet A) Y2=0 % 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2 I2= 0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, Idesign= I1-I2 Idesign= 0.26 in/hr Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 0.87* acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.82 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.764 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) Qdesign= 0.172 cfs Supporting Calculations Describe system: Surface runoff will be conveyed through the private street to proposed curb inlet catch basins equipped with a Dvert System that diverts low flows to proposed Biofiltration Vault for water quality treatment prior to discharging offsite. *Note: BMP sizing for DMA 3 is overestimated to account for the proposed right-of-way dedication area and offsite improvements along the project frontage. Although HSCs are incorporated within DMA 3, the HSC deduction has not been applied to this worksheet future street widening of Lincoln Avenue will remove HSC BMPs. Provide time of concentration assumptions: The time of concentration was assumed to be 5 minutes for conservative purposes. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Graphical Operations Provide supporting graphical operations. See Example III.7. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet J: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility 1 What demands for harvested water exist in the tributary area (check all that apply): 2 Toilet and urinal flushing □ 3 Landscape irrigation 4 Other:_______________________________________________________ □ 5 What is the design capture storm depth? (Figure III.1) d 0.90 inches 6 What is the project size? A 3.92 ac 7 What is the acreage of impervious area? IA 3.18 ac For projects with multiple types of demand (toilet flushing, irrigation demand, and/or other demand) 8 What is the minimum use required for partial capture? (Table X.6) gpd 9 What is the project estimated wet season total daily use (Section X.2)? gpd 10 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 9 > Line 8?) For projects with only toilet flushing demand 11 What is the minimum TUTIA for partial capture? (Table X.7) 12 What is the project estimated TUTIA? 13 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 12 > Line 11?) For projects with only irrigation demand 14 What is the minimum irrigation area required based on conservation landscape design? (Table X.8)[3.18x1.01]3.21 ac 15 What is the proposed project irrigated area? (multiply conservation landscaping by 1; multiply active turf by 2)0.74 ac 16 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 15 > Line 14?) No Provide supporting assumptions and citations for controlling demand calculation: Due to the proposed development type, density and amount of available landscaping, Harvest and Use BMPs for irrigation purposes will not be feasible. ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y 1. 0 5 0. 7 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.95 0 . 7 0 . 9 0. 9 0.75 P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 1 _ R a i n f a l l Z o n e s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGUREJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP04/22/10 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ORANGE CO.CARAINFALL ZONES SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 06 1 2 3 Ki l o m e t e r s LE G E N D Or a n g e C o u n t y P r e c i p i t a t i o n S t a t i o n s 24 H o u r , 8 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e R a i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) 24 H o u r , 8 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e R a i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) - E x t r a p o l a t e d Ci t y B o u n d a r i e s Ra i n f a l l Z o n e s De s i g n C a p t u r e S t o r m D e p t h ( i n c h e s ) 0. 6 5 " 0. 7 0. 7 5 0. 8 0 0. 8 5 0. 9 0 0. 9 5 1. 0 0 1. 1 0 " No t e : E v e n t s d e f i n e d a s 2 4 - h o u r p e r i o d s ( c a l e n d a r d a y s ) w i t h g r e a t e r th a n 0 . 1 i n c h e s o f r a i n f a l l . Fo r a r e a s o u t s i d e o f a v a i l a b l e d a t a c o v e r a g e , p r o f e s s i o n a l j u d g m e n t sh a l l b e a p p l i e d . XVI-1 ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y 1 0 10 3 5 1 0 30 1 0 3 0 10 20 1 0 10 5 50 3 30 3 0 3 0 30 2 0 5 1 0 20 30 50 1 0 3 0 2 0 P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 d _ D e p t h T o G r o u n d w a t e r O v e r v i e w _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2dJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CANORTH ORANGE COUNTY MAPPED DEPTH TO FIRST GROUNDWATER SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N No t e : D a t a a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r S o u t h O r a n g e C o u n t y a t t h i s t i m e . So u r c e : Sp r o t t e , F u l l e r a n d G r e e n w o o d , 1 9 8 0 . Ca l i f o r n i a D i v i s i o n o f M i n e s a n d G e o l o g y ; Ca l i f o r n i a G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y !I 02 . 5 5 1. 2 5 Mi l e s 04 8 2 Ki l o m e t e r s LE G E N D De p t h T o F i r s t G r o u n d w a t e r C o n t o u r s Ci t y B o u n d a r i e s OC W D G r o u n d w a t e r B a s i n P r o t e c t i o n B o u n d a r y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 a _ H y d r o S o i l s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2aJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CANRCS HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUPS SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N So u r c e : So i l s : N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e ( N R C S ) So i l S u r v e y - s o i l _ c a 6 7 8 , O r a n g e C o u n t y & W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e Da t e o f p u b l i c a t i o n : 2 0 0 6 - 0 2 - 0 8 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LE G E N D Ci t y B o u n d a r i e s Hy d r o l o g i c S o i l G r o u p s A S o i l s B S o i l s C S o i l s D S o i l s ht t p : / / w e b s o i l s u r v e y . n r c s . u s d a . g o v / a p p / H o m e P a g e . h t m P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ S u c e p t a b i l i t y M a p s _ 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ S a n G a b r i e l C o y o t e C r e e k S u s c e p t i b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 . m x d $Q D K H L P % D \ + X Q W L Q J W R Q + D U E R U :D W H U V K H G 1H Z S R U W % D \ 1H Z S R U W & R D V W D O 6W U H D P V : D W H U V K H G 6DQWD5LYHU:DWHUVKHG /R V $ Q J H O H V & R X Q W \ &K D Q Q H O L Q 5H W D U G L Q J % D V L Q Lo s A l a m i t o s Na v a l A i r St a t i o n Se a l B e a c h Na v a l W e a p o n s St a t i o n Fu l l e r t o n Ai r p o r t +L O O F U H V W 3D U N 5H V H U Y R L U 2U D Q J H &R X Q W \ /D - R O O D 5H F K D U J H %D V L Q .U D H P H U %D V L Q )X O O H U W R Q 5H V H U Y R L U )X O O H U W R Q 5H V H U Y R L U %U H D & U H H N 5H V H U Y L R U +X P E O H 5H V H U Y R L U 9D O H Q F L D 5H V H U Y R L U )X O O H U W R Q 5H V H U Y R L U 0L O O H U 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q &\ S U H V V 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q /R V $ O D P L W R V 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q 3O D F H Q W L D 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q 5D \ P R Q G 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q *L O E H U W 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q &U H V F H Q W 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q /R I W X V ' L Y H U V L R Q &K D Q Q H O 'H V L O W L Q J % D V L Q 5R V V P R R U 5H W D U G L Q J %D V L Q 1-2%7,7/(6&$/(1" = 8000''(6,*1(''5$:,1*&+(&.('BMP 04/30/10 '$7(-2%129526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY WATERSHED MASTER PLANNING 25$1*(&2 &$SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYIS SAN GABRIEL-COYOTE CREEK !I )H H W 6X V F H S W L E L O L W \ 3R W H Q W L D O $ U H D V R I ( U R V L R Q + D E L W D W 3K \ V L F D O 6 W U X F W X U H 6 X V F H S W L E L O L W \ &K D Q Q H O 7 \ S H (D U W K 8 Q V W D E O H (D U W K 6 W D E L O L ] H G 6W D E L O L ] H G 7L G H O , Q I O X H Q F H 0 H D Q + L J K : D W H U / L Q H :D W H U % R G \ %D V L Q /D N H 5H V H U Y R L U 2W K H U / D Q G V $L U S R U W 0 L O L W D U \ 686&(37,%,/,7<0$383$7( )(% Attachment E Operations & Maintenance Page 1 of 7 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Water Quality Management Plan For TTM 19021 2953 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 APN: 258‐031‐05 Owner/ Developer: Toffoli Investments, LLC 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Alan Toffoli, Principal (949) 509‐0182 Homeowner’s Association: To be determined Page 2 of 7 Ex h i b i t A , O p e r a t i o n s a n d M a i n t e n a n c e P l a n BM P Ap p l i c a b l e ? Ye s / N o BM P N a m e a n d B M P I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , M a i n t e n a n c e , a n d In s p e c t i o n P r o c e d u r e s Im p l e m e n t a t i o n , M a i n t e n a n c e , a n d In s p e c t i o n F r e q u e n c y a n d S c h e d u l e Person or Entity with Operation and Maintenance Responsibility No n ‐ S t r u c t u r a l S o u r c e C o n t r o l B M P s Ye s N1 . E d u c a t i o n f o r P r o p e r t y O w n e r s , T e n a n t s , a n d O c c u p a n t s Th i s w i l l b e a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h ed u c a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s . A l l in c l u d e d m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e w a y s o f m i t i g a t i n g s t o r m w a t e r po l l u t i o n i n e v e r y d a y a c t i v i t i e s as s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s i d e n t s a s w el l as e m p l o y e e s o f t h e p r o p e r t y m an a g e m e n t c o m p a n y a n d t h e i r su b ‐ c o n t r a c t o r s . P r a c t i c a l i n f o r ma t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s a r e p r o v i d e d to r e s i d e n t s , o c c u p a n t s , o r t e n a n t s t o i n c r e a s e t h e p u b l i c ’ s un d e r s t a n d i n g o f s t o r m w a t e r q u a l i t y , s o u r c e s o f p o l l u t a n t s , a n d wh a t t h e y c a n d o t o r e d u c e p o l l u t a n t s i n s t o r m w a t e r . HO A t o p r o v i d e e d u c a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , a co p y o f t h e a p p r o v e d W Q M P a n d O p e r a t i o n & M a i n t e n a n c e P l a n ( O & M ) t o n e w p r o p e r t y ow n e r s , t e n a n t s , o c c u p a n t s & e m p l o y e e s , a t ti m e o f h i r e , l e a s i n g a n d/ o r h o m e p u r c h a s e . HOA Ye s N2 . A c t i v i t y R e s t r i c t i o n Ru l e s o r g u i d e l i n e s f o r d e v e l o p m e nt s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n t h e ap p r o p r i a t e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h p r o h ib i t a c t i v i t i e s t h a t c a n r e s u l t in d i s c h a r g e s o f p o l l u t a n t s . HO A e m p l o y e e s n o t i f i e d o f a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e pr o h i b i t e d b y h o m e o w n e r s . Restrictions identified in Employee Manual and re v i e w e d y e a r l y b y e m p l o y e e s . Ye s N3 . C o m m o n A r e a L a n d s c a p e d M a n a g e m e n t Sp e c i f i c p r a c t i c e s a r e f o l l o w e d a n d o n g o i n g m a i n t e n a n c e i s co n d u c t e d t o m i n i m i z e e r o s i o n a n d o v e r ‐ i r r i g a t i o n , c o n s e r v e wa t e r , a n d r e d u c e p e s t i c i d e a n d f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n s . Pr o f e s s i o n a l l a n d s c a p e c o m p a n y t o c o n d u c t ma i n t e n a n c e o f l a n d s c a p i n g t o m e e t c u r r e n t wa t e r e f f i c i e n c y a n d k e e p p l a n t s h e a l t h y a n d bi o a r e a s m a i n t a i n e d w i t h p r o p e r s o i l am e n d m e n t s . R e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e o n c e a we e k a n d m o n t h l y i n s p e c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e de f i c i e n c i e s Th e H O A w i l l m a i n t a i n o r h i r e pr o f e s s i o n a l s t o m a n a g e t h e upkeep of the project’s landscaped areas. Ye s N4 . B M P M a i n t e n a n c e In o r d e r t o e n s u r e a d e q u a t e a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e B M P im p l e m e n t a t i o n , a l l r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s a r e i d e n t i f i e d f o r im p l e m e n t i n g a l l n o n ‐ s t r u c t u r a l a nd s t r u c t u r a l B M P s , c l e a n i n g , in s p e c t i o n , a n d o t h e r m a i n t e n a n c e a c t i v i t i e s a r e s p e c i f i e d in c l u d i n g r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s f o r c o n d u c t i n g s u c h a c t i v i t i e s . A m i n i m u m 2 I n s p e c t i on s / C l e a n i n g s p e r ye a r p e r m a n u f a c t u r e r ’ s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p r i o r to O c t o b e r 1 st ( b e f o r e t h e r a i n y s e a s o n ) HO A t o h i r e p r o f e s s i o n a l B M P maintenance company to co n d u c t r e g u l a r i n s p e c t i o n s , repairs and cleaning per ma n u f a c t u r e r ’ s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . No N5 . T i t l e 2 2 C C R C o m p l i a n c e Ha z a r d o u s w a s t e i s m a n a g e d p r o p er l y t h r o u g h c o m pl i a n c e w i t h ap p l i c a b l e T i t l e 2 2 r e g u l a t i o n s . H a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l s o r w a s t e s wi l l b e g e n e r a t e d , h a n d l e d , t r a ns p o r t e d , o r d i s p o s e d o f i n as s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e p r o j e c t ; m e a s u r e s a r e t a k e n t o c o m p l y w i t h ap p l i c a b l e l o c a l , s t a t e, a n d f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n t o a v o i d h a r m t o hu m a n s a n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . Page 3 of 7 No N 7 . S p i l l C o n t i n g e n c y P l a n No N 8 . U n d e r g r o u n d S t o r a g e T a n k C o m p l i a n c e Ye s N1 0 . U n i f o r m F i r e C o d e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n HO A t o c o m p l y w i t h f i r e r e g u l a t i on s a n d k e e p i n f o r m e d o f t h e la t e s t r u l e s a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s . Co m p l y w i t h a n n u a l f i r e i n s p e c t i o n s a n d ma i n t a i n b u i l d i n g a n d ac c e s s p e r t h e l a t e s t fi r e c o d e s . HOA Ye s N1 1 . C o m m o n A r e a L i t t e r C o n t r o l Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l h a v e v a r io u s t r a s h r e c e p t a c l e s l o c a t e d ne a r t h e c o m m o n a r e a s . T r a s h m a n a g e m e n t a n d l i t t e r c o n t r o l pr o c e d u r e s a r e s p e c i f i e d w i t h i n t h i s r e p o r t , i n c l u d i n g re s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s , a n d i m p l e m en t e d t o r e d u c e p o l l u t i o n o f dr a i n a g e w a t e r . On c e p e r w e e k p r o v i d e l i t t e r r e m o v a l o f s i t e pa r k i n g l o t a n d l a n d s c a p e a r e a s a n d t o em p t y c o m m o n a r e a t r a s h b i n s . HOA Ye s N1 2 . E m p l o y e e T r a i n i n g Pr a c t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n a l m a t e r i a ls a n d / o r t r a i n i n g a r e p r o v i d e d to em p l o y e e s a t t h e i n i t i a l t i m e o f hi r i n g b y t h e H O A t o i n c r e a s e th e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s t o r m w a t e r q u a l i t y , s o u r c e s o f p o l l u t a n t s, an d t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r e d u c in g p o l l u t a n t s i n s t o r m w a t e r . Th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h es e m a t e r i a l s w i l l b e th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e H O A a t t h e i n i t i a l hi r i n g o f t h e e m p l o y e e . HOA No N1 3 . H o u s e k e e p i n g o f L o a d i n g D o c k s Ye s N1 4 . C o m m o n A r e a C a t c h B a s i n I n s p e c t i o n In o r d e r t o e n s u r e a d e q u a t e a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e B M P im p l e m e n t a t i o n , a l l r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s a r e i d e n t i f i e d f o r im p l e m e n t i n g a l l n o n ‐ s t r u c t u r a l a nd s t r u c t u r a l B M P s , c l e a n i n g , in s p e c t i o n , a n d o t h e r m a i n t e n a n c e a c t i v i t i e s a r e s p e c i f i e d in c l u d i n g r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s f or c o n d u c t i n g s u c h a c t i v i t i e s . In s p e c t i o n t w i c e p e r m o n t h o f c o m m o n ar e a s w h e r e c a t c h b a s i n s a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n th e s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a a n d r e m o v e a n y t r a s h / de b r i s . HOA Ye s N1 5 . S t r e e t S w e e p i n g P r i v a t e S t r e e t s a n d P a r k i n g L o t s Re g u l a r s w e e p i n g i s c o n d u c t e d t o r e d u c e p o l l u t i o n o f d r a i n a g e wa t e r . Ci t y ’ s S t r e e t S w e e p i n g Se r v i c e s o r a p p r o v e d Pr i v a t e C o m p a n y o n a w e e k l y b a s i s HOA No N1 7 . R e t a i l G a s o l i n e O u t l e t s St r u c t u r a l S o u r c e C o n t r o l B M P s Ye s Pr o v i d e S t o r m D r a i n S y s t e m S t e n c i l i n g a n d S i g n a g e Ca t c h B a s i n S t e n c i l i n g a n d S i g n a g e w i l l b e p l a c e d o n a l l o n ‐ s i t e ca t c h b a s i n s t o t h e s a t i s f a c ti o n o f t h e C i t y E n g i n e e r . In s p e c t a n d r e p a i r a s n e e d e d a l l o n s i t e st o r m d r a i n s t e n c i l l i n g & s i g n a g e . I ns p e c t i o n sh o u l d o c c u r a t m i n i mu m t w i c e p e r y e a r . HOA No De s i g n a n d C o n s t r u c t O u t d o o r M a t e r i a l S t o r a g e A r e a s t o Re d u c e P o l l u t a n t I n t r o d u c t i o n Page 4 of 7 No De s i g n a n d C o n s t r u c t T r a s h a n d W a s t e S t o r a g e A r e a s t o Re d u c e P o l l u t a n t I n t r o d u c t i o n ( t r a s h e n c l o s u r e s ) Ye s Us e E f f i c i e n t I r r i g a t i o n S y s t e m s a n d L a n d s c a p e D e s i g n Si t e e f f i c i e n t i r r i g a t i o n a n d l a nd s c a p i n g h a s b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d by t h e p r o j e c t ’ s l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e Ci t y E n g i n e e r a n d P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t . HO A t o p r o v i d e m a i n t e n an c e o f l a nd s c a p i n g to m e e t c u r r e n t w a t e r e f f i c i e n c y s t a n d a r d s , an d k e e p p l a n t s h e a l t h i l y . R e g u l a r ma i n t e n a n c e o n c e a w e e k a n d m o n t h l y in s p e c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e a n y w a t e r de f i c i e n c i e s . Th e H O A w i l l m a i n t a i n o r h i r e pr o f e s s i o n a l s t o m a n a g e t h e upkeep of the project’s landscaped areas. No P r o t e c t S l o p e s a n d C h a n n e l s a n d P r o v i d e E n e r g y D i s s i p a t i o n No L o a d i n g D o c k s No M a i n t e n a n c e B a y s No V e h i c l e W a s h A r e a s No O u t d o o r P r o c e s s i n g A r e a s No E q u i p m e n t W a s h A r e a s No F u e l i n g A r e a s No H i l l s i d e L a n d s c a p i n g No W a s h W a t e r C o n t r o l s f o r F o o d P r e p a r a t i o n A r e a Tr e a t m e n t C o n t r o l B M P s Ye s Tr e a t m e n t C o n t r o l B M P # 1 Mo d u l a r W e t l a n d s S y s t e m B i o f il t r a t i o n V a u l t s w / D v e r t Se e a t t a c h e d f o r s p e c i f i c B M P d e t a i l i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o op e r a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e . In s p e c t i o n s / C l e a n i n g s s h o u l d o c c u r a t l e a s t tw o t i m e s p e r y e a r a n d b e f o r e t h e s t a r t o f th e r a i n y s e a s o n ( O c t o b e r 1 st ). R e f e r t o At t a c h m e n t C f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a n d ma n u f a c t u r e r ’ s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . HO A w i l l b e r e q u i r e d t o h i r e a professional maintenance co m p a n y t o p r o v i d e r e g u l a r in s p e c t i o n , r e p a i r s a n d c l e a n i n g per manufacturer’s sp e c i f i c a t i o n s . A l l t r a s h / d e b r i s an d l o o s e s e d i m e n t / s i l t s h a l l be removed per ma n u f a c t u r e r ’ s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Fl o o d C o n t r o l Ye s AD S D e t e n t i o n P i p i n g AD S d e t e n t i o n p i p i n g i s p r o v i d e d o n s i t e t o m i t i g a t e f l o o d c o n t r ol re q u i r e m e n t s a n d t e m p o r a r i l y d e t a i n f l o w s e x c e e d i n g a l l o w a b l e di s c h a r g e r a t e d u r i n g l a r g e s t o r m e v e n t s . P i p i n g s h o u l d n o w al l o w s t a n d i n g w a t e r w i t h i n s y s t e m f o r m o r e t h a n 4 8 h o u r s . In s p e c t i o n s / C l e a n i n g s s h o u l d o c c u r a t l e a s t tw o t i m e s p e r y e a r a n d b e f o r e t h e s t a r t o f th e r a i n y s e a s o n ( O c t o be r 1 s t ) . I n s p e c t f o r st a n d i n g w a t e r 4 8 h o u r s a f t e r m a j o r s t o r m ev e n t s . HOA to inspect detention piping and schedule maintenance/cleanings when deficiencies or sediment buildup/ trash/ debris is observed. HOA to check for st a n d i n g w a t e r f o l l o w i n g m a j o r storm events and contact ma n u f a c t u r e r i f s t a n d i n g w a t e r do e s n o t d r a i n w i t h i n 4 8 h o u r s . Page 5 of 7 Required Permits This section must list any permits required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Possible examples are: No required permits are needed for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the previously listed BMPs. Forms to Record the BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record the implementation, maintenance, and inspection of the BMPs is attached. Recordkeeping All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request. Notice to Owner: The property is currently owned by Toffoli Investments, LLC. The Owner will be responsible for the long‐term maintenance of the project’s storm water facilities and conformance to this WQMP after construction is complete. The owner is aware of the maintenance responsibilities of the proposed BMPs. A funding mechanism is in place to maintain the BMPs at the frequency stated in the WQMP. Page 6 of 7 RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity: (Printed) Signature: BMP Name (As Shown on O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed Page 7 of 7 Operation & Maintenance Plan ‐ Attachments Modular Wetlands System, Maintenance Guidelines www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System - Linear Maintenance Summary o Remove Trash from Screening Device – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. (5 minute average service time). o Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. (10 minute average service time). o Replace Cartridge Filter Media – average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months. (10-15 minute per cartridge average service time). o Replace Drain Down Filter Media – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. (5 minute average service time). o Trim Vegetation – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. (Service time varies). System Diagram Access to screening device, separation chamber and cartridge filter Access to drain down filter Pre-Treatment Chamber Biofiltration Chamber Discharge Chamber Outflow Pipe Inflow Pipe (optional) www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedures Screening Device 1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre- Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry. 2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. 3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed. Separation Chamber 1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber. 2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. 3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Cartridge Filters 1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters. 2. Enter separation chamber. 3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. 4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. 5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. 6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants. 7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. 8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Drain Down Filter 1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. 2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place. 3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Notes 1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. 2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. 3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. 4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations. 5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. 6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. Separation Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. www.modularwetlands.com Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Yes Depth: Yes No Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault):Size (22', 14' or etc.): Other Inspection Items: Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Office personnel to complete section to the left. 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Chamber: Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity: Working Condition: Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name Project Address Inspection Checklist CommentsNo Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber. Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. Sediment / Silt / Clay Trash / Bags / Bottles Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage Waste:Plant Information No Cleaning Needed Recommended Maintenance Additional Notes: Damage to Plants Plant Replacement Plant Trimming Schedule Maintenance as Planned Needs Immediate Maintenance www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Site Map # Comments: 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition Drain Down Pipe Condition Discharge Chamber Condition Drain Down Media Condition Plant Condition Media Filter Condition Long: MWS Sedimentation Basin Total Debris Accumulation Condition of Media 25/50/75/100 (will be changed @ 75%) Operational Per Manufactures' Specifications (If not, why?) Lat:MWS Catch Basins GPS Coordinates of Insert Manufacturer / Description / Sizing Trash Accumulation Foliage Accumulation Sediment Accumulation Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to the left. Project Address Project Name Cleaning and Maintenance Report Modular Wetlands System Modular Wetland System - Linear (MWS-Linear) Maintenance Schedule MWS - LINEAR Cleaning Required Est. Cleaning Time Year 1 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 2 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 3 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 4 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 5 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 6 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 7 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 8 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 9… 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 15 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 4) Remove & Replace Wetland Plants & Media (every 10-20 years) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes 6 to 8 Hours Procedure 1 Clean Inlet Filter (does not apply to vault type) Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the catch basin filter be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once every six months and replacement of hydrocarbon booms once a year. The procedure is easily done with the use of any standard vacuum truck. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove grate or manhole, remove the deflector shield (grate type only). Note: entry into an underground stormwater vault such as an inlet vault requires certification in confined space training. 2) Remove all trash, debris, organics, and sediments collected by the inlet filter insert either manually or with the use of a vactor truck. 3) Evaluate hydrocarbon boom. If the boom is filled with hydrocarbons and oils it should be replaced. Attach new boom to basket with plastic ties through pre-drilled holes in basket. Place the deflector shield (grate type only) back into the filter. Hydrocarbon boom should be replaced annually. (The hydrocarbon boom may be classified as hazardous material and will have to be picked up and disposed of as hazardous waste). 10 Minutes Procedure 2 Vacuum Catch Basin Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the separation chamber be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once a year. The procedure is easily done with the use of any standard vacuum truck. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove grate or manhole. 2) Remove catch basin filter. 3) Spray down pollutants accumulated on cartridge filters and catch basin walls. 4) Vacuum out sediments and debris accumulated on catch basin floor. 5) Replace catch basin filter, and replace grate or manhole cover. 25 Minutes Procedure 3 Replace BioMedia Green Media Filter Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the BioMediaGREEN Cartridge Filters be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once a year. The procedure will require prior maintenance of catch basin. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove grate, remove catch basin filter. 2) Perform maintenance activities on catch basin. 3) Enter separation chamber, unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on the cartridge filter. This will expose the 14 pieces of BioMediaGREEN in each cartridge. 4) Evaluate media condition, replace if necessary. If the spaces between the media are filled with sediment and the surface of the media is dark brown or black the media should be replaced. The old media can be removed by hand by pulling the media pieces up out of the cartridge and taking them out of the catch basin. 5) Once all old media is removed, spray down the interior of the cartridge and vacuum out accumulated debris. 6) Use new pieces of BioMediaGREEN and slide down over the perforated PVC risers. The media will only go in one way for easy installation. Replace media over all risers. 5) Replace cartridge filter lid, replace catch basin filter, and replace grate or manhole cover. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the drain down filter be inspected and maintained a minimum of once a year. 1) Open hatch of discharge chamber, enter chamber. 2) Unlatch fiberglass cover, remove media block, replace with new block, replace and latch cover. 3) Exit chamber, close and lock down the hatch. 45 Minutes Procedure 4 Replace Wetland Media Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the wetland media be evaluated every 3 to 5 years to test flow rate. The media life is approximately 15 to 20 years. The wetland media is an expanded shale that can be ordered from the manufacturer or independent supplier. If the flow through the wetland filter is decreasing the internal inflow and outflow pipes leading to and from the wetland chamber can be jetted. If the flow through the wetland is still minimal then the media may need to be replaced. To replace the media the following steps are required. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove plants and dispose. Have new plants standing ready to plant. 2) Use a larger vacuum truck to remove the media from the wetland chamber. 3) Spray down the chamber walls and remove all sediment and water. 4) Replace with new wetland media and plant plants. 6 to 8 Hours WWW.MODULARWETLANDS.COM P: 760-433-7640 Modular Wetland System (MWS) – LINEAR Maintenance Cost (per acre) MWS - LINEAR Cleaning Required Yearly Maintenance Cost Year 1 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 2 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 3 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 4 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 5 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 6 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 7 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 8 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 9 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 10 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media 4) Remove & Replace Wetland Plants & Media $80 / each (x2) $350/ year $500 / year $2,500 Total 1 - 10 Total Maintenance Cost Over 10 Years $11,800 Average Yearly Cost Assumes 10 Year Replacement of Wetland Media. $1,180 / Year WWW.MODULARWETLANDS.COM P: 760-433-7640 Attachment F Soils Report & GeoTracker Exhibit Attachment G Notice of Transfer Water Quality Management Plan Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Submission of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Anaheim that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”) for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his/ her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Previous Responsibility Party Information Company/ Individual Name Contact Person Street Address Title City State Zip Phone II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project Title of WQMP Applicable to Site: Street Address of Site Tract Number(s) for Site Lot Numbers Date WQMP Prepared (or Revised) III. New Owner/ New Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name Contact Person Street Address Title City State Zip Phone IV. Ownership Transfer Information General Description of Site Transferred to New Owner General Description of Portion of Project/ Parcel Subject to WQMP Retained by Owner (if any) Lot/ Tract Number(s) of Site Transferred to New Owner Remaining Lot/ Tract Number(s) to WQMP still held by Owner (if any) Date of Ownership Transfer Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/ parcel no transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those portions of the project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP that are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by the Previous Owner. Those portions retained by the Previous Owner shall be labeled “Previous Owner,” and those portions previously transferred by the Previous Owner shall be labeled as “Previously Transferred.” V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee of property subject to a WQMP that such New Owner is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for this portions of the site that it owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section II above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the New Owner. Print Name of Previous Owner Representative Title Signature of Previous Owner Representative Date B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section II above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I have informed myself and understand the New Owner’s responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing this notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendment of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Print Name of New Owner Representative Title Signature of New Owner Representative Date - 44- Appendix C – Preliminary Hydrology Study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±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¶VJHRPHWULFFHQWHU7KHH[LVWLQJVLWHLVSDUWRIDODUJHUGHYHORSPHQWDUHDWKDWZDVSUHYLRXVO\XWLOL]HGDVD ODQGILOODQGKDVEHHQPDVVJUDGHGPXOWLSOHWLPHV,QWKHFXUUHQWFRQGLWLRQGUDLQDJHIURPWKHSURMHFWVLWHDQG WKHODUJHUGHYHORSPHQWDUHDLVWULEXWDU\WRWKHRQVLWHGHVLOWLQJEDVLQ'UDLQDJHIURPWKHSURMHFWVLWHJHQHUDOO\ VKHHWIORZVRYHUODQGLQWKHVRXWKHUO\GLUHFWLRQWRZDUGVWKHH[LVWLQJEDVLQ'UDLQDJHIURPWKHODUJHU GHYHORSPHQWDUHDLVFRQYH\HGWRWKHH[LVWLQJRQVLWHGHVLOWLQJEDVLQSDUWLDOO\WKURXJKH[LVWLQJGUDLQDJHVZDOHV DQGSDUWLDOO\WKURXJKXQGHUJURXQGVWRUPGUDLQSLSHVWKDWRXWOHWWRWKHEDVLQ7KHGHVLOWLQJEDVLQRYHUIORZVYLD DQH[LVWLQJ´FRUUXJDWHGVWHHOULVHUSLSHZKLFKFRQQHFWVWRDQH[LVWLQJ´&LW\RI$QDKHLPVWRUPGUDLQ ZLWKLQ/LQFROQ$YHQXH(PHUJHQF\RYHUIORZLVFRQYH\HGWR/LQFROQ$YHQXHYLDDQH[LVWLQJVSLOOZD\DORQJ WKHVRXWKHUO\ZDOORIWKHEDVLQ7KHUHLVDQH[LVWLQJFDWFKEDVLQORFDWHGQHDUWKHVRXWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWH ZKLFKFDSWXUHVDQGFRQYH\VVXUIDFHGUDLQDJHWRWKHH[LVWLQJ&LW\RI$QDKHLP´VWRUPGUDLQZKLFKFRQYHUJHV ZLWKDQH[LVWLQJ&LW\RI$QDKHLP´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³([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV+\GURORJ\0DS´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´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´VWRUPGUDLQZLWKLQ:/LQFROQ$YHQXH7KHSURSRVHG HDUWKHQVZDOHVDQGVWRUPGUDLQZLOOSUHYHQWRIIVLWHUXQRQIURPHQWHULQJWKHSURMHFWVLWHZKLOHPDLQWDLQLQJWKH KLVWRULFGUDLQDJHSDWWHUQGLVFKDUJHORFDWLRQ ,QWKHIXWXUHUXQRIIIURPDSURSRVHGUHWDLOFRPPHUFLDOGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKHODUJHUGHYHORSPHQWDUHDZLOO GUDLQWKURXJKWKHSURMHFWVLWHYLDDSURSRVHG´5&3VWRUPGUDLQDQGGLVFKDUJHWRWKHH[LVWLQJ&LW\VWRUP GUDLQZLWKLQ/LQFROQ$YHQXH7KLVSLSHKDVEHHQK\GUDXOLFDOO\DQDO\]HGDQGVL]HGE\WKHUHWDLOGHYHORSPHQW HQJLQHHURIUHFRUG'5&(QJLQHHULQJ,QF 5HIHUWR$SSHQGL[*IRUDOHWWHUIURP'5&(QJLQHHULQJ,QFZKLFKFRQILUPVWKHGHVLJQRIWKH´5&3SLSH DQGDVVRFLDWHGHDVHPHQWZLGWK 5HIHUWR³3URSRVHG&RQGLWLRQV3UHOLPLQDU\+\GURORJ\0DS´LQ$SSHQGL[$ZLWKLQWKLVVWXG\IRUDGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ 0(7+2'2/2*< 7KHSURMHFWVLWHDQGWULEXWDU\XSVWUHDPGHYHORSPHQWDUHDZHUHDQDO\]HGXVLQJWKH2UDQJH&RXQW\+\GURORJ\ 0DQXDO/RFDO'UDLQDJH0DQXDODQG$GYDQFHG(QJLQHHULQJ6ROXWLRQV $(6 K\GURORJ\VRIWZDUH7KH LQLWLDOVXEDUHDVDQGDGGLWLRQWRVXEDUHDVDQDO\]HGIRUDFUHDJHODQGXVHVRLOW\SHSHDNIORZUDWHDQGWLPHRI FRQFHQWUDWLRQDFFRUGLQJWRWKH5DWLRQDO0HWKRG 7KHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQRIWKHVLWHZDVDVVLJQHGDSHUYLRXVQHVVRIDQGWKHSURSRVHGFRQGLWLRQZDV DVVLJQHGDSHUYLRXVQHVVRIEDVHGRQWKH³$SDUWPHQWV´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±4SURSRVHG RIIVLWH 4PLWLJDWHG RQVLWH FIV± FIV FIV :/LQFROQ$YHQXH$QDKHLP 0D[LPXP2XWIORZ2ULILFH&DOFXODWLRQV 4 &$¥ JK ZKHUH4 )ORZ5DWH FIV & &RHIILFLHQWRI'LVFKDUJH $ $UHDRI2ULILFH VI K +\GUDXOLF+HDG IW ´SLSHƶK\GUDXOLFKHDG J *UDYLW\ IWVð 4PLWLJDWHG ʹǤʹͺFIV ʹǤʹͺFIV ሺሻ$ඨሺሻ ൬IW V൰ ሺIWሻĺ$ VI ʹͳVI ʌ 'ĺ' ͷͳIW Î8VH´RULILFH ሺሻ ൬ቀʌ ቁ ሺͷͳIWሻ൰ ටሺሻ ቀIW Vቁ ሺIWሻ ൌ FIV9 2ULILFH&DOFXODWLRQUHIHUHQFHGIURP.LQJ&RXQW\:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH6XUIDFH:DWHU'HVLJQ0DQXDO6HFWLRQ 3URMHFW6LWH3URSRVHG3HDN5XQRII 4SURSRVHG RQVLWH 5HTXLUHG0LWLJDWLRQ9ROXPHSHU6PDOO$UHD8QLW+\GURJUDSK 5HTXLUHG6WRUDJH FI 3URYLGHG6WRUDJH OIRI´SLSHÆ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³$´SHUWKH2UDQJH&RXQW\3XEOLF:RUNV 2&3: 7HFKQLFDO *XLGDQFH'RFXPHQW 7*' 15&6+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXSVPDS ,PSHUYLRXVFRYHUDJHFRUUHODWLQJWR³$SDUWPHQWV´ZDVDVVXPHGIRUWKHSURSRVHGFRQGLWLRQRIWKHVLWHDW DSSUR[LPDWHO\LPSHUYLRXV ,PSHUYLRXVFRYHUDJHIRUWKHH[LVWLQJVLWHDVVXPHGWREH³%DUUHQ´ODQGXVH 3HDNIORZUDWHVDQGWLPHRIFRQFHQWUDWLRQVZHUHFDOFXODWHGEDVHGRQWKH5DWLRQDO0HWKRGXWLOL]LQJWKH $(6 5()(5(1&(6 2UDQJH&RXQW\+\GURORJ\0DQXDO &LW\RI$QDKHLP0DVWHU3ODQRI6WRUP'UDLQDJHIRU&DUERQ&DQ\RQ&UHHN&KDQQHO7ULEXWDU\$UHD 2UDQJH&RXQW\)ORRG&RQWURO'LVWULFW'HVLJQ0DQXDO 2UDQJH&RXQW\'UDLQDJH)DFLOLWLHV0DS1RV $GYDQFHG(QJLQHHULQJ6RIWZDUH $(6 $33(1',;$ +<'52/2*<0$36 ([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV+\GURORJ\0DS 0SCALE: 1" = 80'40 8 0 1 6 0 3URSRVHG&RQGLWLRQV+\GURORJ\0DS 0SCALE: 1" = 80'40 8 0 1 6 0 0SCALE: 1" = 30'15 3 0 6 0 $33(1',;% +<'52/2*<&$/&8/$7,216 ([LVWLQJ 3URSRVHG&RQGLWLRQV+\GURORJ\&DOFXODWLRQV \HDU6WRUP(YHQW ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONALMETHODHYDROLOGYCOMPUTERPROGRAMPACKAGE (Reference:1986ORANGECOUNTYHYDROLOGYCRITERION) (c)Copyright1983Ş2014AdvancedEngineeringSoftware(aes) Ver.21.0ReleaseDate:06/01/2014LicenseID1580 Analysispreparedby: **************************DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDY************************** *TTM19021* *ANAHEIM,CA* *EXISTINGQ10* ************************************************************************** FILENAME:GL02X10.DAT TIME/DATEOFSTUDY:14:1104/10/2020 ============================================================================ USERSPECIFIEDHYDROLOGYANDHYDRAULICMODELINFORMATION: ============================================================================ ŞŞ*TIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONMODEL*ŞŞ USERSPECIFIEDSTORMEVENT(YEAR)=10.00 SPECIFIEDMINIMUMPIPESIZE(INCH)=18.00 SPECIFIEDPERCENTOFGRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TOUSEFORFRICTIONSLOPE=0.95 *DATABANKRAINFALLUSED* *ANTECEDENTMOISTURECONDITION(AMC)IIASSUMEDFORRATIONALMETHOD* *USERŞDEFINEDSTREETŞSECTIONSFORCOUPLEDPIPEFLOWANDSTREETFLOWMODEL* HALFŞCROWNTOSTREETŞCROSSFALL:CURBGUTTERŞGEOMETRIES:MANNING WIDTHCROSSFALLINŞ/OUTŞ/PARKŞHEIGHTWIDTHLIPHIKEFACTOR NO.(FT)(FT)SIDE/SIDE/WAY(FT)(FT)(FT)(FT)(n) =============================================================== 130.020.00.018/0.018/0.0200.672.000.03130.1670.0150 GLOBALSTREETFLOWŞDEPTHCONSTRAINTS: 1.RelativeFlowŞDepth=0.00FEET as(MaximumAllowableStreetFlowDepth)Ş(TopŞofŞCurb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint=6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZEPIPEWITHAFLOWCAPACITYGREATERTHAN OREQUALTOTHEUPSTREAMTRIBUTARYPIPE.* *USERŞSPECIFIEDMINIMUMTOPOGRAPHICSLOPEADJUSTMENTNOTSELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE100.00TONODE101.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=248.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=91.80DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=88.00 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=10.987 *10YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=2.586 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A0.820.401.0007810.99 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.61 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.82PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=1.61 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE101.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=52 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTENATURALVALLEYCHANNELFLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.00DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=79.00 CHANNELLENGTHTHRUSUBAREA(FEET)=1896.00CHANNELSLOPE=0.0047 CHANNELFLOWTHRUSUBAREA(CFS)=1.61 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC)=1.13(PERLACFCD/RCFC&WCDHYDROLOGYMANUAL) TRAVELTIME(MIN.)=27.85Tc(MIN.)=38.84 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE102.00=2144.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE102.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=38.84 *10YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=1.254 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A29.590.401.00078 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=29.59SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=22.74 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=30.41AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.00 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=30.4PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=23.37 ============================================================================ ENDOFSTUDYSUMMARY: TOTALAREA(ACRES)=30.4TC(MIN.)=38.84 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=30.41AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.000 PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=23.37 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ ENDOFRATIONALMETHODANALYSIS ཪ ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONALMETHODHYDROLOGYCOMPUTERPROGRAMPACKAGE (Reference:1986ORANGECOUNTYHYDROLOGYCRITERION) (c)Copyright1983Ş2014AdvancedEngineeringSoftware(aes) Ver.21.0ReleaseDate:06/01/2014LicenseID1580 Analysispreparedby: **************************DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDY************************** *TTM19021* *ANAHEIM,CA* *PROPOSEDQ10* ************************************************************************** FILENAME:GL02P10.DAT TIME/DATEOFSTUDY:12:1106/17/2020 ============================================================================ USERSPECIFIEDHYDROLOGYANDHYDRAULICMODELINFORMATION: ============================================================================ ŞŞ*TIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONMODEL*ŞŞ USERSPECIFIEDSTORMEVENT(YEAR)=10.00 SPECIFIEDMINIMUMPIPESIZE(INCH)=18.00 SPECIFIEDPERCENTOFGRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TOUSEFORFRICTIONSLOPE=0.95 *DATABANKRAINFALLUSED* *ANTECEDENTMOISTURECONDITION(AMC)IIASSUMEDFORRATIONALMETHOD* *USERŞDEFINEDSTREETŞSECTIONSFORCOUPLEDPIPEFLOWANDSTREETFLOWMODEL* HALFŞCROWNTOSTREETŞCROSSFALL:CURBGUTTERŞGEOMETRIES:MANNING WIDTHCROSSFALLINŞ/OUTŞ/PARKŞHEIGHTWIDTHLIPHIKEFACTOR NO.(FT)(FT)SIDE/SIDE/WAY(FT)(FT)(FT)(FT)(n) =============================================================== 130.020.00.018/0.018/0.0200.672.000.03130.1670.0150 GLOBALSTREETFLOWŞDEPTHCONSTRAINTS: 1.RelativeFlowŞDepth=0.00FEET as(MaximumAllowableStreetFlowDepth)Ş(TopŞofŞCurb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint=6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZEPIPEWITHAFLOWCAPACITYGREATERTHAN OREQUALTOTHEUPSTREAMTRIBUTARYPIPE.* *USERŞSPECIFIEDMINIMUMTOPOGRAPHICSLOPEADJUSTMENTNOTSELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE100.00TONODE101.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=198.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.14DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=86.20 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=6.776 *10YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=3.411 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) APARTMENTSA0.390.400.200326.78 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.17 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.39PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=1.17 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE101.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=61 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTESTREETFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARDCURBSECTIONUSED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAMELEVATION(FEET)=86.20DOWNSTREAMELEVATION(FEET)=84.70 STREETLENGTH(FEET)=224.00CURBHEIGHT(INCHES)=6.0 STREETHALFWIDTH(FEET)=14.00 DISTANCEFROMCROWNTOCROSSFALLGRADEBREAK(FEET)=7.00 INSIDESTREETCROSSFALL(DECIMAL)=0.020 OUTSIDESTREETCROSSFALL(DECIMAL)=0.020 SPECIFIEDNUMBEROFHALFSTREETSCARRYINGRUNOFF=1 Manning'sFRICTIONFACTORforStreetflowSection(curbŞtoŞcurb)=0.0150 **TRAVELTIMECOMPUTEDUSINGESTIMATEDFLOW(CFS)=2.14 STREETFLOWMODELRESULTSUSINGESTIMATEDFLOW: STREETFLOWDEPTH(FEET)=0.33 HALFSTREETFLOODWIDTH(FEET)=10.14 AVERAGEFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=1.86 PRODUCTOFDEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.)=0.61 STREETFLOWTRAVELTIME(MIN.)=2.00Tc(MIN.)=8.78 *10YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=2.940 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN APARTMENTSA0.750.400.20032 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=0.75SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.93 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=1.14AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.08 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=0.20 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=1.1PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=2.93 ENDOFSUBAREASTREETFLOWHYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)=0.36HALFSTREETFLOODWIDTH(FEET)=11.61 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=2.00DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.)=0.72 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE102.00=422.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE102.00TONODE103.00ISCODE=31 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTEPIPEŞFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USINGCOMPUTERŞESTIMATEDPIPESIZE(NONŞPRESSUREFLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=81.70DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=80.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET)=435.00MANNING'SN=0.013 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)INCREASEDTO18.000 DEPTHOFFLOWIN18.0INCHPIPEIS8.6INCHES PIPEŞFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=3.54 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)=18.00NUMBEROFPIPES=1 PIPEŞFLOW(CFS)=2.93 PIPETRAVELTIME(MIN.)=2.05Tc(MIN.)=10.83 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE103.00=857.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE300.00TONODE103.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=10.83 *10YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=2.608 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN APARTMENTSA2.520.400.20032 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=2.52SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=5.73 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=3.66AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.08 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=0.20 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=3.7PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=8.33 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE400.00TONODE401.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=248.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=91.80DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=88.00 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=10.987 *10YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=2.586 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A0.820.401.0007810.99 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.61 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.82PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=1.61 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE401.00TONODE402.00ISCODE=52 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTENATURALVALLEYCHANNELFLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.00DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=81.00 CHANNELLENGTHTHRUSUBAREA(FEET)=1694.80CHANNELSLOPE=0.0041 CHANNELFLOWTHRUSUBAREA(CFS)=1.61 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC)=1.06(PERLACFCD/RCFC&WCDHYDROLOGYMANUAL) TRAVELTIME(MIN.)=26.69Tc(MIN.)=37.68 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE400.00TONODE402.00=1942.80FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE402.00TONODE402.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=37.68 *10YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=1.276 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A25.930.401.00078 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=25.93SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=20.45 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=26.75AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.00 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=26.8PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=21.09 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE402.00TONODE403.00ISCODE=31 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTEPIPEŞFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USINGCOMPUTERŞESTIMATEDPIPESIZE(NONŞPRESSUREFLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=79.50DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=76.76 FLOWLENGTH(FEET)=229.41MANNING'SN=0.013 DEPTHOFFLOWIN24.0INCHPIPEIS17.4INCHES PIPEŞFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=8.65 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)=24.00NUMBEROFPIPES=1 PIPEŞFLOW(CFS)=21.09 PIPETRAVELTIME(MIN.)=0.44Tc(MIN.)=38.12 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE400.00TONODE403.00=2172.21FEET. ============================================================================ ENDOFSTUDYSUMMARY: TOTALAREA(ACRES)=26.8TC(MIN.)=38.12 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=26.75AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.000 PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=21.09 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ ENDOFRATIONALMETHODANALYSIS ཪ ([LVWLQJ 3URSRVHG&RQGLWLRQV+\GURORJ\&DOFXODWLRQV \HDU6WRUP(YHQW ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONALMETHODHYDROLOGYCOMPUTERPROGRAMPACKAGE (Reference:1986ORANGECOUNTYHYDROLOGYCRITERION) (c)Copyright1983Ş2014AdvancedEngineeringSoftware(aes) Ver.21.0ReleaseDate:06/01/2014LicenseID1580 Analysispreparedby: **************************DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDY************************** *TTM19021* *ANAHEIM,CA* *EXISTINGQ25* ************************************************************************** FILENAME:GL02X25.DAT TIME/DATEOFSTUDY:14:1304/10/2020 ============================================================================ USERSPECIFIEDHYDROLOGYANDHYDRAULICMODELINFORMATION: ============================================================================ ŞŞ*TIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONMODEL*ŞŞ USERSPECIFIEDSTORMEVENT(YEAR)=25.00 SPECIFIEDMINIMUMPIPESIZE(INCH)=18.00 SPECIFIEDPERCENTOFGRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TOUSEFORFRICTIONSLOPE=0.95 *DATABANKRAINFALLUSED* *ANTECEDENTMOISTURECONDITION(AMC)IIASSUMEDFORRATIONALMETHOD* *USERŞDEFINEDSTREETŞSECTIONSFORCOUPLEDPIPEFLOWANDSTREETFLOWMODEL* HALFŞCROWNTOSTREETŞCROSSFALL:CURBGUTTERŞGEOMETRIES:MANNING WIDTHCROSSFALLINŞ/OUTŞ/PARKŞHEIGHTWIDTHLIPHIKEFACTOR NO.(FT)(FT)SIDE/SIDE/WAY(FT)(FT)(FT)(FT)(n) =============================================================== 130.020.00.018/0.018/0.0200.672.000.03130.1670.0150 GLOBALSTREETFLOWŞDEPTHCONSTRAINTS: 1.RelativeFlowŞDepth=0.00FEET as(MaximumAllowableStreetFlowDepth)Ş(TopŞofŞCurb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint=6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZEPIPEWITHAFLOWCAPACITYGREATERTHAN OREQUALTOTHEUPSTREAMTRIBUTARYPIPE.* *USERŞSPECIFIEDMINIMUMTOPOGRAPHICSLOPEADJUSTMENTNOTSELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE100.00TONODE101.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=248.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=91.80DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=88.00 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=10.987 *25YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=3.089 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A0.820.401.0007810.99 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.98 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.82PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=1.98 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE101.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=52 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTENATURALVALLEYCHANNELFLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.00DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=79.00 CHANNELLENGTHTHRUSUBAREA(FEET)=1896.00CHANNELSLOPE=0.0047 CHANNELFLOWTHRUSUBAREA(CFS)=1.98 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC)=1.18(PERLACFCD/RCFC&WCDHYDROLOGYMANUAL) TRAVELTIME(MIN.)=26.69Tc(MIN.)=37.68 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE102.00=2144.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE102.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=37.68 *25YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=1.538 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A29.590.401.00078 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=29.59SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=30.30 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=30.41AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.00 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=30.4PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=31.14 ============================================================================ ENDOFSTUDYSUMMARY: TOTALAREA(ACRES)=30.4TC(MIN.)=37.68 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=30.41AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.000 PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=31.14 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ ENDOFRATIONALMETHODANALYSIS ཪ ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONALMETHODHYDROLOGYCOMPUTERPROGRAMPACKAGE (Reference:1986ORANGECOUNTYHYDROLOGYCRITERION) (c)Copyright1983Ş2014AdvancedEngineeringSoftware(aes) Ver.21.0ReleaseDate:06/01/2014LicenseID1580 Analysispreparedby: **************************DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDY************************** *TTM19021* *ANAHEIM,CA* *PROPOSEDQ25* ************************************************************************** FILENAME:GL02P25.DAT TIME/DATEOFSTUDY:12:1406/17/2020 ============================================================================ USERSPECIFIEDHYDROLOGYANDHYDRAULICMODELINFORMATION: ============================================================================ ŞŞ*TIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONMODEL*ŞŞ USERSPECIFIEDSTORMEVENT(YEAR)=25.00 SPECIFIEDMINIMUMPIPESIZE(INCH)=18.00 SPECIFIEDPERCENTOFGRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TOUSEFORFRICTIONSLOPE=0.95 *DATABANKRAINFALLUSED* *ANTECEDENTMOISTURECONDITION(AMC)IIASSUMEDFORRATIONALMETHOD* *USERŞDEFINEDSTREETŞSECTIONSFORCOUPLEDPIPEFLOWANDSTREETFLOWMODEL* HALFŞCROWNTOSTREETŞCROSSFALL:CURBGUTTERŞGEOMETRIES:MANNING WIDTHCROSSFALLINŞ/OUTŞ/PARKŞHEIGHTWIDTHLIPHIKEFACTOR NO.(FT)(FT)SIDE/SIDE/WAY(FT)(FT)(FT)(FT)(n) =============================================================== 130.020.00.018/0.018/0.0200.672.000.03130.1670.0150 GLOBALSTREETFLOWŞDEPTHCONSTRAINTS: 1.RelativeFlowŞDepth=0.00FEET as(MaximumAllowableStreetFlowDepth)Ş(TopŞofŞCurb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint=6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZEPIPEWITHAFLOWCAPACITYGREATERTHAN OREQUALTOTHEUPSTREAMTRIBUTARYPIPE.* *USERŞSPECIFIEDMINIMUMTOPOGRAPHICSLOPEADJUSTMENTNOTSELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE100.00TONODE101.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=198.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.14DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=86.20 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=6.776 *25YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=4.061 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) APARTMENTSA0.390.400.200326.78 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.40 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.39PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=1.40 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE101.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=61 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTESTREETFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARDCURBSECTIONUSED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAMELEVATION(FEET)=86.20DOWNSTREAMELEVATION(FEET)=84.70 STREETLENGTH(FEET)=224.00CURBHEIGHT(INCHES)=6.0 STREETHALFWIDTH(FEET)=14.00 DISTANCEFROMCROWNTOCROSSFALLGRADEBREAK(FEET)=7.00 INSIDESTREETCROSSFALL(DECIMAL)=0.020 OUTSIDESTREETCROSSFALL(DECIMAL)=0.020 SPECIFIEDNUMBEROFHALFSTREETSCARRYINGRUNOFF=1 Manning'sFRICTIONFACTORforStreetflowSection(curbŞtoŞcurb)=0.0150 **TRAVELTIMECOMPUTEDUSINGESTIMATEDFLOW(CFS)=2.56 STREETFLOWMODELRESULTSUSINGESTIMATEDFLOW: STREETFLOWDEPTH(FEET)=0.35 HALFSTREETFLOODWIDTH(FEET)=11.02 AVERAGEFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=1.92 PRODUCTOFDEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.)=0.67 STREETFLOWTRAVELTIME(MIN.)=1.94Tc(MIN.)=8.72 *25YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=3.521 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN APARTMENTSA0.750.400.20032 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=0.75SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=2.32 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=1.14AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.08 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=0.20 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=1.1PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=3.53 ENDOFSUBAREASTREETFLOWHYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)=0.38HALFSTREETFLOODWIDTH(FEET)=12.58 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=2.07DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.)=0.78 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE102.00=422.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE102.00TONODE103.00ISCODE=31 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTEPIPEŞFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USINGCOMPUTERŞESTIMATEDPIPESIZE(NONŞPRESSUREFLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=81.70DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=80.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET)=435.00MANNING'SN=0.013 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)INCREASEDTO18.000 DEPTHOFFLOWIN18.0INCHPIPEIS9.5INCHES PIPEŞFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=3.71 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)=18.00NUMBEROFPIPES=1 PIPEŞFLOW(CFS)=3.53 PIPETRAVELTIME(MIN.)=1.96Tc(MIN.)=10.67 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE103.00=857.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE300.00TONODE103.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=10.67 *25YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=3.140 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN APARTMENTSA2.520.400.20032 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=2.52SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=6.94 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=3.66AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.08 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=0.20 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=3.7PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=10.08 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE400.00TONODE401.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=248.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=91.80DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=88.00 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=10.987 *25YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=3.089 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A0.820.401.0007810.99 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.98 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.82PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=1.98 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE401.00TONODE402.00ISCODE=52 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTENATURALVALLEYCHANNELFLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.00DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=81.00 CHANNELLENGTHTHRUSUBAREA(FEET)=1694.80CHANNELSLOPE=0.0041 CHANNELFLOWTHRUSUBAREA(CFS)=1.98 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC)=1.10(PERLACFCD/RCFC&WCDHYDROLOGYMANUAL) TRAVELTIME(MIN.)=25.58Tc(MIN.)=36.57 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE400.00TONODE402.00=1942.80FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE402.00TONODE402.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=36.57 *25YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=1.564 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A25.930.401.00078 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=25.93SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=27.17 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=26.75AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.00 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=26.8PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=28.03 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE402.00TONODE403.00ISCODE=31 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTEPIPEŞFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USINGCOMPUTERŞESTIMATEDPIPESIZE(NONŞPRESSUREFLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=79.50DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=76.76 FLOWLENGTH(FEET)=229.41MANNING'SN=0.013 DEPTHOFFLOWIN27.0INCHPIPEIS19.1INCHES PIPEŞFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=9.31 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)=27.00NUMBEROFPIPES=1 PIPEŞFLOW(CFS)=28.03 PIPETRAVELTIME(MIN.)=0.41Tc(MIN.)=36.98 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE400.00TONODE403.00=2172.21FEET. ============================================================================ ENDOFSTUDYSUMMARY: TOTALAREA(ACRES)=26.8TC(MIN.)=36.98 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=26.75AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.000 PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=28.03 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ ENDOFRATIONALMETHODANALYSIS ཪ ([LVWLQJ 3URSRVHG&RQGLWLRQV+\GURORJ\&DOFXODWLRQV \HDU6WRUP(YHQW ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONALMETHODHYDROLOGYCOMPUTERPROGRAMPACKAGE (Reference:1986ORANGECOUNTYHYDROLOGYCRITERION) (c)Copyright1983Ş2014AdvancedEngineeringSoftware(aes) Ver.21.0ReleaseDate:06/01/2014LicenseID1580 Analysispreparedby: **************************DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDY************************** *TTM19021* *ANAHEIM,CA* *EXISTINGQ100* ************************************************************************** FILENAME:GL02X100.DAT TIME/DATEOFSTUDY:14:1404/10/2020 ============================================================================ USERSPECIFIEDHYDROLOGYANDHYDRAULICMODELINFORMATION: ============================================================================ ŞŞ*TIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONMODEL*ŞŞ USERSPECIFIEDSTORMEVENT(YEAR)=100.00 SPECIFIEDMINIMUMPIPESIZE(INCH)=18.00 SPECIFIEDPERCENTOFGRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TOUSEFORFRICTIONSLOPE=0.95 *DATABANKRAINFALLUSED* *ANTECEDENTMOISTURECONDITION(AMC)IIIASSUMEDFORRATIONALMETHOD* *USERŞDEFINEDSTREETŞSECTIONSFORCOUPLEDPIPEFLOWANDSTREETFLOWMODEL* HALFŞCROWNTOSTREETŞCROSSFALL:CURBGUTTERŞGEOMETRIES:MANNING WIDTHCROSSFALLINŞ/OUTŞ/PARKŞHEIGHTWIDTHLIPHIKEFACTOR NO.(FT)(FT)SIDE/SIDE/WAY(FT)(FT)(FT)(FT)(n) =============================================================== 130.020.00.018/0.018/0.0200.672.000.03130.1670.0150 GLOBALSTREETFLOWŞDEPTHCONSTRAINTS: 1.RelativeFlowŞDepth=0.00FEET as(MaximumAllowableStreetFlowDepth)Ş(TopŞofŞCurb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint=6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZEPIPEWITHAFLOWCAPACITYGREATERTHAN OREQUALTOTHEUPSTREAMTRIBUTARYPIPE.* *USERŞSPECIFIEDMINIMUMTOPOGRAPHICSLOPEADJUSTMENTNOTSELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE100.00TONODE101.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=248.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=91.80DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=88.00 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=10.987 *100YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=3.941 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCIII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A0.820.401.0009310.99 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=2.61 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.82PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=2.61 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE101.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=52 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTENATURALVALLEYCHANNELFLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.00DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=79.00 CHANNELLENGTHTHRUSUBAREA(FEET)=1896.00CHANNELSLOPE=0.0047 CHANNELFLOWTHRUSUBAREA(CFS)=2.61 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC)=1.26(PERLACFCD/RCFC&WCDHYDROLOGYMANUAL) TRAVELTIME(MIN.)=25.18Tc(MIN.)=36.16 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE102.00=2144.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE102.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=36.16 *100YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=1.991 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCIII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A29.590.401.00093 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=29.59SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=42.38 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=30.41AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.00 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=30.4PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=43.55 ============================================================================ ENDOFSTUDYSUMMARY: TOTALAREA(ACRES)=30.4TC(MIN.)=36.16 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=30.41AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.000 PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=43.55 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ ENDOFRATIONALMETHODANALYSIS ཪ ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONALMETHODHYDROLOGYCOMPUTERPROGRAMPACKAGE (Reference:1986ORANGECOUNTYHYDROLOGYCRITERION) (c)Copyright1983Ş2014AdvancedEngineeringSoftware(aes) Ver.21.0ReleaseDate:06/01/2014LicenseID1580 Analysispreparedby: **************************DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDY************************** *TTM19021* *ANAHEIM,CA* *PROPOSEDQ100* ************************************************************************** FILENAME:GL02P100.DAT TIME/DATEOFSTUDY:12:1506/17/2020 ============================================================================ USERSPECIFIEDHYDROLOGYANDHYDRAULICMODELINFORMATION: ============================================================================ ŞŞ*TIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONMODEL*ŞŞ USERSPECIFIEDSTORMEVENT(YEAR)=100.00 SPECIFIEDMINIMUMPIPESIZE(INCH)=18.00 SPECIFIEDPERCENTOFGRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TOUSEFORFRICTIONSLOPE=0.95 *DATABANKRAINFALLUSED* *ANTECEDENTMOISTURECONDITION(AMC)IIIASSUMEDFORRATIONALMETHOD* *USERŞDEFINEDSTREETŞSECTIONSFORCOUPLEDPIPEFLOWANDSTREETFLOWMODEL* HALFŞCROWNTOSTREETŞCROSSFALL:CURBGUTTERŞGEOMETRIES:MANNING WIDTHCROSSFALLINŞ/OUTŞ/PARKŞHEIGHTWIDTHLIPHIKEFACTOR NO.(FT)(FT)SIDE/SIDE/WAY(FT)(FT)(FT)(FT)(n) =============================================================== 130.020.00.018/0.018/0.0200.672.000.03130.1670.0150 GLOBALSTREETFLOWŞDEPTHCONSTRAINTS: 1.RelativeFlowŞDepth=0.00FEET as(MaximumAllowableStreetFlowDepth)Ş(TopŞofŞCurb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint=6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZEPIPEWITHAFLOWCAPACITYGREATERTHAN OREQUALTOTHEUPSTREAMTRIBUTARYPIPE.* *USERŞSPECIFIEDMINIMUMTOPOGRAPHICSLOPEADJUSTMENTNOTSELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE100.00TONODE101.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=198.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.14DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=86.20 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=6.776 *100YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=5.198 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCIII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) APARTMENTSA0.390.400.200526.78 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=1.80 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.39PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=1.80 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE101.00TONODE102.00ISCODE=61 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTESTREETFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARDCURBSECTIONUSED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAMELEVATION(FEET)=86.20DOWNSTREAMELEVATION(FEET)=84.70 STREETLENGTH(FEET)=224.00CURBHEIGHT(INCHES)=6.0 STREETHALFWIDTH(FEET)=14.00 DISTANCEFROMCROWNTOCROSSFALLGRADEBREAK(FEET)=7.00 INSIDESTREETCROSSFALL(DECIMAL)=0.020 OUTSIDESTREETCROSSFALL(DECIMAL)=0.020 SPECIFIEDNUMBEROFHALFSTREETSCARRYINGRUNOFF=1 Manning'sFRICTIONFACTORforStreetflowSection(curbŞtoŞcurb)=0.0150 **TRAVELTIMECOMPUTEDUSINGESTIMATEDFLOW(CFS)=3.30 STREETFLOWMODELRESULTSUSINGESTIMATEDFLOW: STREETFLOWDEPTH(FEET)=0.37 HALFSTREETFLOODWIDTH(FEET)=12.19 AVERAGEFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=2.06 PRODUCTOFDEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.)=0.76 STREETFLOWTRAVELTIME(MIN.)=1.81Tc(MIN.)=8.59 *100YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=4.537 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCIII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN APARTMENTSA0.750.400.20052 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=0.75SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=3.01 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=1.14AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.08 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=0.20 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=1.1PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=4.57 ENDOFSUBAREASTREETFLOWHYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)=0.41HALFSTREETFLOODWIDTH(FEET)=13.95 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=2.22DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.)=0.90 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE102.00=422.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE102.00TONODE103.00ISCODE=31 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTEPIPEŞFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USINGCOMPUTERŞESTIMATEDPIPESIZE(NONŞPRESSUREFLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=81.70DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=80.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET)=435.00MANNING'SN=0.013 DEPTHOFFLOWIN18.0INCHPIPEIS11.3INCHES PIPEŞFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=3.93 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)=18.00NUMBEROFPIPES=1 PIPEŞFLOW(CFS)=4.57 PIPETRAVELTIME(MIN.)=1.84Tc(MIN.)=10.43 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE100.00TONODE103.00=857.00FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE300.00TONODE103.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=10.43 *100YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=4.059 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCIII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN APARTMENTSA2.520.400.20052 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=0.200 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=2.52SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=9.02 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=3.66AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.08 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=0.20 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=3.7PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=13.11 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE400.00TONODE401.00ISCODE=21 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< >>USETIMEŞOFŞCONCENTRATIONNOMOGRAPHFORINITIALSUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIALSUBAREAFLOWŞLENGTH(FEET)=248.00 ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=91.80DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=88.00 Tc=K*[(LENGTH**3.00)/(ELEVATIONCHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREAANALYSISUSEDMINIMUMTc(MIN.)=10.987 *100YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=3.941 SUBAREATcANDLOSSRATEDATA(AMCIII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCSTc LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN(MIN.) NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A0.820.401.0009310.99 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=2.61 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=0.82PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=2.61 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE401.00TONODE402.00ISCODE=52 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTENATURALVALLEYCHANNELFLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=88.00DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=81.00 CHANNELLENGTHTHRUSUBAREA(FEET)=1694.80CHANNELSLOPE=0.0041 CHANNELFLOWTHRUSUBAREA(CFS)=2.61 FLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC)=1.17(PERLACFCD/RCFC&WCDHYDROLOGYMANUAL) TRAVELTIME(MIN.)=24.12Tc(MIN.)=35.11 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE400.00TONODE402.00=1942.80FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE402.00TONODE402.00ISCODE=81 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>ADDITIONOFSUBAREATOMAINLINEPEAKFLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINETc(MIN.)=35.11 *100YEARRAINFALLINTENSITY(INCH/HR)=2.025 SUBAREALOSSRATEDATA(AMCIII): DEVELOPMENTTYPE/SCSSOILAREAFpApSCS LANDUSEGROUP(ACRES)(INCH/HR)(DECIMAL)CN NATURALPOORCOVER "BARREN"A25.930.401.00093 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSLOSSRATE,Fp(INCH/HR)=0.40 SUBAREAAVERAGEPERVIOUSAREAFRACTION,Ap=1.000 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)=25.93SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)=37.93 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=26.75AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.00 TOTALAREA(ACRES)=26.8PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=39.13 **************************************************************************** FLOWPROCESSFROMNODE402.00TONODE403.00ISCODE=31 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ >>>>>COMPUTEPIPEŞFLOWTRAVELTIMETHRUSUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USINGCOMPUTERŞESTIMATEDPIPESIZE(NONŞPRESSUREFLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATIONDATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)=79.50DOWNSTREAM(FEET)=76.76 FLOWLENGTH(FEET)=229.41MANNING'SN=0.013 DEPTHOFFLOWIN30.0INCHPIPEIS22.2INCHES PIPEŞFLOWVELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)=10.07 ESTIMATEDPIPEDIAMETER(INCH)=30.00NUMBEROFPIPES=1 PIPEŞFLOW(CFS)=39.13 PIPETRAVELTIME(MIN.)=0.38Tc(MIN.)=35.49 LONGESTFLOWPATHFROMNODE400.00TONODE403.00=2172.21FEET. ============================================================================ ENDOFSTUDYSUMMARY: TOTALAREA(ACRES)=26.8TC(MIN.)=35.49 EFFECTIVEAREA(ACRES)=26.75AREAŞAVERAGEDFm(INCH/HR)=0.40 AREAŞAVERAGEDFp(INCH/HR)=0.40AREAŞAVERAGEDAp=1.000 PEAKFLOWRATE(CFS)=39.13 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ ENDOFRATIONALMETHODANALYSIS ཪ $33(1',;& 2&3:7*'6RLOV0DS ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 a _ H y d r o S o i l s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2aJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CANRCS HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUPS SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N So u r c e : So i l s : N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e ( N R C S ) So i l S u r v e y - s o i l _ c a 6 7 8 , O r a n g e C o u n t y & W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e Da t e o f p u b l i c a t i o n : 2 0 0 6 - 0 2 - 0 8 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LE G E N D Ci t y B o u n d a r i e s Hy d r o l o g i c S o i l G r o u p s A S o i l s B S o i l s C S o i l s D S o i l s ht t p : / / w e b s o i l s u r v e y . n r c s . u s d a . g o v / a p p / H o m e P a g e . h t m Pr o j ec t L o c a t i o n $33(1',;' 5HIHUHQFH0DWHULDO Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n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able 3 – Basin 2 Summary of Hydrology Drainage Area Node Location Drainage Area (ac) 10-Year Flow (cfs) 25-Year Flow (cfs) 100-Year Flow (cfs) 2-1 203 Lincoln Avenue and Bel Air 29 50 60 80 2-1 204 Lincoln Avenue and Floyd Street 44 70 85 110 2-3 232 Beach Boulevard at Carbon Creek 10 15 18 25 2-4 243 Halliday Street and Orange Avenue 17 35 40 50 2-4 244 Orange Ave. at Carbon Creek 41 60 70 95 2-6 262 Academy St. and Bel Air Ave. 10 17 20 25 2-6 264 Bel Air and Orange Ave. 64 85 105 140 2-6 266 Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard 90 100 125 165 2-6 267 Beach Boulevard at Carbon Creek 98 105 130 175 2-7 272 Laxore and Skywood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·VUHTXLUHPHQWRIFRQYH\LQJWKH\HDUVWRUPHYHQWLQWKHVWRUP GUDLQVDQGDOVRWRVDWLVI\WKHIORRGHGZLGWKFULWHULDWKHIROORZLQJLPSURYHPHQWVDUH UHFRPPHQGHGIRU$UHDVDQG$UHD,QRUGHUWRVDWLVI\WKH&LW\·VIORRGHGZLGWK FULWHULDLQ$UHDIHHWRILQFK5&3LVUHFRPPHQGHGLQ/LQFROQ$YHQXH 7RVDWLVI\WKH&LW\·VIORRGHGZLGWKFULWHULDLQ$UHDIHHWRILQFK5&3LVSURSRVHG LQ2UDQJH$YHQXH7RVDWLVI\WKH&LW\·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·V WRWDOFRVWRYHUWKHWRWDOFRVWV6XPPDUL]HGLQ7DEOHDUHWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQFRVW HVWLPDWHVE\SURMHFWORFDWLRQIRU$UHDVDQGLQ%DVLQ Table 4 – Basin 2 Cost Estimate Area Storm Drain ID Street Type of Facility Length (feet) Estimated Cost (2010 Dollars) Area Total 2-1 SD 2-1_01 (P) Lincoln Avenue New 36-inch RCP 420 $ 427,000 $ 427,000 2-4 SD 2-4_01 (P) Orange Avenue New 30-inch RCP 1,090 $1,013,000 $1,013,000 2-6 SD 2-6_01 (P) Bel Air Street New 30-inch/42- inch RCP 1,325 $1,316,000 $4,482,000 2-6 SD 2-6_02 (P) Orange Avenue New 54-inch RCP 1,325 $2,168,000 2-6 SD 2-6_03 (P) Beach Boulevard Parallel 30-inch RCP 1,070 $ 998,000 TOTAL FOR BASIN 2 $5,922,000 $5,922,000 ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ))) ) ) ) ) ) )) )) ) ))) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) )))) ) ) ) ) )) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( LA X O R E S T WESTHAVEN ST EMBASSY ST RI D G E W A Y S T BROADWAY 36" 3 0 " 30" 30 " 4 2 " 54"SD_2-6_02 (P) SD_2-4_01 (P) S D _2 - 6_ 0 3 ( P ) S D_ 2 -6 _0 1 (P ) SD_2-1_01 (P) 2-6 2-4 2-7 2-1 2-2 2-13 2-9 2-3 2-11 2-8 2-12 2-102-5 B E L A I R S T ROME AVE L A R E I N A S T ACADEMY AVE K E N D O R D R YALE AVE S T A N T O N A V E POLK AVE V I C K I L N TYLER AVE DEL MONTE DR H A L L I D A Y S T L O C U S TD R C E D A R D R DEVOY DR D E L A N O S T DRACAENA DR S H I E L D S D R GLEN HOLLY DR C O L O R A D O S T L A S S E N C T C O L G A T E S T D O Y L E D R KEYS LN H A Y W A R D S T ELMLAWN DR MONROE AVE FILLMORE DR S H E R R I L L S T L O M A L I N D A D R JACKSON WAY VALLEJO DR M A R L O W E S T B A K E R D R COOLIDGE AVE LINDACITA LN B R O N W Y N D R OLINDA LN BAYLOR AVE LYNROSE DR S Y R A C U S E S T P I N Y O N S T B I R C H L E A F D R L A X O R E S T G R A N D A V E ADAMS WAY M A C D U F F S T GRACIOSA LN HALDORPL T O P A N G A D R B E N W O O D D R H A R D I N G A V E TOLA AVE CABOT DR LUCY DR P A R K V I E W S T BRISTOL DR W E S T H A V E N D R PASO ROBLES DR BRIDGEPORT AVE TERANIMAR DR Y A N A D R T R O J A N S T TAMARA DR ROWLAND CIR SKYWOOD CIR FAIRCREST DR JOSHUA CIR PEPPER CIR OLIVER DR M A D I S O N A V E W A S C O R D S C O T T L N ROBERT DR STONYBROOK DR STOCKTON AVEMAHOGANYCIR G A R F I E L D C I R N E W C A S T L E D R L A B E L L E F O N T A N E E S T A T E S B U C H A N A N C I R R A M B L E WO O D D R SAVOY PL MONROE PL CORNELL PL MONROE AVE ROME AVE MONROE AVE L A X O R E S T STONYBROOK DR JACKSON WAY H A L L I D A Y S T TYLER AVE COOLIDGE AVE LYNROSE DR DEVOY DR S H I E LD S D R COOLIDGE AVE V I C K I L N TYLER AVE G R A N D A V E SKYWOOD CIR FILLMORE DR S H E R R I L L S T H A R D I N G A V ETERANIMARDR D A L E A V E B E A C H B L V D ORANGE AVE LINCOLN AVE W E S T E R N A V E CRESCENT AVE G R A N D A V E G R A N D A V E Carbon Creek (B01) Crescent Avenue Storm Drain (B02P03) 96 36 39 48 60 42 3 0 5 4 24 4 5 5 1 1 8 27"X 42"ELLIP 2 'X 6 ' 24 2 4 42 2 4 4 5 3 9 39 48 3 0 30 3 0 4 8 2 4 36 2 4 4 8 4 2 Figure 5 Drainage Basin 2 Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Creek Channel Tributary Area± 1 inch equals 1,000 feet \\CHERON\Projects\AnaheimCaCityOf\381357\GIS\Maps January 22, 2010 SD 1-1_01 (P) Proposed Pipeline ID Drainage Area_Line No. (Proposed) Note: Priority 2 proposed improvements will parallel existing storm drains unless otherwise noted Legend Anaheim City Limits Street Right of Way Drainage Area Proposed Storm Drains Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Existing Storm Drains Anaheim (Pipe size in inches) County Caltrans Private Lateral 30 0 1,000500 Feet B E L A I R S T 5-1 Project Site $33(1',;( +\GUDXOLF&DOFXODWLRQV &DWFK%DVLQ6L]LQJ ,QOHW5HSRUW +\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\0D\ &%6L]LQJ4 &XUE,QOHW /RFDWLRQ 2QJUDGH &XUE/HQJWK IW 7KURDW+HLJKW LQ *UDWH$UHD VTIW *UDWH:LGWK IW *UDWH/HQJWK IW *XWWHU 6ORSH6Z IWIW 6ORSH6[ IWIW /RFDO'HSU LQ *XWWHU:LGWK IW *XWWHU6ORSH *XWWHUQYDOXH &DOFXODWLRQV &RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4 4 FIV +LJKOLJKWHG 47RWDO FIV 4&DSW FIV 4%\SDVV FIV 'HSWKDW,QOHW LQ (IILFLHQF\ *XWWHU6SUHDG IW *XWWHU9HO IWV %\SDVV6SUHDG IW %\SDVV'HSWK LQ ,QOHW5HSRUW +\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\0D\ &%6L]LQJ4 &XUE,QOHW /RFDWLRQ 6DJ &XUE/HQJWK IW 7KURDW+HLJKW LQ *UDWH$UHD VTIW *UDWH:LGWK IW *UDWH/HQJWK IW *XWWHU 6ORSH6Z IWIW 6ORSH6[ IWIW /RFDO'HSU LQ *XWWHU:LGWK IW *XWWHU6ORSH *XWWHUQYDOXH &DOFXODWLRQV &RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4 4 FIV +LJKOLJKWHG 47RWDO FIV 4&DSW FIV 4%\SDVV FIV 'HSWKDW,QOHW LQ (IILFLHQF\ *XWWHU6SUHDG IW *XWWHU9HO IWV %\SDVV6SUHDG IW %\SDVV'HSWK LQ *Flowrate not captured by CB#1 = (1-0.61)(3.53 cfs) = 1.38 cfs Pro-rated A3 runoff tributary to CB#2 = 5.26 cfs Total Known Q for CB#2 = 1.38 cfs + 5.26 cfs = 6.64 cfs * ,QOHW5HSRUW +\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\0D\ &%6L]LQJ4 &XUE,QOHW /RFDWLRQ 6DJ &XUE/HQJWK IW 7KURDW+HLJKW LQ *UDWH$UHD VTIW *UDWH:LGWK IW *UDWH/HQJWK IW *XWWHU 6ORSH6Z IWIW 6ORSH6[ IWIW /RFDO'HSU LQ *XWWHU:LGWK IW *XWWHU6ORSH *XWWHUQYDOXH &DOFXODWLRQV &RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4 4 FIV +LJKOLJKWHG 47RWDO FIV 4&DSW FIV 4%\SDVV FIV 'HSWKDW,QOHW LQ (IILFLHQF\ *XWWHU6SUHDG IW *XWWHU9HO IWV %\SDVV6SUHDG IW %\SDVV'HSWK LQ *Pro-rated A3 runoff tributary to CB#3 = 1.68 cfs * <HDU:DWHU6XUIDFH(OHYDWLRQ$QDO\VLV &KDQQHO5HSRUW +\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\0D\ &%3RQGLQJ$QDO\VLV4 *XWWHU &URVV6O6[ IWIW &URVV6O6Z IWIW *XWWHU:LGWK IW ,QYHUW(OHY IW 6ORSH 19DOXH &DOFXODWLRQV &RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4 .QRZQ4 FIV +LJKOLJKWHG 'HSWK IW 4 FIV $UHD VTIW 9HORFLW\ IWV :HWWHG3HULP IW &ULW'HSWK<F IW 6SUHDG:LGWK IW (*/ IW (OHY IW 'HSWK IW 6HFWLRQ 5HDFK IW 100-Year Water Surface Elevation = 82.75'+0.49 = 83.24' Lowest Finished Floor = 85.27' 85.27'-83.24' = 2.03' > 1.00' OK &KDQQHO5HSRUW +\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\0D\ &%3RQGLQJ$QDO\VLV4 *XWWHU &URVV6O6[ IWIW &URVV6O6Z IWIW *XWWHU:LGWK IW ,QYHUW(OHY IW 6ORSH 19DOXH &DOFXODWLRQV &RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4 .QRZQ4 FIV +LJKOLJKWHG 'HSWK IW 4 FIV $UHD VTIW 9HORFLW\ IWV :HWWHG3HULP IW &ULW'HSWK<F IW 6SUHDG:LGWK IW (*/ IW (OHY IW 'HSWK IW 6HFWLRQ 5HDFK IW 100-Year Water Surface Elevation = 82.45'+0.26 = 82.71' Lowest Finished Floor = 84.84' 84.84'-82.71' = 2.13' > 1.00' OK 0SCALE: 1" = 30'15 3 0 6 0 :63* To be provided during final engineering. $33(1',;) 6PDOO$UHD5XQRII+\GURJUDSKV $33(1',;* '5&(QJLQHHULQJ,QF±5HWDLO &RPPHUFLDO6WRUP 'UDLQ/HWWHU DRC JN 19-020 June 10, 2020 Cesar Morales Associate Engineer City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, CA. 92805 SUBJECT: DEV2019-00120, 39 Commons Residential Site Tentative Tract Map No. 19021 Dear Mr. Morales: This correspondence is in response to review comment #8 of Development Service/Public Works’ 3rd submittal review comments letter dated 3/31/2020. “This submittal shows the ultimate storm drain line serving areas west of this project. Please coordinate with the engineer of the adjacent property and provide a letter from the engineer of the commercial component verifying the proposed size and location will work for them. “ I am the engineer of record for the retail and commercial site (approximately 27 acres) and I have analyzed the hydraulic capacity of the proposed storm drain system that will service both sites. A proposed RCP storm drain pipe size of 54-inches at the proposed point of connection with the retail site will adequately convey post-development storm water runoff from the retail and commercial sites and limited to the pre-development storm event flows. The location of the storm drain pipe, as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 19021, preliminary utility plan dated 4/14/2020 is in conformance with the agreed upon location. The storm drain easement width of 15-feet is adequate for maintenance purposes. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (714) 685-6860. Ext. 331 Sincerely, Gregory R. Cooke PE, PLS, QSD - 45- Appendix D – Trip Generation Memo 101 Pacifica | Suite 300 | Irvine, CA 92618 | (949) 308-6300 | Fax (949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 2020 To: Rob Mitchell Greenlaw Partners 18301 Von Karmen Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92612 From: Paul Herrmann, P.E. Jessica Johnson Subject: 39 Commons Phase One Trip Generation Assessment OC19-0700 This memorandum documents a trip generation assessment conducted by Fehr & Peers in support of the resident only portion (Phase One) of the proposed 39 Commons mixed-use development project (Project) located in Anaheim, California. The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if Phase One of the Project will generate enough project trips to warrant a traffic study per the requirements set forth in the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan and Anaheim Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The assessment concludes that trips generated by Phase One of the Project would add less than 100 peak hour trips and will not require level of service (LOS) analysis. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is located on a mostly vacant lot on the northeast corner of West Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Phase One of the Project proposes the development of a 65-unit multi-family housing facility. The project can be accessed directly through a proposed right-in/right-out driveway on Lincoln Avenue. The project opening year is proposed to be 2022. The remainder of the 39 Commons phases are proposed to be completed at later dates. Subsequent trip generation assessments should analyze the entirety of the Project including Phase One when determining if further traffic analysis is warranted. Rob Mitchell February 26, 2020 Page 2 of 2 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 10th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2017) were used to estimate the number of trips associated with the Project. ITE trip generation rates for Multi-Family Residential (ITE Code 221) were used and are presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 - 39 Commons Phase One Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Units ITE Code Quantity Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Multi-Family DUs 221 65 354 6 17 23 18 11 29 Net New Trips 354 6 17 23 18 11 29 Notes: 1. KSF = 1,000 square feet, DUs = Dwelling Units Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 As presented in Table 1, the Phase One of the Project is expected to generate approximately 354 daily trips, including approximately 23 trips (6 inbound/17 outbound) during the AM peak hour, and approximately 29 trips (18 inbound/11 outbound) during the PM peak hour. CONCLUSION Per requirements set forth in the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan and Anaheim’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, projects generating fewer than 100 trips do not warrant a LOS assessment. The development of Phase One of the Project would not require further analysis related to the capacity of nearby intersections, as it will not generate 100 or more trips. - 46- Appendix D.2 – VMT Assessment Memo 101 Pacifica | Suite 300 | Irvine, CA 92618 | (949) 308-6300 | Fax (949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com FINAL MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2020 To: Rob Mitchell, Greenlaw Partners From: Paul Herrmann, P.E. Jessica Johnson Subject: 39 Commons Phase One VMT Screening Assessment OC19-0700 This memorandum documents a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening assessment conducted by Fehr & Peers in support of the resident only portion (Phase One) of the proposed 39 Commons mixed-use development project (Project) in Anaheim, California. The purpose of this memorandum is to document how the Project is presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact related to VMT and is not subject to a full VMT assessment. This memorandum utilizes screening criteria from the City of Anaheim’s recently adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis, April 2020. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is located on a mostly vacant lot on the northeast corner of West Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Phase One of the Project proposes the development of a 65-unit multi-family housing facility. The project can be accessed directly through a proposed driveway on Lincoln Avenue. The project opening year is proposed to be 2022. The remainder of the 39 Commons phases are proposed to be completed at later dates. Subsequent VMT assessments should analyze the entirety of the Project, including Phase One, when determining if further traffic analysis is warranted. VMT SCREENING The City’s traffic impact analysis guidelines provide a process for projects to be screened from full VMT assessment under the assumption that the Project will result in a less-than-significant transportation impact related to VMT. There are three types of screening criteria included in the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The Project qualifies for Type 1 and Type 2 Screening. Type Rob Mitchell July 23, 2020 Page 2 of 4 1 Screening is known as Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening and Type 2 Screening is Low VMT Area Screening. Both criteria are described in detail below. TYPE 1 TPA SCREENING A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. per the definitions below. A Major transit stop is a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. A high-quality transit corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A map of TPAs in Anaheim is provided as Attachment A Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Anaheim and shows that the Project is within the TPA area. This type of screening also has additional criteria in order for the Project to qualify: 1. Must have total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than 0.75; the Project has a FAR of 0.85. 2. Cannot include more parking for use by residents than the City municipal code requires; the Project is providing the minimum number of spaces as required by the Municipal Code. 3. Cannot be inconsistent with the Southern California Regional Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); According to the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) that the Project is located in assumes growth from the 2016 base year to the 2045 future year of 151 households. The 65-unit Project is smaller than the assumed growth in the RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent. Socioeconomic input assumptions for the TAZ of the Project is included as Attachment C OCTAM Socioeconomic Data. 4. Cannot replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high- income residential units; the Project is not replacing any units. Because the Project is within a TPA and meets the additional criteria for TPA screening, the Project is presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. TYPE 2 LOW VMT AREA SCREENING Low VMT areas are defined as Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) which produce a VMT per service population which is more than 15% below the County of Orange average VMT per service population. Rob Mitchell July 23, 2020 Page 3 of 4 The Project is located in a Low VMT Area, as identified in Attachment B Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2012). The Project is located in TAZ 248 which is bound by Beach Boulevard, Lincoln Avenue, Dale Avenue and Crescent Avenue, as shown in Attachment D Eastern Anaheim OCTAM TAZs. Attachment C OCTAM Socioeconomic Data shows that the baseline assumptions for TAZ 248 include 777 households. The households within the TAZ 248 boundary include market rate apartments, senior living apartments and single-family homes. The Project, which proposes to build more apartments, are similar to the existing TAZ land use. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Project would result in a similar VMT per resident which is more than 15% below the County of Orange average VMT per service population and would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. CONCLUSION The Project can be screened from full VMT assessment under the presumption that it will result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT based on Type 1 TPA Screening and Type 2 Low VMT Area Screening. We hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Herrmann (p.herrmann@fehrandpeers.com or 949-308-6318) with questions or comments Rob Mitchell July 23, 2020 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS A. Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Anaheim B. Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2012) C. OCTAM Socioeconomic Data D. Eastern Anaheim OCTAM TAZs IrvineRanch OS ChinoHills SP Ro s e D r B e a c h B l Garden Grove Bl Cent u r y B l S t a t e C o ll e g e B l Yorba Linda Bl T u s t i n A v Va l l e y V i e w S t Th e C i t y D r i v e S o u t h B e a c h B l 17 th S t W Orangethorpe Av E u c l i d S t Villa P a r k R d S a n t a A n a C a n y o n R d Ea s t I m p er i a l Hw N o r t h H a r b o r B l Westminster Bl Newp o r t A v Trask Av Chapman Av Ha r b o r B l La Palm a A v Ka t e l la A v OrangethorpeAv No r t h M a i n S t So u t h B r o o k h u r s t S t So E s p e r a n z a R d No r t h C a n n o n S t L a M i r a d a B l So u t h N e w p o r t B l ImperialHw K n o t t S t Ja m b o r e e R d South W eirC a n y o n R d East Chapman Av ·142 ·261 ·241 ∙91 ∙55 ∙57 ∙22 ∙90 ∙39 %&405 !"5 Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Anaheim Attachment A Anaheim Metrolink Stations HQT Bus Stops Buffer(0.5 mile) An a h e i m B l Source: OCTA, March, 2020, http://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes-and-Schedules/Overview/ ·142 ·261 ·241 ∙91 ∙55 ∙57 ∙22 ∙90 ∙39 %&405 !"5 Source: OCTAM Version 5, Base Year (2016), March, 2020 Attachment B Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2016) Anaheim City No Service Population < -15% below the Orange County Average 0 to -15 % below the Orange County Average Higher than the Orange County Average SC E N A R I O Z O N E T O T _ P O P H H _ P O P E M P _ P O P T O T _ H H M D N _ I N C R E T _ E M P S V C _ E M P B A S _ E M P S C H _ E N R U N I V _ E N R P O P D E N Ba s e Ye a r 20 1 6 2 4 8 2, 4 1 1 23 8 9 1 0 0 6 7 7 7 5 3 6 1 8 . 4 3 0 17 8 4 3 0 0 14.75 Fu t u r e Ye a r 20 4 5 2 4 8 28 9 5 28 7 3 1 2 2 0 9 2 8 5 3 1 9 4 . 1 1 6 18 7 4 7 0 0 17.73 At t a c h m e n t C: OC T A M So c i o e c o n o m i c Da t a 6 9 9 310 284283 3 6 9 3 2 8 1 1 9 3 0 7 4 7 3 1 1 3 302 2 1 5 111 3 1 3 317 3 5 2 123 109 2 2 9 5 7 2 4 0 6 3 2 6 474 575 220 563 559 1 1 4 2 3 3 121 3 8 1 6 0 2 2 3 1 2 1 6 6 0 9 2772 3 2 1 2 0 112 588 4 8 4 5 3 4 565 3 3 0 305 138 485 604 3 5 0 591 1 6 4 122127 1 1 8 5 9 7 3 0 3 6 0 7 408 309 380 3 1 6 587 59 8 347 360 2 4 9 117 554 407 240 246 116 23 9 354 355 320247 37 5 248 131 574 129 3 7 4 550 548 5 8 3 3 5 8 557 3 7 3 242 566 336 3 1 9 579 2 1 9 53 5 589 362359 578 5 3 6 569 339 3 5 7 580 245 403 576 3 7 2 533 402 582 593 568 410 581 567 5 9 5 405 5 9 4 3 4 9 3 6 7 584 3 8 3 652 285 606 301 370 3 2 1 218 605 213 2 3 8 3 5 6 3 7 1 128 3 0 0 115 2 8 9 590 577 288280 1 6 0 3 2 2 365 323 5 5 2 329 653 291 5 9 6 3 3 1 592 3 4 4 1 3 0 5 6 4 110 2 9 4 6 0 8 290 3 3 7 5 5 1 96 3 6 1 99 537 1 3 9273 345 4 5 0 5 6 0 5 5 6 98 364 133 600 4 7 5 555 306 5 4 9 5 5 3 655 136 3 3 8 5 4 7 6 0 3 5 6 1 1 3 5132 221 382 108 304 214 1 34 3 4 3 399 5 4 6 5 7 0 394 4 0 4 5 5 8 6 0 1 3 8 8 1 5 7 102 562 1 2 5 379 599 210 222 1 2 4 1 2 6 610 2454 3 4 6 6 5 4 571 4 1 1 2 9 8 530 385 36 6 3 7 6 398397 3 7 8 522 243 396 4 9 9 538 386 54 4 2 5 1 3 9 0 3 3 3 105 38 4540 3 6 3250 3 8 9 5 4 2 3 4 0 528 5 39 2 2 8 543 34 8 2 7 5 3 3 4 241 5 4 1 3 7 7 4 6 1 5 2 5 545 3 5 1 368 3 8 7 2 3 6 1 03 3 9 1 4 0 9 223 708 3 3 2 395 225 226 227 152 3 2 5 1 6 3 4 3 9 1 3 7 3 5 3 1 0 7 3 4 2 3 4 1 217 106 3 2 7 234 235 100 707 392 230 456 104 97 401 271 335 237 252 514 393 509 706 95212 244 532 573 611 586 400 521 524 529 527 224 700 441 656 650 GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD CHAPMAN AVENUE E U C L I D S T R E E T EAST LA PALMA AVENUEW LA PALMA AVENUE S E U C L I D S T R E E T KATELLA AVENUE B R O O K H U R S T S T R E E T B E A C H B O U L E V A R D LA PALMA AVENUE WEST KATELLA AVENUE ORANGETHORPE AVENUE H A R B O R B O U L E V A R D S O U T H S T A T E C O L L E G E B O U L E V A R D W ORANGETHORPE AVENUE S O U T H B R O O K H U R S T S T R E E T B R O O K H U R S T R O A D B R I S T O L S T R E E T EAST KATELLA AVENUE EAST ORANGETHORPE AVENUE W E S T O R A N G E T H O R P E A V E N U E N B R O O K H U R S T S T R E E T WEST LA PALMA AVENUE N E U C L I D S T R E E T E U C L I D S T R E E T H A R B O R B O U L E V A R D CHAPMAN AVENUE CHAPMAN AVENUE CHAPMAN AVENUE B E A C H B O U L E V A R D EAST ORANGETHORPE AVENUE S O U T H S T A T E C O L L E G E B O U L E V A R D WEST KATELLA AVENUE LA PALMA AVENUE GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARDGARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD WEST KATELLA AVENUEWEST KATELLA AVENUE B E A C H B O U L E V A R D B R O O K H U R S T S T R E E T CHAPMAN AVENUE EAST KATELLA AVENUE LA PALMA AVENUE GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD H A R B O R B O U L E V A R D LA PALMA AVENUE B E A C H B O U L E V A R D H A R B O R B O U L E V A R D S O U T H S T A T E C O L L E G E B O U L E V A R D W ORANGETHORPE AVENUE B R I S T O L S T R E E T B E A C H B O U L E V A R D B E A C H B O U L E V A R D CHAPMAN AVENUE B E A C H B O U L E V A R D CERRITOS AVENUE W BROADWAY WEST BALL ROAD W E S T S T R E E T W E S T E R N A V E N U E M A G N O L I A S T R E E T ORANGEWOOD AVENUE MALVERN AVENUE EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE EAST BALL ROAD N K N O T T A V E N U E LAMPSON AVENUE S M A G N O L I A A V E N U E G O L D E N W E S T S T R E E T N M A G N O L I A A V E N U E LIN C O L N AV E N U E BALL ROAD WEST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE N O R T H E A S T S T R E E T S O U T H P L A C E N T I A A V E N U E W LINCOLN AVENUE WEST COMMONWEALTH AVENUE K N O T T A V E N U E ANAHEIM W AY S O U T H L E W I S S T R E E T S O U T H R A Y M O N D A V E N U E M A G N O L I A A V E N U E ARTESIA BOULEVARD W E S T B R O A D W A Y WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE N E U C L I D S T R E E T DISNEY WAY A N A H E I M B O U L V A R D S O U T H E U C L I D S T R E E T LA VETA AVENUE E U C L I D S T R E E T WEST MEMORY LANE S E U C L I D S T R E E T NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD S K N O T T A V E N U E LINCOLN AVENUE WEST BALL ROAD ANAHEIM WAY LINCOLN AVENUE WEST BALL ROAD G O L D E N W E S T S T R E E T WEST BALL ROADWEST BALL ROAD L I N C O L N A V E N U E K N O T T A V E N U E W LINCOLN AVENUE L I N C O L N A V E N U E ORANGEWOOD AVENUE W LINCOLN AVENUE WEST BALL ROAD L I N C O L N A V E N U E DISNEY WAY W LINCOLN AVENUE K N O T T A V E N U E ORANGEWOOD AVENUE W LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE W LINCOLN AVENUE WEST ORANGEWOOD AVENUEMAGNOLIA S T R E E T W ES T B A L L RO AD CERRITOS AVENUE EAST BALL ROAD M ALV E R N AV E NU E WEST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE G O L D E N W E S T S T R E E T W LINCOLN AVENUE BALL ROAD W E S T E R N A V E N U E ARTESIA BOULEVARD EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE S G I L B E R T S T R E E T LAMPSON AVENUE WEST ORANGE AVENUE D A L E S T R E E T S O U T H 9 T H S T R E E T W ROMNEYA DR CRESCENT AVENUE E A S T B R O A D W A Y WEST VALENCIA DRIVE W E S T E R N A V E N U E S O U T H E A S T S T R E E T H A S T E R S T R E E T S O U T H S U N K I S T S T R E E T ARTESIA BOULEVARD ACACIA PARKWAY S T A N T O N A V E N U E WHITAKER STREET EAST SOUTH STREET S O U T H A C A C I A A V E N U EAUTO CENTER DRIVE S O U T H G I L B E R T S T R E E T N O R T H D A L E A V E N U E EAST WAGNER AVENUE N E W H O P E S T R E E T L E W I S S T R E E T W E S T S A N T A A N A S T R E E T S O U T H W E S T E R N A V E N U E N G I L B E R T S T R E E T N O R T H L E M O N S T R E E T N O R T H A C A C I A S T R E E T S U N K I S T S T R E E T W A L N U T S T R E E T SOUTH MANCHESTER AVENUE N O R T H S U N K I S T S T R E E T E D W A R D S S T R E E T DAWN WAY S T A N T O N A V E N U E L E W I S S T R E E T D A L E S T R E E T S T A N T O N A V E N U E WEST VALENCIA DRIVE H A S T E R S T R E E T CRESCENT AVENUE H A S T E R S T R E E T ARTESIA BOULEVARD N G I L B E R T S T R E E T AUTOCENTERDRIVE WEST VALENCIA DRIVE L E W I S S T R E E T W E S T E R N A V E N U E L E W I S S T R E E T LAMPSON AVENUELAMPSON AVENUE CRESCENT AVENUE WEST ORANGE AVENUE S O U T H W E S T E R N A V E N U E CRESCENT AVENUE OCTAM TAZs City of Anaheim - 47- Appendix E – Sewer Study GHD 320 Goddard Way Suite 200 Irvine California 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 W www.ghd.com April 18, 2020 To: Keith Linker, City of Anaheim Ref. No.: 11140066 TO7 From: Ulysses Fandino, GHD Tel: 949-585-5203 CC: Kyle Aube, City of Anaheim Subject: 39 Commons Development (OTH2020-01247) Sewer Analysis 1. Background The City of Anaheim (City) has retained GHD to perform a sewer analysis on the City’s sewer collection system to determine the effects of an approved mixed-use development, herein referred to as 39 Commons Development, located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard within the West Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewer (WAMPSS) study area. Furthermore, the City requested an additional scenario to be examined in which several parcels at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard are redeveloped into a medium density residential area in addition to the 39 Commons Development. A sewer hydraulic analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of these developments to the sanitary sewer system. 2. Methodology The sewer hydraulic analysis utilized the current iteration of the sewer hydraulic model prepared for the 2015 WAMPSS update. The WAMPSS sewer model includes all sewer improvements the City has constructed since the previous 2005 Combined West Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. Sewer loadings to the model have been calibrated to flow monitoring data to reflect the current sewer flow conditions. Sewer pipe alignments, elevations, connections, and manholes for the project area were verified during the WAMPSS update. Based on recent City data, the WAMPSS sewer model has been further refined from field verifications that were performed in the vicinity of the Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue intersection located upstream and east of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard intersection. This sewer analysis takes into account the revisions that have been made. The anticipated sewer generation changes are inputted into the hydraulic model for analysis. The following sections describe the study area for this sewer analysis, the proposed land use changes, the methodology for preparing the sewer hydraulic model, and the revised sewer loadings from the proposed developments. Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 2 2.1 Study Area The 39 Commons Development will be constructed at an approximately 30.1-acre vacant lot located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard (red outline in Figure 2.1). The development will consist of an 85-dwelling unit (DU) medium density residential area in the south, a 40,000 square feet (SF) retail area in the west, a 250-room hotel near the center, a 40,000 SF community center and a 35,000 barrel per year brewery in the northeast, and a 60,000 SF market retail area in the north. The medium density residential development located at the southeast corner of the Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, referred to as the South of Lincoln Development herein, consists of redeveloping four existing commercial parcels into 150 DUs (blue outline in Figure 2.1). The development will span an area of approximately 3.0 acres and replaces the existing structures in the following parcels: APN 12660222, APN 12660229, APN 12660235 and APN 12660233. The City’s existing sewer network in the vicinity of the developments consists of an 8-inch sewer main on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, an 8-inch sewer main on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a 15-inch sewer main near the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. The three parallel sewer mains flow westerly and converge at Manhole SW012307. The sewer main continues westerly as an 18-inch main after the confluence until reaching the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue. The proposed developments, referred to as the Study Area, and the nearby sewer network are presented in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 Study Area Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 3 2.2 Sewer Model Methodology The sewer hydraulic model prepared for the WAMPSS was used as a basis for this sewer study. The model was developed using the Innovyze H2OMAP Sewer hydraulic modeling software. Average sewage flows were calculated based on the land use and census data provided by the City, and unit flow factors were developed for the WAMPSS according to flow monitoring data and past sewer master plan studies. These flows were then allocated to the nearest manholes within the model. Peak flows were determined by applying diurnal curves according to land uses, as described in the next section. The ratio of flow depth to pipe diameter at the actual peak flow is designated d/D. This d/D was calculated by the modeling program and was used to identify pipes needing improvement. The City’s analysis criteria calls for a maximum allowable d/D = 0.67 for pipes with diameters less than 12 inches, and d/D = 0.75 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12 inches. Thus, pipes with d/D ratios equal to or greater than these values were identified as needing improvement. The City also has a separate criterion for new sewer design. This is more stringent than the analysis criteria specified above. This criteria calls for a maximum allowable d/D = 0.50 for pipes with diameters less than 12 inches, and a d/D = 0.60 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12 inches. 2.3 Peak Flow Methodology The methodology for peak sewer flow modeling within the Study Area is based on diurnal curves, which uses a 24-hour flow generation curve to represent the pattern of sewage flows generated by type of land use. The residential and non-residential diurnal curves from the WAMPSS update were applied to the model. The diurnal curves are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3. The x-axis represents a 24-hour period starting and ending at midnight, while the y-axis represents the peaking factor applied to the normal flow factor at each hour of the day. Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 4 Figure 2.2 Residential Diurnal Curve Figure 2.3 Non-Residential Diurnal Curve Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 5 2.4 Sewer Loadings for Study Area The proposed land uses and the associated sewage generation factor, along with the quantity of each land use in terms of area or units, determined the sewage flows generated within the Study Area. 2.4.1 Sewer Loadings for 39 Commons Development Building areas were provided for the retail area, market and community center of the 39 Commons Development. Sewage flow projection generated using building areas are typically more representative of the actual flow condition compared to projections made using the overall site area since the building area has a direct correlation to its occupancy capacity and the amount of sanitary features that contributes to the sewer system. Sewage generation factors based on building area were adopted from the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual. An excerpt from the manual containing the sewage flow projections are included with this memorandum as Attachment A. Sewer loadings for the remaining land uses were quantified using the calibrated and adjusted generation factors from the WAMPSS update. The 39 Commons Development is planned to connect to the City sewer system at two existing manholes along the northern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue: Manhole SW012304 for the residential portion of the development and Manhole SW012303 for the rest of the development. The estimated sewer loading contribution is presented in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 below. Table 2.1 Estimated Sewer Loading Contribution – 39 Commons Development Proposed Land Use Loading Manhole Building Area or Dwelling Units Generation Factor Sewer Loading Commercial - Retail SW012303 40,000 sf 100 gpd/1,000 sf 4,000 gpd Hotel SW012303 250 rooms 150 gpd/room 37,500 gpd Commercial - Market SW012303 60,000 sf 100 gpd/1,000 sf 6,000 gpd Community Center SW012303 40,000 sf 300 gpd/1,000 sf 12,000 gpd Brewery SW012303 See Table 2.2 below 49,000 gpd Residential SW012304 85 du 215 gpd/du 18,275 gpd gpd = gallons per day du = dwelling unit sf = square foot Table 2.2 Estimated Sewer Loading Contribution for Proposed Brewery at 39 Commons Quantity Annual Beer Production 1,225,000 gallons (= 35,000 barrels) Sewage Generation Factor 10 gallons sewage/gallon beer Annual Sewage Production 12,250,000 gallons/year Daily Sewage Generation (at 250 working days per year)* 49,000 gallons/day *Common practice: Accounts for typical work week Monday through Friday and ten Federal Holidays per year. Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 6 2.4.2 Sewer Loadings for South of Lincoln Development For the South of Lincoln Development, three of the four existing commercial parcels contribute to the southerly 8-inch sewer at Manholes SW013103, SW013102 and SW013101, which flows along Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue and Lindacita Lane as a 8-inch to 12-inch main before reaching the OCSD trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lindacita Lane and Western Avenue. The remaining parcel to be redeveloped is currently draining into the southern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue at Manhole SW013122. The estimated sewer loadings from the four parcels to be removed from the system is presented in Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 below. Table 2.3 Existing Condition Sewer Loading Reduction – South of Lincoln Development APN Existing Land Use Loading Manhole Sewer Loading Removed 12660222 Commercial Auto SW013103 4,136 gpd* 12660229 Commercial Retail SW013102 2,122 gpd* 12660235 Commercial Retail SW013101 4,147 gpd* 12660233 Commercial Retail SW013122 837 gpd * Loadings for these parcels were elevated in the WAMPSS hydraulic model to match downstream flow monitoring results gpd = gallons per day Table 2.4 Build-Out Condition Sewer Loading Reduction – South of Lincoln Development APN Build-Out Land Use Loading Manhole Sewer Loading Removed 12660222 Residential Low-Mid SW013103 3,900 gpd 12660229 Residential Low-Mid SW013102 2,860 gpd 12660235 Commercial General SW013101 2,073 gpd 12660233 Commercial General SW013122 837 gpd gpd = gallons per day The South of Lincoln Development is planned to connect solely to Manhole SW013123 along the southern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue. The estimated sewer loading contribution to the City sewer system is presented in Table 2.5 below. Table 2.5 Estimated Sewer Loading Contribution – South of Lincoln Development Build-Out Land Use Loading Manhole Area or Dwelling Units WAMPSS Generation Factor Sewer Loading to be Diverted Residential (Medium Density) SW013123 150 du 215 gpd/du 32,250 gpd gpd = gallons per day du = dwelling unit Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 7 3. Hydraulic Model Analysis To determine the effects of the proposed developments to the existing City sewer system, two (2) model scenarios were analyzed: WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons Development WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons and South of Lincoln Developments For simplicity, the model results focus on the pipe segments downstream of the Study Area only. The model results are reported by Pipe ID, which is comprised of each pipe’s upstream and downstream manhole identification number. 3.1 Scenario 1 – WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons Development The first scenario builds on the WAMPSS model, with the addition of sewage flows from the 39 Commons Development to the northern 8-inch sewer main on Lincoln Avenue. The 39 Commons Development introduces an additional steady state loading of 126,775 gallons per day (gpd) to the sewer system, 86% of which are from non-residential sources and the remaining 14% are from residential users. Two sub-scenarios based on the WAMPSS Existing Condition and WAMPSS Build-Out Condition were conducted to analyze the effects of the additional sewer loadings under existing flow conditions and build-out flow conditions. The analysis revealed that the additional sewer loadings from the 39 Commons Development will not create any hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Study Area. The peak flows in these pipelines were within the allowable d/D ratios, with a maximum d/D ratio of 0.30 under Existing Condition and 0.35 under Build-Out Condition. The hydraulic model results are presented in Table 3.1 from upstream to downstream. The Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition model results are also depicted in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2, respectively. Table 3.1 - Scenario 1 Model Results Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D 8-inch to 15-inch Main (North Side of Lincoln Avenue) SW012305-SW012304 8 320 0.0030 0.044 1.3 0.21 0.065 1.4 0.26 SW012304-SW012303 8 334 0.0030 0.077 1.4 0.29 0.097 1.5 0.32 SW012303-SW012307 15 43 0.0730 0.234 5.7 0.10 0.254 5.8 0.10 18-inch Main (Center of Lincoln Avenue) SW012307-SW012306 18 207 0.0040 0.649 2.8 0.26 0.825 3.0 0.29 SW012306-SW008415 18 226 0.0040 0.653 2.8 0.26 0.828 3.0 0.29 SW008415-SW008414 18 256 0.0040 0.653 2.8 0.26 0.828 3.0 0.29 SW008414-SW008413 18 24 0.0040 0.656 2.8 0.26 0.831 2.9 0.30 SW008413-SW008412 18 261 0.0040 0.656 2.7 0.26 0.831 2.9 0.30 SW008412-SW008411 18 198 0.0040 0.696 2.8 0.27 0.903 3.0 0.31 SW008411-SW008410 18 206 0.0040 0.704 2.8 0.27 0.913 3.0 0.31 SW008410-SW008409 18 206 0.0130 0.706 4.2 0.21 0.920 4.5 0.23 SW008409-SW009129 18 98 0.0040 0.724 2.8 0.28 0.983 3.1 0.33 SW009129-SW009128 18 227 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009128-SW009127 18 289 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009127-SW009126 18 233 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009126-SW009125 18 294 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009125-SW009124 18 222 0.0090 0.745 3.7 0.23 1.037 4.1 0.27 SW009124-OT005205 18 20 0.0170 0.746 4.8 0.20 1.041 5.3 0.23 Pipe ID Existing ConditionPipe SlopePipe Length (feet) Pipe Diameter (inch) Build-Out Condition 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") ") ") ") SW008412SW009124SW009125SW009126SW009127SW009128SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303 SW008411 SW012307 SW012305SW012304 OT005205 0.29 0.21 0.30 0.26 0 .2 8 0 .2 0.26 0.30 0.26 0.300.23 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.21 0.260.30 0.26 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 1 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.1 - Model Results-EX_Scene1.mxd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.1 Job Number 11140066 20 Apr 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public Works Lincoln at Beach (39 C om mons) Sew er Analysis Scenario 1 Existing ConditionPlus 39 Commons Development 39 Commo ns Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Model Results 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") ") ") ") SW008412SW009124SW009125SW009126SW009127SW009128SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303 SW008411 SW012307 SW012305SW012304 OT005205 0.30 0.32 0.260.29 0.35 0 .3 3 0.10 0.29 0.290.300.35 0.350.27 0.31 0.31 0 .2 3 0.23 0.35 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 1 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.2 - Model Results-BO_Scene1.m xd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.2 Job Number 11140066 20 Apr 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public Works Lincoln at Beach (39 C om mons) Sew er Analysis 39 Commo ns Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Scenario 1 Build-out ConditionPlus 39 Commons DevelopmentModel Results Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 11 3.2 Scenario 2 – WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons and South of Lincoln Developments Scenario 2 expands on the first scenario with the addition of the South of Lincoln Development. Sewer loadings from the 39 Commons Development remain the same as Scenario 1. Since the South of Lincoln Development consists of redeveloping four commercial parcels, existing loadings from these parcels were removed from the model and replaced with the projected flows from the development per the methodology outlined in Section 2.4.2. Similar to Scenario 1, two sub-scenarios based on the WAMPSS Existing Condition and WAMPSS Build-Out Condition were performed to analyze the effects of additional sewer loadings under existing flow conditions and build-out flow conditions. In summary, an additional 159,025 gpd is loaded to Lincoln Avenue sewer mains in Scenario 2 from these developments. The analysis revealed the additional sewer loadings from both developments will not cause any hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Study Area. The peak flows in the downstream Lincoln Avenue sewer mains were within the allowable d/D ratios, with a maximum d/D ratio of 0.31 under Existing Condition and 0.36 under Build-Out Condition. The southerly 8-inch sewer main on Beach Boulevard downstream of the four existing commercial parcels for the South of Lincoln Development observed a steady state flow decrease of 11,242 gpd under Existing Condition and 9,670 gpd under Build-Out Condition due to the redirection of sewer flows proposed for the South of Lincoln Development. As mentioned in Section 2.4.2, this main continues along Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue and Lindacita Lane as an 8-inch to 12-inch main before reaching the OCSD trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lindacita Lane and Western Avenue. After the development, these pipe segments are expected to have maximum d/D ratios of 0.27 under Existing and Build-Out Conditions. Three segments of the southern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue upstream of the South of Lincoln Development tie-in point were identified as deficient under the Build-Out Condition in the WAMPSS model (Basin Area BO-6). The redistribution of sewer loadings from the South of Lincoln Development removed the sewer loadings from APN 12660233 to the deficient segment (Pipe SW013122-SW013123). However, the decrease in flow is insignificant and the segment remains deficient under the Build-Out Condition with a maximum d/D ratio of 0.68. The hydraulic model results are presented in Table 3.2 from upstream to downstream, The Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition model results are also depicted in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4, respectively. Table 3.2 - Scenario 2 Model Results Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D 8-inch to 15-inch Main (North Side of Lincoln Avenue) SW012305-SW012304 8 320 0.0030 0.044 1.3 0.21 0.065 1.4 0.26 SW012304-SW012303 8 334 0.0030 0.077 1.4 0.29 0.097 1.5 0.32 SW012303-SW012307 15 43 0.0730 0.234 5.7 0.10 0.254 5.8 0.10 8" Main (South Side of Lincoln Avenue) SW013122-SW013123 8 308 0.0020 0.202 1.6 0.54 0.283 1.7 0.68 SW013123-SW012307 15 66 0.0285 0.257 4.2 0.13 0.339 4.6 0.15 18-inch Main (Center of Lincoln Avenue) SW012307-SW012306 18 207 0.0040 0.703 2.9 0.27 0.878 3.0 0.30 SW012306-SW008415 18 226 0.0040 0.706 2.9 0.27 0.881 3.0 0.30 SW008415-SW008414 18 256 0.0040 0.706 2.9 0.27 0.881 3.0 0.30 SW008414-SW008413 18 24 0.0040 0.710 2.8 0.27 0.884 3.0 0.31 SW008413-SW008412 18 261 0.0040 0.710 2.8 0.28 0.884 3.0 0.31 SW008412-SW008411 18 198 0.0040 0.750 2.8 0.28 0.957 3.0 0.32 SW008411-SW008410 18 206 0.0040 0.757 2.8 0.28 0.967 3.0 0.32 SW008410-SW008409 18 206 0.0130 0.760 4.3 0.21 0.974 4.6 0.24 SW008409-SW009129 18 98 0.0040 0.778 2.9 0.29 1.037 3.1 0.33 SW009129-SW009128 18 227 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009128-SW009127 18 289 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009127-SW009126 18 233 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009126-SW009125 18 294 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009125-SW009124 18 222 0.0090 0.799 3.8 0.24 1.091 4.2 0.28 SW009124-OT005205 18 20 0.0170 0.800 4.9 0.20 1.095 5.3 0.24 8" to 12" Main on Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue, Lindacita Lane and Western Avenue SW013101-SW013102 8 356 0.0038 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 SW013102-SW013103 8 274 0.0039 0.006 0.8 0.08 0.005 0.7 0.07 SW013103-SW013104 8 284 0.0032 0.006 0.7 0.08 0.005 0.7 0.08 SW013104-SW013105 8 321 0.0032 0.025 1.1 0.16 0.034 1.2 0.19 SW013105-SW013106 8 315 0.0076 0.032 1.5 0.15 0.037 1.6 0.16 SW013106-SW009211 15 129 0.0075 0.190 2.4 0.16 0.187 2.4 0.15 SW009211-SW009499 12 11 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009499-SW009498 12 278 0.0028 0.190 1.7 0.27 0.187 1.7 0.27 SW009498-SW009497 12 86 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009497-SW009496 12 263 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009496-SW009495 12 87 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009495-SW009494 12 239 0.0034 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009494-SW009493 12 245 0.0032 0.190 1.8 0.26 0.187 1.8 0.26 SW009493-SW009492 12 198 0.0033 0.190 1.9 0.26 0.187 1.8 0.25 SW009492-SW009491 12 201 0.0031 0.190 1.8 0.26 0.187 1.8 0.26 SW009491-SW009399 12 198 0.0034 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009399-SW009398 12 157 0.0033 0.190 1.9 0.26 0.188 1.9 0.25 SW009398-SW009397 12 286 0.0033 0.191 1.9 0.26 0.201 1.9 0.26 SW009397-SW009396 12 189 0.0032 0.193 1.8 0.26 0.203 1.9 0.27 SW009396-SW009395 12 95 0.0079 0.194 2.5 0.21 0.204 2.6 0.21 SW009395-SW009394 12 231 0.0032 0.195 1.9 0.26 0.205 1.9 0.27 SW009394-SW009393 12 86 0.0032 0.196 1.8 0.26 0.206 1.9 0.27 SW009393-SW009392 12 237 0.0032 0.196 1.9 0.26 0.206 1.9 0.27 SW009392-SW009303 12 44 0.0054 0.196 2.2 0.23 0.206 2.3 0.24 SW009303-OT005402 12 34 0.0235 0.196 3.7 0.16 0.206 3.8 0.16 Build-Out ConditionExisting ConditionPipe ID Pipe Diameter (inch) Pipe Length (feet)Pipe Slope 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") SW008412 OT005402 SW009393 SW009394 SW009395 SW009396 SW009397 SW009398 SW009399 SW009491 SW009492 SW009493 SW009494 SW009495 SW009496 SW009497 SW009498 SW009499 SW009211 SW009124 SW009125 SW009126 SW009127 SW009128 SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303 SW013123 SW008411 SW012307 SW009303 SW013122 SW012305SW012304 SW013101 SW013102 SW013103 SW013104 SW013105 OT005205 SW013106 SW009392 0 .0 0 0.29 0 .1 6 0.21 0 .1 5 0.54 0 .0 8 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.25 0 .2 9 0 .2 0 0.16 0.26 0 .2 5 0 .2 6 0 .2 6 0.27 0.21 0 .2 5 0.27 0 .2 6 0.26 0.08 0.31 0.25 0.310.24 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.10 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.31 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 2 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.3 - Model Results-EX_Scene2.mxd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.3 Job Number 11140066 19 May 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public Works Lincoln at Beach (39 C om mons) Sew er Analysis 39 Commo ns Future So uth of Lincoln Development Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Scenario 2 Existing Condition Plus 39 Commonsand South of Lincoln DevelopmentsModel Results 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") SW008412 OT005402 SW009393 SW009394 SW009395 SW009396 SW009397 SW009398 SW009399 SW009491 SW009492 SW009493 SW009494 SW009495 SW009496 SW009497 SW009498 SW009499 SW009211 SW009124 SW009125 SW009126 SW009127 SW009128 SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303 SW013123 SW008411 SW012307 SW009303 SW013122 SW012305SW012304 SW013101 SW013102 SW013103 SW013104 SW013105 OT005205 SW013106 SW009392 0 .0 0 0.31 0.32 0 .1 9 0.26 0 .1 6 0.68 0 .0 8 0.07 0.27 0.36 0 .2 5 0.15 0 .3 3 0.21 0.300.31 0 .2 5 0.27 0.36 0.26 0 .2 5 0 .2 6 0.25 0.30 0 .2 5 0.25 0.27 0.360.28 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.10 0 .2 4 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.27 0.27 0.32 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Existing Sewer Needs Sewer N eeds Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 2 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.4 - Model Results-BO_Scene2.m xd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.4 Job Number 11140066 19 May 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public Works Lincoln at Beach (39 C om mons) Sew er Analysis 39 Commo ns Future So uth of Lincoln Development Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Scenario 2 Build-out Condition Plus 39 Commonsand South of Lincoln DevelopmentsModel Results Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 15 4. Conclusion The 39 Commons Development is a mixed-use development approved for an existing 30.1-acre vacant lot on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The development will consist of medium density residential units, commercial retailers, a hotel, a community center and a brewery. The South of Lincoln Development will replace four existing commercial parcels at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard with medium density residential units. The 39 Commons Development (Scenario 1) is projected to contribute an additional steady state sewage flow of 126,775 gpd to the sewer system. While both developments together (Scenario 2) are projected to contribute additional steady state sewage flows of up to 159,025 gpd. Due to the flow redirection from the South of Lincoln Development, there will be a decrease in flow in the 8-inch to 12-inch sewer main along Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue and Lindacita Lane. The sewer analysis revealed no hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Study Area in either Scenario1 or Scenario 2 with the proposed developments. The maximum d/D ratios of the 8-inch to 18-inch sewer mains in Lincoln Avenue remains under 0.4 for all analyzed scenarios, which are within the City’s maximum allowable d/D = 0.67 for pipes with diameters less than 12 inches, and d/D = 0.75 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12 inches. Attachment A – City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual (Part F) Attachment Attachment A City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual (Part F) Bureau of Engineering Manual - Part F SEWER DESIGN 6/92 F 200 PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES AVERAGE DAILY FLOW PROJECTIONS TABLE F229 Units Ave. daily flow (gpd/unit) Type description SEAT 5/SEAT AUDITORIUM 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 25/1000 GR.SQ.FT. AUTO PARKING 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. AUTO REPAIR GARAGE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BAKERY 7 GR.SQ.FT. 5/7 GR.SQ.FT. BALLROOM 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 200/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BANK: HEADQUARTERS 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BANK: BRANCH 15 GR.SQ.FT. 20/15 GR.SQ.FT. BANQUET RMS/CONFERENCE SEAT 20/SEAT BAR: FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BAR: JUICE (NO FOOD) 15 GR.SQ.FT. 20/15 GR.SQ.FT. BAR:PUB. AREAS(TABLES) 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BARBER SHOP 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY COLLEGE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 25/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY CLG. STRG>15% 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 200/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY COLLEGE:OFFICE> 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY PARLOR OFFICE 200/OFFICE BLDG. CONSTR. OFFICE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BOWLING ALLEY SEAT 50/SEAT CAFETERIA: FIXED SEAT GPM PEAK 412/GPM CARWASH: BASED ON PEAK STALL 206/STALL CAR WASH: COIN-OPERATED 5 GPM PEAK 412/GPM CARWASH: IN BAY SEAT 5/SEAT CHURCH:FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE OCCUPANT 10/OCCUPANT ChurchSch:DayCare/Elem. 20 GR.SQ.FT. 5/20 GR.SQ.FT. CHURCH SCH: 1 DAY USE/W N/A NO CHARGE CITY: BLDG. CONTS. OFC. 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. CLINIC SEAT 20/SEAT COCKTAIL LOUNGE:FXD ST 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 25/1000 GR.SQ.FT. COLD STORAGE:NO SALES 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. ColdStorage:RetailSales FIXTURE 120/FIXTURE COMFORT STATION:PUBLIC 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. COMMERCIAL USE OCCUPANT 5/OCCUPANT COMMUNITY CENTER 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 200/1000 GR.SQ.FT. CREDIT UNION GPM PEAK 412/GPM DAIRY GPM PEAK 412/GPM DAIRY: BARN 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. DAIRY: RETAIL AREA 7 GR.SQ.FT. 5/7 GR.SQ.FT. DANCE HALL 15 GR.SQ.FT. 20/15 GR.SQ.FT. DISCOTEQUE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. DOUGHNUT SHOP 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. DRUG ABUSE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. FILM PROCESSINGGPM PEAK 412/GPM FOOD PROCESSING PLANT URINAL OR W.C. 120/W.C. GAS STATION:SELF SERVE STATION 430/STATION GAS STATION:4 BAYS MAX Bureau of Engineering Manual - Part F SEWER DESIGN 6/92 F 200 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.GYMNASIUM 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.HANGAR (AIRCRAFT) BED 85/BED HOSPITAL: CONVALESCENT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.HOSPITAL: DOG AND CAT BED 85/BED HOSPITAL: NONPROFIT BED 500/BED HOSPITAL: SURGICAL UNIT 150/UNIT HOUSEKEEPING:LIGHT GPM PEAK 412/GPM INDUSTRIAL INMATE 85/INMATE JAIL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.DOG KENNEL/OPEN 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.LAB: COMMERCIAL GPM PEAK 412/GPM LAUNDROMAT:INDUSTRIAL WASHER 220/WASHER LAUNDROMAT WASHER 220/WASHER LAUNDROMAT:AUTOMATIC 50 GR.SQ.FT.50/50 GR.SQ.FT.LIBRARY:PUBLIC AREA 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.LIBRARY:STACKS/STORAGE SEAT 5/SEAT LODGE HALL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MACHINE SHOP 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MNFG/INDUSTRY 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MASSAGE PARLOR 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MEDICAL BLDG 1000 GR.SQ.FT.200/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MINI-MALL (SHELL) 7 GR.SQ.FT.5/7 GR.SQ.FT.MORTUARY:CHAPEL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MORTUARY: LIVING AREA ROOM 150/ROOM MOTEL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MUSEUM: ALL AREAS 1000 GR.SQ.FT.200/1000 GR.SQ.FT.OFFICE OVER 15% 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MUSEUM: SALE AREA 1000 GR.SQ.FT.200/1000 GR.SQ.FT.OFFICE BUILDING GPM PEAK 412/GPM PLATING PLANT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.POOL HALL(NO BEER/WINE) 1000 GR.SQ.FT.120/1000 GR.SQ.FT.POST OFFICE: FLOOR PLAN STUDENT 85/STUDENT DORM: COLLEGE OR RES. DWELLING UNIT 330/DU RES: TOWNHS/SET GRD DWELLING 150/DU RES: APT. - 1 BDR DWELLING 200/DU RES: APT. - 2 BDR DWELLING 250/DU RES: APT. - 3 BDR DWELLING 100/DU RES: APT. - BACH/SNGLE BED 85/BED RES: BOARDING HOUSE DWELLING 150/DU RES: CONDO-1 BDR DWELLING 200/DU RES: CONDO-2 BDR DWELLING 250/DU RES: CONDO-3 BDR DWELLING UNIT 300/DU RES: DUPLEX HOME SPACE 200/SPACE RES: MOBILE HOME DWELLING UNIT 330/DU RES: SNGL FAM DWL. 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.RES: ARTIST (2/3 AREA) DWELLING 100/DU RES: ARTIST RESDNCE.DWELLING UNIT 330/DU RES: GUEST HOUSE W/KIT. BED 85/BED REST HOME SEAT DINING 50/SEAT RESTAURANT: DRIVE-UP PARKING STALL 100/STALL RESTAURANT: DRIVE-UP SEAT 50/SEAT RESTAURANT: FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.RESTAURANT: TAKE-OUT Bureau of Engineering Manual - Part F SEWER DESIGN 6/92 F 200 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.RETAIL AREA CHILD 10/CHILD SCHL: DAY CARE CENTER STUDENT 10/STUDENT SCHL: ELEMENTARY/JR-HI STUDENT 15/STUDENT SCHL: HIGH SCHOOL 35 GR.SQ.FT.10/35 GR.SQ.FT.SCHL: KINDERGARTEN CHILD 10/CHILD SCHL: NURSERY-DAY CARE STUDENT 10/STUDENT SCHL: SPECIAL CLASS-LAC STUDENT 15/STUDENT SCHL: TRADE OR VOCTNL STUDENT 20/STUDENT SCHL: UNIV. OR COLLEGE 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.StorageBldg-RentingSpace 1000 GR.SQ.FT.10/1000 GR.SQ.FT.ICE CREAM STORE(RETAIL) 70 GR.SQ.FT.5/7 GR.SQ.FT.STUDIO: MOTION PICTURE 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.STUDIO: RECORDING VEHICLE 12/VEHICLE THEATRE: DRIVE-IN SEAT 5/SEAT THEATRE: FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.5/SEAT THEATRE: MOVIE HOUSE 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.VETERINARIAN 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.WAREHOUSE STATION 430/STATION WASTE DUMP: RECREATIONAL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.215/1000 GR.SQ.FT.WINE TASTING RM: KTCHN 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.WineTastingRm: AllArea EXPLANATION FOOTNOTES 1.The column headings are: Average Daily Flow = flow in gallons per day (gpd) per unit as indicated. For example, "5/7 gr. sq. ft." means 5 gpd per every 7 gross square feet of development. Type description - type of development or process. 2.Gr. sq. ft. = gross square feet: area included within the exterior of the surrounding walls of a building excluding courts. 3.Gpm Peak = peak flow in gallons per minute. There is an assumption that the peak to average flow ratio is 3.5. Therefore, 1 gpm x 1440 min/day ) 3.5 = 412 gpd which is the unit flow factor in the table. 4.Example Calculation - Assume a 10,000 sq. ft. office building is proposed. The estimated average daily flow is calculated as 10,000 sq. ft. x 200 gpd/1000 sq. ft. = 2000 gpd. 5.Another Example - Assume a car wash (in bay type) is proposed. The estimated peak flow is 5 gpm as determined by industrial waste permit or other data. The average daily flow is estimated as 5 gpm x 412 gpd/gpm = 2060 gpd. 6 Orchard, Suite 200 Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 916-3800 December 4, 2019 Nick Taylor, AICP Associate Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 SUBJECT: 39 Commons – DEV2019-00120 Tract 19021 Letter of Request Dear Mr. Taylor: On behalf of Greenlaw Partners, we formally request the filing of a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map No. 19021 for condominium purposes. The proposed project will consist of the development of 65 townhome residential units on approximately 3.7 acres of land. Proposed 3-story residential homes range from 2 to 4 bedroom units. The proposed project includes passive open space amenities for the benefit of the homeowners. Proposed improvements include associated roadway, utility and landscape improvements and a right-of-way dedication on Lincoln Ave. Proposed construction dates: February 15, 2020 to 2023 If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please call me at (949) 916-3800. Sincerely, _______________________________________________ Philip Malcomson C&V Consulting, Inc. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 December 4, 2019 Nicholas J. Taylor Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Blvd., First Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Subject: Justification for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032 “39 Commons” Lincoln Avenue Townhomes Lincoln Avenue & Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA Applications: Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032 DEV 2019-00120 Tentative Tract No. 19021 Dear Mr. Taylor: On behalf of applicant Greenlaw Partners, we wish to thank the City of Anaheim for extraordinary customer service and support for our next exciting project. After months of planning and review by various agencies and City departments, we are pleased to submit final plans for staff consideration and Planning Commission approval, of the 65 unit “39 Commons” townhomes residential community on Lincoln Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The project would be part of the larger Beach Boulevard Specific Plan, which seeks to bring new shopping, restaurants, community gathering places, homes and other uses to the thoroughfare. It is our intent to assist the City with developing this long- standing vacant parcel and this housing project is perfect to implement that goal. Conditional Use Permit Application To seek land use entitlement for 65 townhomes, we have submitted plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06032. That conditional use permit is required for approval of a “townhome attached residential” project with minor deviations in development standards. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 2 The following details our proposal: Conditional Use Permit Request: o Land use- Approval of 65 medium density townhomes on the subject property. o Building Height- Approval of some buildings up to three stories/ 45-ft high. Required Findings for Approval 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit or a minor conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of the Anaheim Municipal Code: The Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18 states that multiple family residential/attached town homes are an allowable land use subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 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 located: The proposed use would develop a vacant parcel with a vibrant new residential community in an area in great need of ownership with housing in proximity to employment. The “39 Commons” home community will be a catalyst towards revitalizing the area along the 1.5 miles of Beach Boulevard that run through west Anaheim. 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 the area or to health and safety: The site is 3.6 acres including a right-of way dedication along Lincoln Avenue. The overall project size of 65 homes provides a significant amount of income to the future home owners association to ensure a high- quality community is maintained in perpetuity. The development replaces a vacant parcel with a secure, safe place to live, and reduce public safety impacts on the City. 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: Projected traffic would be less than traffic which could be generated from the property if built out to the maximum floor area ratio in the City’s General Plan. Mixed-Use Medium land uses generate significantly more traffic that single family townhomes. Therefore, the ADT “average daily traffic” generated by the 39 Commons community will be less traffic than could be generated as currently zoned. Furthermore, Mixed-Use Medium land uses not only have much higher ADT generation rates, they generate most of their traffic in the morning (7-9am) peak hours and evening (4-6pm) peak hours when traffic is the greatest. 3 Residential generates much less traffic and spreads the trips throughout the day, evening, and weekends. 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit or the minor conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim. The granting of a conditional use permit to build 65 attached townhomes would not be “detrimental” to the health, safety, and welfare of the community since potential health and safety concerns will be mitigated for in design of the development. The project includes passive open space amenities for the benefit of pedestrian safety. Justification for Conditional Use Permit A. Indicate how the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area. The proposed use represents “re-investment” in community improvement in the area along the 1.5 miles of Beach Boulevard that run through west Anaheim. The project would be part of the larger Beach Boulevard Specific Plan, which seeks to bring new shopping, restaurants, community gathering places, homes and other uses to the thoroughfare. B. Explain how the site proposed for the use is large enough to accommodate anticipated growth of the development and allow the continued operation without causing a detriment to the area or to health and safety. The site is somewhat rectangular and buildable but is adjacent to former landfills that restrict buildable area. Therefore, to achieve the necessary density to build and sell homes affordable to market rate buyers, development standard concessions/incentives are needed to concentrate greater building area toward west Anaheim. Development standard concessions/incentives would not create any detrimental impacts on the health, safety or welfare of those living in the immediate area since the surrounding area to the west and north will primarily be developed as a commercial-retail area. C. Indicate how the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the roads designed and constructed to handle the traffic in the area. The project site as shown on the City of Anaheim 2019 Land Use Map, has a Mixed-Use Medium land use, which has a much greater traffic generation rate than residential uses. Specifically, if the same property was rebuilt to the maximum floor area ratio allowed in the zone/plan as mixed-use, “average daily trips” would be far greater than that generated by 65 town homes. More importantly, mixed-use land uses would not only have a high “average daily trip” rate, but also have a much higher generation rate on weekdays during the AM (7-9:00am) and PM (4:00-6:00pm) “peak hours” which are the hours employees arrive and depart. Residential has lower peak hour rates and traffic spread out throughout the day, evening, and weekends. 4 Residential land uses, replacing potential mixed-use, would result in a long-term reduction in average daily trip generation and peak hour trips at affected major intersections. Residential, therefore, helps to mitigate and reduce the level of traffic to be generated from the site. D. Indicate how approval of this Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit with any conditions of approval, will not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim Approval of the subject conditional use permit would provide a significant benefit to the community by providing 65 “new” ownership attached town homes in an area in need of new housing near major employment. These new homes are not all intended for single person occupancy in sub-standard size units but have generous floor area and bedrooms to also provide for family needs and avoid over-crowding such as that found in older apartment neighborhoods. This project will provide a “safe, clean, new, and beautiful” residential community. This project would be a significant benefit to Anaheim where housing is needed. Responding to area needs, Greenlaw Partners believes the community would greatly benefit from development of this vacant parcel with a vibrant residential community, in an area void of housing yet in great demand, especially for ownership housing. Thank you again for allowing us to create this exciting new community on Anaheim Blvd. where housing is in great demand. We look forward to Planning Commission and City Council approval of all submitted applications. Should you, any Planning Commissioner, or Council Member have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 949 331-1353 or e-mail to rob@greenlawpartners.com Sincerely, Robert Mitchell Partner Greenlaw Partners April 13, 2020 Nick Taylor, AICP Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Blvd., First Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 SUBJECT: DEV 2019-00120 - Tentative Tract No. 19021 “39 Commons” Lincoln Avenue Townhomes Justification for Variance – Vinyl Fence Dear Mr. Taylor: On behalf of applicants “Greenlaw Partners, LLC/Greenlaw ABC Townhomes, LLC” and DeNova Homes, Inc. we would like to request the City of Anaheim to consider the following variance request for on-site vinyl fence related to the 65- unit “39 Commons” townhomes residential community on Lincoln Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. Request Description The City of Anaheim requires 8-ft high decorative masonry wall separating commercial and residential properties per Anaheim municipal code section 18.46.110 Decorative masonry wall cannot be constructed over the landfill without pile foundations due to the weight of a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall. The landfill is not considered competent certified fill for any significant loads. The “39 Commons” Townhome Project, in an effort to provide an aesthetically pleasing residential product, proposes to install high quality vinyl fence to provide separation between commercial and residential properties. Vinyl fence is lighter in weight than decorative masonry wall and will not require pile foundations when constructed over the landfill. Additionally, the project proposes to install vinyl fence separating commercial and residential properties along the western property line outside the landfill area to provide continuity for the overall site aesthetic. A single type of fencing is more cohesive and aesthetic than dividing the fence into two sections along the western property line. ATTACHMENT NO. 7 Justification for Variance 1. Identify any special physical characteristics of the property such as shape, topography, location or surroundings that cause the requested development to not meet zoning codes. A portion of the site improvements, including perimeter fencing, is to be constructed over existing landfill. Decorative masonry wall cannot be constructed over the landfill without pile foundations due to the weight of a CMU wall. The landfill is not considered competent certified fill for any significant loads. 2. Do other properties in the vicinity have the same type of physical characteristics as this property? If so, please identify a few of them. There are several landfill sites in the City of Anaheim that would be subject to the same conditions for development with commercial adjacent to residential zoned property. 3. Identify any other neighboring properties that have the same type of improvement that you are requesting. In general, commercial zoned developments produce more noise and CMU walls mitigate this noise. However, the proposed commercial use for the adjacent property is a passive parking lot that will produce less noise than many other types of commercial uses. Therefore, a CMU wall is not as critical to mitigate noise and shield the residential area from commercial activities for this residential development. 4. Identify the cause of the special characteristics of the site that limits the ability to comply with code requirements (e.g. natural slope of the land, placement of other structures). Decorative masonry wall cannot be constructed over the landfill without pile foundations due to the weight of a CMU wall. The landfill is not considered competent certified fill for any significant loads. In conclusion we thank the city of Anaheim for considering the variance request. We believe the different fence material requested will improve the overall aesthetic and livability of the project. However we look to the city to provide appropriate flexibility as needed to deliver a high quality residential project. We look forward to Planning Commission and City Council approval of the submitted applications. Should you, any Planning Commissioner, or Council Member have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 331-1353 or e-mail to rob@greenlawpartners.com Sincerely, Robert Mitchell Partner Greenlaw Partners/Greenlaw ABC Townhomes, LLC Authorized Agent for Toffoli Investments, LLC 0 1" = 30' 15 30 60 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 0 1" = 30' 15 30 60 7/9/2020 7/9/2020 FIRE LANE 7/9/2020 0 1" = 30' 15 30 60 7/9/2020 0 1" = 30' 15 30 60 7/9/2020 0 1" = 30' 15 30 60 7/9/2020 02. l 3.20 r-------------, --------,--------- r-------, r-------, I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I \I PLAN FOURx I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I ' ' • STORAG8 UNDE�STAIRS EXCEEDS J 00 CU�IC FEET 7 r I -, I I I I I 11 L_ -r J I L - _LJ I I I I I �+---.-.,.._-__ I I I I I �+-----+---1 ,_ __ I I I I• -I----I tt--+-----+---t-1 ® � H:f +--------¾- II---- PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR 363 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1956 SQ. FT. I I I ,-------! ,_L _____ "i I I \ I I _______________ .J I I I I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I 1i PLAN TH REE I / I I \ I I I I I \ I I I I I I I ' STORAGE UN IDER STAIRS EXCE8DS 100 CUBIC FEET I I \ I I I I I \ I I I I I I I ' PLAN TWOx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING r-- 94 SQ. FT. 612SQ.FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. r------.J I PLAN TWO -X I I I I I -----I 2-BA Y GARAGE---�20'-l"x20'-1" STORAGE UNDER.STAIRSEXCEEDS +OB-CUBIC FEET r - - , I- - T "i --T-�T7 - - UP I I I I I I I I I < -J I I I I I -I 2 -- · ··.,,, · -- · :..E---� £j PLAN ONE � __ 7 -J r L __________________________ .J PLAN THREE PLAN ONE FIRST FLOOR 370 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 667 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR 732 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 1769 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING BUILDING A I 4-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS 90 SQ. FT. 521 SQ. FT. 523 SQ. FT. 1134 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOT TO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, Fr-lAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USE□OR DUPUCAlED WITI-IOUT ll-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLEY ARCHrTECJURAf_ GROUP, INC. • • ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90°90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O - X P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R x P L A N T W O x F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R x F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 6 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 5 6 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G A | 4 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O - X P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R x P L A N T W O x F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R x F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 6 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 5 6 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G A | 4 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R 02.13.20 1 . ' ' 1r� •• \6 ( ' / ·: t � � •. , 1' 'I. , -� '\ ,, •\• ' REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ---;, It_ --�l---.,._..,,._ \ � � --------=-----�-------� -• c?? 44- � -,� 1------J 1----------------------¼SI L--J-i--1-----------------------1--1.� -.._, ,;f:::_ ' � * BUILDING A I 4-PLEX �-�·� �1----------------------->�- � t�-, ' -fi " SCALE: 1/4" = 1 '-0" -r ..�.,...__ ,· "7-_,o_ ...,_ ... '.(._•"' " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s"t NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, T.O.PL. T.O.WIN. IVT.l.l.FL. T.O.PL. 0 ' • -.. woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite Blittleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02.13.20 1 RIGHT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ROOF PLAN "-SCALE: 1 /4" = l '-0" '------- I L I I ----------' I ' LJ1i1LJ1ILlJ LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING A I 4-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS "-SCALE: 1 /8" = 1 '-0" "�----- IHtst L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJt>IGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� :;1uu1t> ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLOI I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt::;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, L "-SCALE: 1 / 4" = 1 '-0" "------ • • ... woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02. l 3.20 r-------------n------------, 11 I 11 I --------.------------------r-------- 1-------, 1-------, ,-------, r-------, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I \ I \ \ \ \ I \ I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I \I PLAN FOURx I/ \ \jr---------, PLAN FOUR I/ • \ I \ I 7 \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I r1 ----, I I I I I 11 L_ -r " L __ LJ ____ .J @ � PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • STORAG� UNDE�STAIRS STOR1-GE UNhER STAIRS 6 EXCEEDS l 00 cu�1c FEET EXCEEuS 100 CUBIC FEET --�----r-'i I I I I I I I I I I • I I @ I I• -7 I I I I I I CI I PLAN FOUR 363 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. 754 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. 839 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. 1956 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. I ,-------1 ,_L _____ 1 \ I \ I I _______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 'i PLAN THREE I / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STOR-'b_GE UNhER STAIRS EXCEEuS 100 CUBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • FIRST FLOOR 370 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 667 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 732 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1769 SQ. FT. BUILDING B I 5-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS PLAN TWO FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT. 612SQ.FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. r-----------------�-------- 1-------, 1-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1 PLAN TWO 1 \ .__ _____ __. I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I STO'RAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEEl ,--7,7771 I I II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I L -- 0 I I I r--7 --.). .I-.L .J I ----�---- L = = ,!..S Th RAGE UNDER.STAIRS ---____::a,�J:Jf EEDS 1 OQs:QB� FEET -- I I I I I I ---I UP 2 ,.. ....................... �.,,,.,,,_ ......... --....... ,-� E � --.J� PLAN ONE � __ 1 r .J L __________________________ .J PLAN ONE FIRST FLOOR 90 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 521 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 523 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1134 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOTTO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, FNAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARC HllECTURAL GROUP, NC. lHESE DRAWINGS MAY NOl BE USE□OR DUPUCAlED WITI-IOUlll-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. • • ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R x P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . PL A N F O U R x FIRS T F L O O R SEC O N D F L O O R THIR D F L O O R TOT A L L I V I N G 3 6 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 5 6 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G B | 5 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R x P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . PLAN FO U R x FIRST FLOO R SECOND FL O O R THIRD FLO O R TOTAL LIVI N G 3 6 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 5 6 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G B | 5 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R 1 < -' � ' ' // ( •/. • ,, .., I I' 02.13.20 REAR ELEVATION " � ,_ _____ _.r.._r• � � ':>..>, '� \ =N '-r---ti.::-'' � L......>----------------------.,---. 1----------------------,-""'I FRONT ELEVATION - I BUILDING B I 5-PLEX " SCALE: I /4" = I '-0" " SCALE: I /4" = I '-0" LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtst L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJt>IGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� :;1uu1t> ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLOI I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt::;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, IL-,_ T.O.PL. T.O.WIN. - 0--co • • • ... woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 1 RIGHT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ROOF PLAN &tll lllil °'\. SCALE: 1 /4" = l '-0" --------- .------.I I I .. ________ .. l=====l=J I ---------------------- LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING B I 5-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS °'\. SCALE: 1 /8" = l'-0" IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, °'\. SCALE: 1 / 4" = l'-0" • • -.. woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02. l 3.20 r-------------, --------1--------- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I \1,---------PLAN FOURx I/ • 0 \ I \ I \ I \ I 7 \ I \ I \ I \ I ' r1 ----, I I I I I 11 L_ -r " L __ LJ ____ _J @ � PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I ' STORAGEI UNDERISTAIRS EXCEEDS 100 CU�IC FEET I Ir -7 I I I I 363 SQ. FT. 754 SQ. FT. 839 SQ. FT. 1956 SQ. FT. I I I i-------, i_L _____ , \ I \ I /_______________ _J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1 PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNbER STAIRS EXCESDS 100 CUBIC FEET - - - PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I • FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 667 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 732 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1781 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- 1-------, 1-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I PLAN FOUR I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I --,--, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STOR.AIGE UN[])ER STAIRS EXCEE[j)S 100 q;UBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C PLAN FOUR @ FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1j.___P_LA _N_FO_U_R __.I / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STOR.AIGE UN[])ER STAIRS EXCEE[j)S 100 q;UBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • I I @ I I "O PLAN FOUR FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. BUILDING C I 6-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS I i-------, i_L _____ , \ I \ I /_______________ _J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1i PLAN THREE I / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNbER STAIRS EXCESDS 100 CUBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • FIRST FLOOR 370 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 667 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 732 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1769 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOT TO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, FNAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USE□OR DUPUCAlED WITI-IOUTTl-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. r-------------, I I ---------. -------- \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I PLAN FOURx I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I --,--, \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEE[])S 100 ctUBIC FEET r 17 I I I I 7 L_ LJ_ - _J ..J. - -I I I I I I I I I I I I r -71 II @ I CI I PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR 363 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1956 SQ. FT. • • ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton. co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R P L A N T H R E E PLAN FOURx 90° P L A N F O U R x P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PL A N T H R E E FIRST F L O O R SEC O N D F L O O R THIR D F L O O R TOT A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 8 1 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1956 SQ. FT. P L A N F O U R x F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 6 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 5 6 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G C | 6 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90°90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90°45°45°90°90°90°90°90° P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R P L A N T H R E E PLAN FOURx 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N F O U R x P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 8 1 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1956 SQ. FT. P L A N F O U R x F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 6 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 5 6 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G C | 6 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R 1 '-'-r--------------j • n:t: Ca -;s ,,..,___ lf-------------------------1--1•, REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION 02.13.20 SCALE: 1 /4" = l'-0" •-,1----------------------H '.I -;; If-----------------------' , ' \ -'*� r, . -1----------�, , -" ,.__.,,.,i;: -� '--------======-t+-ir=t=====:e:=t--f��t=====I' SCALE: 1 /4" = l '-0" BUILDING C I 6-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtst L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJt>IGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� :;1uu1t> ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt::;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, LO.PL LO.WIN. • T.O.FL. T.O.PL '·y , ;p ,!,, ( .. , 's6.�· ,·1 ,/, ., • I 1(�� ... -� woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 1 RIGHT ELEVATION 02.13.20 -r----- _________ .., ROOF PLAN °'\. SCALE: 1 /4" = l '-0" I I ,------ I. ________ _, LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING C I 6-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS °'\. SCALE: 1 /8" = 1 '-0" IHtst L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJt>IGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� :;1uu1t> ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLOI I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt::;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, � .:_,, '.i._..,.,� :\:i......L1 .. � .. .._, -'-' s. - °'\. SCALE: 1 / 4" = 1 '-0" • • ... woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02. l 3.20 r--------------, --------1--------- ,--------, ,--------, I I \ \ I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I \ I I I I I I I I \ .... I ______ _ PLAN FOURx I/ • \ I \ I \ I 7 \ I \ I \ I \ I \I r1 -----, I I I I I 11 L_ -1-> L __ LJ ____ .J ® � PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I STORAGEI UNDER ISTAIRS EXCEEDS 100 CU�IC FEET I I• -7 I I I I 377 SQ. FT. 754 SQ. FT. 839 SQ. FT. 1970 SQ. FT. I I I ,--------, ,-L------, \ I \ I /_______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I l PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNIDER STAIRS EXCEBDS 100 CUBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I • FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 667 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 732 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1781 SQ. FT. r-------------, I I I I ---------,-------- ,-------, ,-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I PLAN FOUR I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I --,---, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I• • STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEEDS 100 ICUBIC FEET PLAN FOUR • FIRST FLOOR 393 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1986 SQ. FT. r-------------, I I I I ---------,-------- \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1i,___P_LA _N_FO_U_R __.I / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEEDS 100 ICUBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • I I ® I I I I ({) PLAN FOUR FIRST FLOOR 393 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1986 SQ. FT. BUILDING D I 7-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS I r--------, r-_L _____ , \ I \ I /_______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1j PLAN THREE I / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEBDS 100 CUBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 370 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1769 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOT TO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, FNAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITI-IOUTTl-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLH ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. PLAN TWO FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT. 612 SQ. FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. r-----------------�-------- ,-------, ,-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I PLAN TWO / I .__ _____ __. / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNDER STAIRS I/ EXCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEET - - - -1i-1-r r :f'TT,..,.Tr-r-,-r--c:;;;;;;;;;�,--7,7771 I I II I I I I I II I I I I r - - -, I I I I I I I I L - -" I I I r ---, --.). .I-.L J I --.!.7 L - - .J UP I PLAN ONE I - - 7 r .J L __________________________ .J PLAN ONE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 90 SQ. FT. 521 SQ. FT. 523 SQ. FT. 1134SQ. FT. • • ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R P L A N T H R E E PLAN FOURx P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 9 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 8 6 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 9 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 8 6 S Q . F T . PLA N T H R E E FIRST F L O O R SECO N D F L O O R THIRD F L O O R TOTAL L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 8 1 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 377 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1970 SQ. FT. L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G D | 7 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90°90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90°45°45°90°90°90°90°90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R P L A N T H R E E PLAN FOURx P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 9 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 8 6 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 9 3 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 8 6 S Q . F T . PLAN T H R E E FIRST F L O O R SECO N D F L O O R THIRD F L O O R TOTAL L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 8 1 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 377 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1970 SQ. FT. L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G D | 7 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R 1 II REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /4" = l'-0" • • FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /4" = l '-0" 02.13.20 BUILDING D I 7-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtst L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJt>IGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� :;1uu1t> ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLOI I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt::;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, • T.O.PL. T.O.WIN. 0- T.O.FL. T.O.PL . ... woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 1 RIGHT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ROOF PLAN "'f' L= ........ ffl--- -r----- _________ .., --------------1 □□ cc □ � ■ I ,■■ "--1 .....,...,'F ,.,, -·-, r,...� - ,._;°'I,� - w>; t::. '--r "':--,.;.,,.,,..._ \ --1.........; 7 �~• ~• L-• . ' w,. ,lo. • '-SCALE: l /4" = l '-0" '------- .------ I. --------.1 � ------......... ---------- ------------------------ '-SCALE: l /8" = l '-0" "�----- LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING D I 7-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtst L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJt>IGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� :;1uu1t> ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt::;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, '-SCALE: l / 4" = l'-0" "------ • • ... woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02. l 3.20 r-------------, --------, --------- 1-------, 1-------, I \ \ \ \ I I \ I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ I \ \ I I I I I I I I \.-1-------PLAN FOURx I/ • 0 r 1 I \ I I I 7 \ I \ I \ I \ I I I' r1 ----, I I I I I 11 L_ -1-> I L __ LJ ____ .J ® (J) PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I' r--,-- STORAGEI UNDER1 STAIRS EXCEEDS 1 100 CU�IC FEET I Ir -7 I I I I 363 SQ. FT. 754 SQ. FT. 839 SQ. FT. 1956 SQ. FT. I I I ,-------, ,_L _____ , \ I \ I I _______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I l PLAN THREE / \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I' STORJI\GE UNDER STAIRS EXCE�DS 1001CUBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I' 382 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1781 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I \I PLAN FOUR I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I --,--, \ I \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I' ' STORA-GE UNDER STAIRS EXCEEpS 100 f:UBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "� PLAN FOUR • FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- ,-------, ,-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1j.---P-LA-N-FO-U R---.1 / \ I \ I \ I --,--, \ I \ I \ I I I \/ ' STORAGE UN[DER STAIRS EXCEEi?S 100 G,:UBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \/ ' • I I ® I I "O PLAN FOUR FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. I ,-------, ,_L _____ , \ I \ I I _______________ .J \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I 1j PLAN THREE I / \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I' STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEqDS 100 1 CUBIC FEET PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I' 370 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1769 SQ. FT. BUILDING E I 8-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS I r---------, r_L _____ --, \ I \ I I _______________ .J \ I \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I l PLf N THR�E I / \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I' STORJI\GE UNDER STAIRS EXCE�DS l001CUBIC FEET PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I' • FIRST FLOOR 370 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 667 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 732 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1769 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□ FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOT TO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, Fr-lAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USE□ OR DUPUCAlED WITI-IOUT ll-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. PLAN TWO FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT. 612 SQ. FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. r-----------------�-------- ,--------, ,--------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I PLAN TWO I I .__ _____ _. I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ ISTQ�AGE UNDER STAIRS \/ EXCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEET ---, - - - -l - - -..LI -1-r T" t,-,-,..,--,-r,-.,-r--c;;;;;;;;;;;� r --,r---1---1,1 I I II I I I I I II I I I I r - - , I I I I I I I I - - 7 I I I I I -I - - UP 2 ... , . .,,, . --. -§---�� PLAN ONE� __ , r .J L __________________________ .J PLAN ONE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING • • 90 SQ. FT. 521 SQ. FT. 523 SQ. FT. 1134 SQ. FT. ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R PLAN THREEPLAN FOURx 90° 90° P L A N T H R E E P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PLAN THREEFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 382 S Q . F T . 667 S Q . F T . 732 S Q . F T . 1781 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1956 SQ. FT. P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G E | 8 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90°90°90°45°45°45°90°90°90°45°45°90°90°90°90°90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R PLAN THREEPLAN FOURx 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° P L A N T H R E E P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PLAN THREEFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 382 S Q . F T . 667 S Q . F T . 732 S Q . F T . 1781 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1956 SQ. FT. P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G E | 8 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R 'I I,.,. ·-., 1111 ·-.. 1111 ·-.. 1111 ·-••,.,, ·-.,... ·-.. II REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ' ,_ ' ·., �----��--_::,.·+i==='========""=======,t+'--- ...L..i�.... ,_.,__ ��� ...... - �,.,.____ --�--· l'-+--,c1"t ________________________ ....,_"" � ,. .. �i-----------------------11--< ' � �_._ =-1----------------------1-i;::__ ,_ ' .,.__� _1-----------------------ll- ,-.,.---.....,� .. �� SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0" SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" BUILDING E I 8-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS ' t 7':_ .. -� ( 1'-----fl ► L C7 ., . -'I ,.,,s'[-.,.�'' "'c-jt--::-- IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s"t NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY A�CHlltCll!�AL G�OU�. INC, -� l', :-1._ ""- ' ' ._..,__. • -t-c�.► � --, �. -'[ ·-• ➔-,. " • ,_ , __ • • •\� --..... --l4u...... - ' t� ...... -. •\ C ....... ·---� ,, ..__,__ -.. LO.PL. T.O.WIN. 9 ro woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana. ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02.13.20 T----- 1 I _________ .. .L------ ,--------, I I I I ,------' I ________ .. ._ _________ .. ------�------· -------�------' I ____________ .....,......, ______ _ ROOF PLAN '-SCALE: l /8" = l '-0" "�----- �-lf------------------------1----1� l.._ .\ ....,.... _L...,,...,_ -i'"' .'"I L-� �-.._ RIGHT ELEVATION \ ' □111□11□ Iii Iii Iii Iii ■■ '-SCALE: l /4" = l '-0" '-------LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING E I 8-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtst L>kAWINGS A�t INltNl)tl) ro� LJt>IGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� :;1uu1t> ONLY ANlJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ 1-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COr'YKIGHI WOOlJLU A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt::;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/StLJ 0� LJIJPLIC.AltLJ WIIHOU I IHt: tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULt:Y AkCHllt:Cll/�AL G�OUP, INC. � .:_ ,, '.i_..,.,� :\:i......L1 �·.._,-'-' s - '-SCALE: l / 4" = l'-0" "------ • • ... woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02. l 3.20 r-------------, --------, --------- 1-------, 1-------, I \ \ \ \ I I \ I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ I \ \ I I I I I I I I \.-1-------PLAN FOURx I/ • 0 r 1 I \ I I I 7 \ I \ I \ I \ I I I ' r1 ----, I I I I I 11 L_ -1-J I L __ LJ ____ .J ® (J) PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I ' STORAGE IUNDER 5TAIRS EXCEEDS 1100 CUBIC FEET I Ir -7 I I I I 363 SQ. FT. 754 SQ. FT. 839 SQ. FT. 1956 SQ. FT. I I I ,-------7 ,_L _____ , \ I \ I I_______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I l PLAN THREE / \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I ' STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEBDS 100 CUBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I ' 382 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1781 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I \I PLAN FOUR I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I ' ' STOR.AlGE UN IDER STAIRS EXCEE[pS 100 Q:UBIC FEET PLAN FOUR I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "� • FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- ,-------, ,-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1j.---P-LA-N-FO-U R---.1 / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \/ ' STOR.AlGE UN IDER STAIRS EXCEE[PS 100 Q:UBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \/ ' • I I ® I I "O PLAN FOUR FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. I ,-------, ,_L _____ , \ I \ I I_______________ .J \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I 1j PLAN THREE I / \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I ' STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEBDS 100 CUBIC FEET PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I I I I I ' 370 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1769 SQ. FT. BUILDING F I 8-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS I r---------, r_L _____ --, \ I \ I I_______________ .J \ I \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I l PLf N THR �E I / \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I ' STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEBDS 100 ICUBIC FEET PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I ' • FIRST FLOOR 370 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 667 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 732 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1769 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□ FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOT TO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, Fr-lAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USE□ OR DUPUCAlED WITI-IOUT ll-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. PLAN TWOX FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING r-- 94 SQ. FT. 612 SQ. FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. r------.J I L. - - --.:..::.-7 I I PLAN TWO-X I I I ----I 2-BA Y GARAGE---� 20'-l"x20'-1" STORAGE UNDER..SlAIRSEXCEEDS 1-0e-CUBIC FEET < - r-- , I -----T1--T-�T7 - - - UP I I I I I I I I I RAGE lJN[)Eg STAIRS EEDS 100 CUBICffEl _ -J I I I I I -I r 2 ... , . .,,, . --. -§---�� PLAN ONE� --" - -J L __________________________ .J PLAN ONE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING • • 90 SQ. FT. 521 SQ. FT. 523 SQ. FT. 1134 SQ. FT. ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california / / 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90°90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O - X P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R PLAN THREEPLAN FOURx 90° 90° P L A N T H R E E P L A N T W O X F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PLAN THREEFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 382 S Q . F T . 667 S Q . F T . 732 S Q . F T . 1781 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1956 SQ. FT. P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G F | 8 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90°90°90°45°45°45°90°90°90°45°45°90°90°90°90°90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O - X P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R PLAN THREEPLAN FOURx 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° P L A N T H R E E P L A N T W O X F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PLAN THREEFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 382 S Q . F T . 667 S Q . F T . 732 S Q . F T . 1781 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1956 SQ. FT. P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G F | 8 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R �------------------------------------------c7, __ ·---1-------------------------l-t� \ � REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0" FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0" 02.13.20 BUILDING F I 8-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, � -,,1-------------------------ir-1�--�.,-, �.� ti...- 'f------------------------1-� �. �� ,t -�. ..,.__� -➔-,-, ,. �4L:,_ -.. T.O.PL. T.O.WIN. OJ T.O.FL. woodlev. architectural group,1nc • • colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 RIGHT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ROOF PLAN I L T-----I ,r----� 1 I _________ .. --�-----------�------, .L------ '-SCALE: l /4" = l '-0" '------- ,-------T I I I I ---------' ._ _________ _, ------�------· -------�------' I '-SCALE: l /8" = l '-0" "�----- LJ1i1LJ1ILl LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING F I 8-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS ■■ IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, I I ! I I I I I I I I I '-SCALE: l / 4" = l'-0" "------ • • -.. woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 PLAN TWOx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT. 612 SQ. FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. --, L------, r -:::_::p--,,_.-1-1111.========+��;.;;;�,-I c-- c- c-- PLAN-TWOx --- -- STORAGE ONDER STAIRS --1:KCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEET � T = = 7 r T i-T - -I I I I I I I I I I PLAN ONE I 9U I H/-c,l"---------jf.l I I I I .... L._..J..._-.J L __________________________ J 02. l 3.20 ,-------7 ,_L _____ 7 \ I \ I I _______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I l PLAN THREE /\ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I' STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEBDS 100 CUBIC FEET PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I' 382 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1781 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I PLAN FOUR I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UN[JER STAIRS EXCEEOS 100 (CUBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UP "O PLAN FOUR • FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 'j.___P_LA_N_FO_U R___.I / \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \I STORAGE UN[JER STAIRS EXCEEOS 100 (CUBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \I • I I @ I I I I UP 0 PLAN FOUR FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. I ,-------, ,_L _____ , \ I \ I I_______________ .J \ I \ I \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I 1l PLAN THREE I /\ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORl>JGE UNdlER STAIRS EXCEEll)S 100 <CUBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING \ I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 370 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1769 SQ. FT. BUILDING G I 9-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS I ,-------, ,_L _____ , \ I \ I I_______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 'j PLAN THREE I / I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I STORAGE UNDER STAIRS EXCEBDS 100 CUBIC FEET PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I 370 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1769 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□ FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOT TO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, FNAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USE□ OR DUPUCAlED WITI-IOUT ll-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLEY ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. PLAN TWO FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT. 612 SQ. FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. r-----------------�-------- ,-------, ,-------, I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ PLAN TWO / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I - - - 7 STORAGE UNDER STAIRS___ i EXCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEET - - -...1.1 -•- r r f'TTr'rTr'l'-r-r-�c;;;;;;;;,�,--,,---1---1,1 II II I I I I I II I I I I r-- 7 I I I I I I I I L --.J I I I r--,- - .).. J-.L .JI __ .)..7L - -.J RAGE UNDER STAIRS EEDS 100 CUBICfElof _ - - UP I PLAN ONE I - - , r .J L __________________________ .J PLAN ONE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING • • 90 SQ. FT. 521 SQ. FT. 523 SQ. FT. 1134 SQ. FT. ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° B A L C O N Y 1 1 ' - 1 " x 7 ' - 9 " 90° B A L C O N Y 1 1 ' - 1 " x 7 ' - 9 " 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R PLAN THREE 90° 90° P L A N T H R E E 90°90°PLAN ONE PLAN TWOx P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . PLAN TWOxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT.612 SQ. FT.656 SQ. FT.1362 SQ. FT. P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PLAN THREEFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 382 S Q . F T . 667 S Q . F T . 732 S Q . F T . 1781 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G G | 9 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° D N W / D L I N E N 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° D N SEAT 90° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90°90°90°45°45°45°90°90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N T H R E E P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R PLAN THREE 90° 90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° P L A N T H R E E DNW/DLINEN 90°90°90°90°90°DN SEAT90°90°90°90°45°45°45°PLAN ONE PLAN TWOx P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . PLAN TWOxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT.612 SQ. FT.656 SQ. FT.1362 SQ. FT. P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PLAN THREEFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 382 S Q . F T . 667 S Q . F T . 732 S Q . F T . 1781 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 7 0 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 6 9 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G G | 9 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R -.�, -• I" -!' - II' -• -ii = • REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0" FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0" 02.13.20 BUILDING G I 9-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, 'S:&$ C L 1-------------------------i:---f:-:-�\., t 1--- 1 ·----cL NII NII T.O.PL. • • T.O.WIN. b ' OJ T.O.FL. -.. woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 ' c,. 11 1 RIGHT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ROOF PLAN Iii T----- 1 I --�-----------� ------, .L------ Iii '-SCALE: l /4" = l '-0" '------- ,--------, I I I I .------' I ---------' ._ _________ _, ------�------· -------�------' I '-SCALE: l /8" = l '-0" "�----- LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING G I 9-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS ____________ .....,......, ______ _ " Ji.:. �· --a...' 'I -4...:o, '-� � IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, ,, '-SCALE: l /4" = l'-0'' "------ • • -.. woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 02. l 3.20 r-------------, --------,--------- r-------, r-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I PLAN FOURx I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I r--,-- STORAGEI UNDER ISTAIRS I I I ,-------1 ,_L _____ 1 \ I \ I I _______________ .J \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I l PLAN THREE \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I I I I EXCEEDS 100 CU�IC FEET --, --7 L __ LJ _.J ® � PLAN FOURx FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I• -I I I I - --'- 7 363 SQ. FT. 754 SQ. FT. 839 SQ. FT. 1956 SQ. FT. STORAGE UNIDER STAIRS EXCEEDS 100 l(:UBIC FEET --- PLAN THREE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 382 SQ. FT. 667 SQ. FT. 732 SQ. FT. 1781 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \I PLAN FOUR I/ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I STORAGE UNIDER STAIRS EXCEEDS 100 l(:UBIC FEET I I I I I I I I I I • I I ® I I "� PLAN FOUR FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. r------------, I I I I ---------,-------- ,-------, ,-------, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1j.___P_LA_N_FO_U_R __.I / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I --,--7 \ I \ I \ I STORA',GE UN1DER STAIRS EXCE9DS 100 f:UBIC FE I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I • I I ® I I I I � PLAN FOUR FIRST FLOOR 382 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 754 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 839 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1975 SQ. FT. BUILDING H I 6-PLEX I FIRST FLOOR LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS PLAN TWO FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR TOTAL LIVING 94 SQ. FT. 612SQ.FT. 656 SQ. FT. 1362 SQ. FT. r-----------------�----------, 1 I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ PLAN TWO / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I ___ , STORAGE UNDER STAIRS ___ 1 EXCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEET - - -..L1 -1-r r t,T,..,-Tl"-rTr-�c;;;;;;;;,�,--,,---1---1,1 I I II I I 11 I II I I I I r - -7 I I I I I I I I L - - 0 I I Ir --, --.).. J-.J.. .J I __ .)..7L - - .J RAGE UNDER STAIRS EEDS 100 CUBIC fEloT _ I I I I I -I - - UP 2 --··· = ·--· -E ---�£j PLAN ONE� __ , r .J L __________________________ .J PLAN ONE FIRST FLOOR 90 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 521 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR 523 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1134 SQ. FT. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDE□FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMNARY STUDIES ONL y AND ARE NOTTO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH M, Fr-lAL PLOTTNG OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT w=mEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. lHESE DRAWINGS MAY NOl BE USE□OR DUPUCAlED WITI--IOUlll-iE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOCOLEY ARCHrTECJURAL GROUP, INC. • • ,. ,; woodleY. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullmon st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R P L A N T H R E E PLAN FOURx P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N T H R E E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 8 1 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. F T . 754 SQ. F T . 839 SQ. F T . 1956 SQ. F T . P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G H | 6 - P L E X | S E C O N D F L O O R 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 45° 45° 45° 90° 45° 45° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90°90° 90° 45°45° 45° 90° 90° 90°45°45°90°90°90°90°90° P L A N O N E P L A N T W O P L A N F O U R P L A N F O U R P L A N T H R E E PLAN FOURx P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . P L A N O N E F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 0 S Q . F T . 5 2 1 S Q . F T . 5 2 3 S Q . F T . 1 1 3 4 S Q . F T . P L A N F O U R F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 7 5 4 S Q . F T . 8 3 9 S Q . F T . 1 9 7 5 S Q . F T . PL A N T H R E E FIR S T F L O O R SE C O N D F L O O R THI R D F L O O R TO T A L L I V I N G 3 8 2 S Q . F T . 6 6 7 S Q . F T . 7 3 2 S Q . F T . 1 7 8 1 S Q . F T . PLAN FOURxFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORTOTAL LIVING 363 SQ. FT.754 SQ. FT.839 SQ. FT.1956 SQ. FT. P L A N T W O F I R S T F L O O R S E C O N D F L O O R T H I R D F L O O R T O T A L L I V I N G 9 4 S Q . F T . 6 1 2 S Q . F T . 6 5 6 S Q . F T . 1 3 6 2 S Q . F T . L I N C O L N | T O F F O L I I N V E S T M E N T S g r o u p , i n c a r c h i t e c t u r a l w o o d l e y c o l o r a d o / / 7 3 1 s o u t h p a r k d r . s u i t e B l i t t l e t o n , c o 8 0 1 2 0 / 3 0 3 6 8 3 . 7 2 3 1 c a l i f o r n i a / / 2 9 4 3 p u l l m a n s t . s u i t e A s a n t a a n a , c a 9 2 7 0 5 / 9 4 9 5 5 3 . 8 9 1 9 T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E I N T E N D E D F O R D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y S T U D I E S O N L Y A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D F O R A N Y O T H E R P U R P O S E , S U C H A S F I N A L P L O T T I N G O R F I N A L E N G I N E E R I N G . C O P Y R I G H T W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . T H E S E D R A W I N G S M A Y N O T B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F W O O D L E Y A R C H I T E C T U R A L G R O U P , I N C . 02.13.20 N O T E : S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M A Y V A R Y B A S E D O N C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S A N A H E I M , C A L I F O R N I A B U I L D I N G H | 6 - P L E X | T H I R D F L O O R 1 REAR ELEVATION � • ·\'Ip, � ,'.',. .. ' .x� �. :r - FRONT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ' •- � ' � . � -·.;.i:::_ >\' _(: 7 '�· --� SCALE: 1 /4" = l'-0" SCALE: 1 /4" = l '-0" BUILDING H I 6-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, T.O.PL. LO.WIN. T.O.FLI T.O.PL. 0 • • -.. woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana. ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 RIGHT ELEVATION 02.13.20 ROOF PLAN Iii Iii Iii Iii °'\. SCALE: 1 /4" = l '-0" I L -------T-----� '_r----� I I I ----------' r'------- LEFT ELEVATION BUILDING H I 6-PLEX LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY 8ASED ON CALCULATION METHODS °'\. SCALE: 1 /8" = l'-0" IHtSt L>kAWINGS A�t INltNLJl::l) ro� LJblGN LJt\itLOPMtNI ANlJ n:tll,',11NA�� SIULJltS ONLY ANLJ A!s't NOi 10 �t UStlJ t-()� ANY OIHt� PUkPOSt, SUCH AS CINAL PLO I I ING Ok HNAL tNGINUklNG, COc'YKIGHI WOOL>Lt:Y A�CdlltCIUkAL G�OUP, INC. IHt:;t LJKAWINGO MAr NOi �t 1/SUJ (_)� LJIJPLIC.Altl) WIIHOU I I Ht tXP�tSS W�ll ltN Pt�MISOION or WOCULtY AkCHlltCIU�AL G�OUP, INC, =v �==�±=:==:::=:::::::!�==!ct� �=L-� �, �·.._, -'-� _J-. - • • -.. woodlev. architectural group,1nc colorado // 731 southpark dr. suite B littleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california // 2943 pullman st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 iiii ii11 1■11 ii11 !�'' 1■11 FRONT ELEVATION -BUILDING B iii iii,., iii !�• ,., □ □ FRONT ELEVATION -BUILDING G 02.13.20 ,., i�i ,., iii iii ,., ---. STREET FRONTAGE EXHIBIT •• �� •• llii 11ii ,, .. '\.. SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0" '\.. SCALE: l /4" = l '-0" LINCOLN I TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY BASED ON CALCULATION METHODS T.O.PL. T.O.FL. T.O.PL. T.O.WIN. --' b -' co T.O.FL. T.O.PL. T.O.WIN. --tj> � co T.O.SLAB THESE DRAWINGS ARE INlENDED FOR DESK;N DEVELOPM8'JT AND PRELL'v\NARY STUDIES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USB) FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. SUCH Af, FNAL PLOTING OR FNAL ENG NEERING. COPYRIGHT WOODLEY ARCHllECTURAL GROUP, NC. THESE DRAWINGS MAY NOT BE USED OR DUPLJCAlED WITHOUT ll-,E EXPRl:55 WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WOODLEY ARCHrTECI\JRAf_ GROUP, INC. FRONT ELEVATION -BUILDING B FIRST STORY AREA: AREA OF DOORS: AREA OF WINDOWS: REMAINING WALL AREA: AREA OF STUCCO: 806 SQUARE FEET 96 SQUARE FEET 136 SQUARE FEET 574 SQUARE FEET 113.8 SQUARE FEET (SHOWN WITH DIAGONAL HATCH) BLANK WALL PERCENTAGE: 19.8% REMAINDER OF WALL IS STONE VENEER OR SIDING FRONT ELEVATION -BUILDING G FIRST STORY AREA: AREA OF DOORS: AREA OF WINDOWS: REMAINING WALL AREA: AREA OF STUCCO: 1423 SQUARE FEET 168 SQUARE FEET 232 SQUARE FEET 1023 SQUARE FEET 260.9 SQUARE FEET (SHOWN WITH DIAGONAL HATCH) BLANK WALL PERCENTAGE: 25.5% REMAINDER OF WALL IS STONE VENEER OR SIDING • • T.O.PL. --9 b-. co T.O.FL. T PL T.O.WIN. - 9 � T.O.FL. T.O.PL. T.O.WIN. T.O.SLAB woodley architectural group,1nc colorado // 73 l southpark dr. suite B liltleton, co 80120 / 303 683.7231 california / / 2943 pull man st. suite A santa ana, ca 92705 / 949 553.8919 D A N A P O I N T C A 9 2 6 2 9 3 4 1 9 7 C O A S T H W Y S U I T E 2 0 0 ( 9 4 9 ) 4 4 3 - 1 4 4 6 S U M M E R S / M U R P H Y & P A R T N E R S , I N C . E N V I R O N M E N T A L D E S I G N S h e e t 1 o f 2 P r e l i m i n a r y L a n d s c a p e P l a n ANAHEIM - LINCOLN AVEN U E | Toffoli Investments, LLC | 3 Hughes | Irvine, CA 92618 | June 26, 2020 N O R T H S C A L E : 1 " = ' - 0 " 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 IRRIGATION NOTESTHE PLANT PALETTE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS FOR THE AVANTI RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY HAVE BEENDESIGNED TO ENSURE MAXIMUM WATER CONSERVATION. CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TOSELECTING PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE DROUGHT-TOLERANT WHILE MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OFTHE OVERALL COMMUNITY. IRRIGATION PRACTICES EMPLOYING STATE-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT ENSURETHAT WATER IS BEING CONSUMED CONSERVATIVELY.IRRIGATION SYSTEMS CONFORM TO THE STATE'S WATER CONSERVATION ASSEMBLY BILL 325 AND THECITY OF ANAHEIM WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCES.ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH A PERMANENT, UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC SYSTEM.IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE SEPARATED FOR TURF AND SHRUB AREAS.IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL HAVE 100% IRRIGATION COVERAGE.WATER-SAVING EQUIPMENT SUCH AS FLOW SENSORS, MOISTURE SENSORS, AND IRRIGATION PROGRAMUSING CIMIS (CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM) DATA WILL BE INCLUDED.PLANT LEGENDARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREECUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENSITALIAN CYPRESSERIOBOTRYA JAPONICA LOQUATGEIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRALIAN WILLOWGINKGO BILOBAMAIDENHAIR TREEJACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDAKOELREUTERIA PANICULATA GOLDENRAIN TREELAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CRAPE MYRTLELIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA TULIP TREELOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOXMAGNOLIA G. 'MAGESTIC BEAUTY' MAJESTIC BEAUTY MAGNOLIAPARKINSONIA 'DESERT MUSEUM' PALO VERDEPHOENIX CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND DATE PALMPHOENIX DACTYLIFERA DATE PALMPISTACIA CHINESIS CHINESE PISTACHEPODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINERHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC TREES:SHRUBS:ACACIA REDOLENS DESERT CARPET DESERT CARPETACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM COMMON YARROWAGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS (WHITE & BLUE) LILY OF THE NILEALOGYNE HUEGEII BLUE HIBISCUSCALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSHCEANOTHUS GRISEUS VAR. HORIZONTALIS CARMEL CREEPER CEANOTHUSCERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUDCISTUS HYBRIDUS WHITE ROCKROSECISTUS X PURPUREUS ORCHID ROCKROSEDIANELLA REVOLUTA BLACK ANTHER FLAX LILYDODONAEA VISCOSA HOPSEED BUSHELAEAGNUS PUNGENS SILVERBERRYESCALLONIA FRADESII PINK PRINCESS ESCALLONIAFEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVAGREWIA OCCIDENTALIS STARFLOWERHEMEROCALLIS CULTIVARS (EVERGREEN VARIETY) DAYLILYHESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCAHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYONLANTANA CAMARA YELLOW SAGELANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS TRAILING LANTANALEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS TEXAS RANGERLIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM TEXAS PRIVETMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASSNANDINA SPP. HEAVENLY BAMBOONANDINA DOMESTICA 'NANA' DWARF HEAVENLY BAMBOONERIUM OLEANDER OLEANDERPHOTINIA FRASERI FRASER PHOTINIAPITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'WHEELER'S DWARF' WHEELER'S DWARF TOBIRAPODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' SHRUBBY YEW PINEPRUNUS CAROLINIANA CAROLINA CHERRY LAURELRHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA INDIAN HAWTHORNERHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRYROSA 'ICEBERG' ICEBERG ROSEROSA 'MEINEBLE' SHRUB ROSEROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ROSEMARYSALVIA GREGGII AUTUMN SAGESANTOLINA VIRENS GREEN LAVENDER COTTONSTRELITZIA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISESTRELITZIA REGINAE BIRD OF PARADISETECOMA STANS YELLOW BELLSTRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINEWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COASTAL ROSEMARYXYLOSMA CONGESTUM SHINY XYLOSMAAGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVEAGAVE DESMETTIANA SMOOTH AGAVEAGAVE VILMORINIANA OCTOPUS AGAVEALOE VERA MEDICINAL ALOESENECIO MANDRALISCAE KLEINIA SUCCULENT / CACTUS:AJUGA REPTANS CARPET BUGLEBACCHARIS P. 'TWIN PEAKS' COYOTE BRUSHCARISSA G. 'GREEN CARPET' GREEN CARPET NATAL PLUMCOPROSMA KIRKII CREEPING COPROSMAFRAGARIA CHILOENSIS WILD STRAWBERRY/SAND STAWBERRYGAZANIA HYBRIDS SOUTH AFRICAN DAISYMYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM CREEPING MYOPORUMPELARGONIUM PELTATUM IVY GERANIUMSENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKSTECOMARIA CAPENSIS CAPE HONEYSUCKLE GROUND COVER: L E G E N D 1 . E N T R Y D R I V E 2 . C O M M U N I T Y G A T H E R I N G S P A C E W / O P T I O N A L S H A D E S T R U C T U R E , B B Q C O U N T E R A N D P I C N I C T A B L E S 3 . P A S S I V E O P E N S P A C E 4 . T O T L O T P L A Y A R E A 5 . L O W F E A T U R E W A L L & P I L A S T E R S 6 . P E D E S T R I A N E N T R Y W A L K S W / C O N C R E T E S T E P S 7 . M A I L B O X C L U S T E R 8 . B I K E R A C K S 9 . 8 ' H T . V I N Y L P E R I M E T E R F E N C I N G ( N O R T H & W E S T S I D E S ) - R E F E R T O D E T A I L E L E V A T I O N B E L O W 1 0 . E X I S T I N G B L O C K W A L L ( E A S T S I D E O N L Y ) 1 1 . G A T E A C C E S S DISTICTIS BUCCINATORIA RED TRUMPET VINEHARDENBERGIA COMPTONIANA LILAC VINELONICERA JAPONICA 'HALLIANA' HALL'S JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE VINES: 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 8 7 7 8 9 9 1 0 1 . D O M E D C A P 2 . 2 X 7 T O P & B O T T O M R A I L 3 . 5 X 5 V I N Y L P O S T 4 . 6 " T O N G U E & G R O O V E 5 . F I N I S H G R A D E 6 . 8 X 2 4 D O M E D C O N C R E T E F O O T I N G - R E F E R T O S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R ' S D R A W I N G S N O T E : V I N Y L M A T E R I A L & C O L O R T O B E ' A L M O N D ' O R A P P R O V E D B Y O W N E R L E G E N D 8 ' - 0 " 2'-0" S E C T I O N / E L E V A T I O N V I E W S C A L E : 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " S E C T I O N V I E W S C A L E : 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 6 5 8'-0" V I N Y L P E R I M E T E R F E N C E 1 1 6 L E G E N D 1 . C O M M U N I T Y G A T H E R I N G S P A C E W / O P T I O N A L S H A D E S T R U C T U R E , B B Q C O U N T E R A N D P I C N I C T A B L E S 2 . P A S S I V E O P E N S P A C E 3 . T O T L O T P L A Y A R E A 4 . L O W F E A T U R E W A L L & P I L A S T E R S 5 . B I K E R A C K S 6 . C O L O R E D C O N C R E T E P A V I N G A T S H A R E D C O U R T S & P E D E S T R I A N C R O S S W A L K S ( T Y P . ) 6 6 2 1 3 4 5 2 D A N A P O I N T C A 9 2 6 2 9 3 4 1 9 7 C O A S T H W Y S U I T E 2 0 0 ( 9 4 9 ) 4 4 3 - 1 4 4 6 S U M M E R S / M U R P H Y & P A R T N E R S , I N C . E N V I R O N M E N T A L D E S I G N S h e e t 2 o f 2 S h a r e d D r i v e & R e c A r e a E n l a r g e m e n t ANAHEIM - LINCOLN AVEN U E | Toffoli Investments, LLC | 3 Hughes | Irvine, CA 92618 | June 26, 2020 N O R T H S C A L E : 1 " = ' - 0 " 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 Nicholas J. Taylor From:Alice Ivan Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 7:29 PM To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:65 unit Subdivision 208 north beach boulevard NO Anaheim needs to make Bel air a cul de sac or barriers for not a through street! We will not accept more traffic coming down our street trying to take shortcuts to get home. We already get enough traffic and people parking from the apartments on Lincoln. Anahein has permit parking and they all park in Buena Park! This will only bring down value of homes in Anaheim and Buena Park. The neighborhood Is already begining to look like santa Ana ATTACHMENT NO. 9 1 Elly Morris From:Amanda Edinger <aedinger@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 5:06 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Jodie Mosley; Phyllis Greenberg; Tracy Urueta; Kathy Tran; Nathan Zug; Sally Feldhaus; Gloria Maae; Rod Pierson; tdogg1304 Subject:Item 5 Planning Commission Members, I would like to extend my support for item 5 on the planning agenda‐208 S Beach Blvd. I was a member of the Beach Blvd Specific Plan Committee and am pleased to see phase 1 of 39 Commons come to fruition. I’m hopeful that the commercial component follows shortly. Beach and Lincoln has long been a source of blight and this is a first step to a badly needed transformation of this corridor. Thank you. Amanda Edinger NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 1 Elly Morris From:jodiemosley <jodiemosley@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 5:54 PM To:Amanda Edinger; Planning Commission Cc:Phyllis Greenberg; Tracy Urueta; Kathy Tran; Nathan Zug; Sally Feldhaus; Gloria Maae; Rod Pierson; tdogg1304 Subject:RE: Item 5 I am in complete agreement with Amanda. We have waited so long for 39 Commons. I really believe this will begin to turn this area around. I envision restaurants, rooftop breweries, great shopping, safe areas for the community to go. We need this asap. Thank you, Jodie Mosley Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone. -------- Original message -------- From: Amanda Edinger <aedinger@sbcglobal.net> Date: 8/16/20 5:06 PM (GMT-08:00) To: planningcommission@anaheim.net Cc: Jodie Mosley <jodiemosley@yahoo.com>, Phyllis Greenberg <phylgreenberg@gmail.com>, Tracy Urueta <tracy.urueta@yahoo.com>, Kathy Tran <mimozat4@yahoo.com>, Nathan Zug <nzug7@yahoo.com>, Sally Feldhaus <sally4frank@gmail.com>, Gloria Maae <gloriamaae@gmail.com>, Rod Pierson <rodpierson@hotmail.com>, Tiffany Randel <tdogg1304@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Item 5 Planning Commission Members, I would like to extend my support for item 5 on the planning agenda-208 S Beach Blvd. I was a member of the Beach Blvd Specific Plan Committee and am pleased to see phase 1 of 39 Commons come to fruition. I’m hopeful that the commercial component follows shortly. Beach and Lincoln has long been a source of blight and this is a first step to a badly needed transformation of this corridor. Thank you. Amanda Edinger NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 2 Thank you. Amanda Edinger New Correspondence No. 3 New Correspondence Item 3 the commissioners drive around this location on a weekend or weekday evening and observe the parking conditions for yourself. West Anaheim is in need of many things. More apartments are not one of them. Thank you, Amanda Edinger West Anaheim Resident New Correspondence Item 3 200 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: AUGUST 31, 2020 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 LOCATION: This property is located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue (3175 West Ball Road). APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is Sarkis Tatarian. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following zoning entitlements: 1) A General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential; 2) A Zoning Reclassification from the C-G (General Commercial) zone to the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone; 3) An Administrative Adjustment to allow reduced front landscape and interior structural setbacks for a 3-story, 11 -unit apartment complex. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to allow the applicant to prepare a landscape plan and provide architectural revisions recommended by staff. These issues related to the architecture and landscaping are described in more detail in the Analysis section below. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may recommend City Council approval of the project, subject to Planning Commission review of landscape and architectural plans as a Reports & Recommendations (R&R) item. Draft resolutions have been provided should the Commission decide to take this approach. The attached resolutions include appropriate findings for determining that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act, and recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND: This 0.36-acre vacant property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial zone and was formerly a service station. The site is designated for General Commercial land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding uses include multiple-family residential to the north and east, commercial and multiple-family residential across Ball Road to the south, and a medical office and multiple-family residential across Western Avenue to the west. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct an 11-unit, three-story apartment building using the RM-4 zone development standards. The proposed apartment building would include a 27-space parking garage on the ground floor with ingress and egress from Ball Road, and two floors of residential units above the first floor parking garage. The residential units would include ten two-bedroom units ranging between approximately 876 to 945 square feet and one one- bedroom unit at 707 square feet. A corner cut-off right-of-way dedication, demolition of existing driveways, and construction of new sidewalks would be included with this project. Site Plan Ball Road We s t e r n A v e n u e GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Recreational-Leisure Area: A total of 4,216 square feet of recreational area is proposed in the common area where 2,200 square feet is required. Common area improvements would include an interior common court area and a recreation room. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation for each requested entitlement action: General Plan Amendment: The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan is the guide for the City’s future development. It designates the distribution and location of specific land uses and establishes the permitted densities for each land use designation. The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the property from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential land uses, which allows up to 36 dwelling units per acre. Because this project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment and zoning reclassification, the City Council will be the final reviewing body for this project, and the Planning Commission’s task is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested entitlements. Before the Planning Commission recommends 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 Land Use Element describes the Medium Density Residential designation as providing for the development quality multiple-family residential uses, with amenities such as private open space or recreation areas, businesses services, or swimming pools, etc. The permitted density range is from zero to 36 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed project would have a density of 30.6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed modification to the General Plan also supports the following General Plan policies intended to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs: o Goal 1.1: Preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of unique neighborhoods. o Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 7 o Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses. o Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development. Staff believes that consideration of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site to a residential land use is appropriate. The project site is adjacent to an existing multiple-family residential neighborhood to the north and east, and across Ball Road and Western Avenue to the south and west, respectively. Staff believes that the requested Medium Density Residential land use designation would be compatible with, and complementary to, these surrounding multiple- family land uses, as well as the commercial land uses. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested General Plan Amendment to the City Council. Reclassification: The property is zoned “C-G” General Commercial. The project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential as described above, and the implementing zone would be “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential. The proposed multiple-family residential use would be permitted by right in the RM-4 zone. Accordingly, the applicant proposes to reclassify the property. Staff supports this request because the proposed RM-4 zone would implement the proposed Medium Density Residential land use designation. Administrative Adjustment: The applicant requests an administrative adjustment to allow for street and interior setbacks less than required by the Municipal Code. The Planning Director has review authority over Administrative Adjustments, but may refer any application to the Planning Commission for review. Since the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification must be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Planning Director has referred the Administrative Adjustment to the Commission to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project . To recommend approval of an Administrative Adjustment, the Planning Commission must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The adjustment is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Code; 2) The same or similar result cannot be achieved by using provisions in the Code that do not require the adjustment; and 3) The adjustment will not produce a result that is out of character or detrimental to the neighborhood. The proposed project requires 20-foot wide landscape and structural setbacks along Ball Road and Western Avenue ; however, 16-foot wide landscape setbacks are proposed. Additionally, 20-foot interior setbacks are required, while an 18-foot wide setback is proposed along the east property line. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 7 • Street Setbacks: The applicant requests a 20 percent deviation for the setbacks along Ball Road and Western Avenue (south and west setbacks), where 20-foot landscape and structural setbacks are required and 16-feet would be provided. Staff reviewed the setbacks of nearby apartment buildings and found that the parcels are all larger than the project site, and many have nonconforming street setbacks based upon the current Code requirements, typically ranging between 10 and 15 feet. The applicant proposes a 16-foot setback in addition to a corner cut-off dedication, and new right -of-way improvements including demolishing existing driveways and constructing new sidewalks. Interior Setback: The applicant requests a 10 percent deviation the in east setback, where 20-foot setbacks are required and 18 feet is proposed. Staff believes the reduced interior setback could be justified with adequate landscaping for screening and privacy, because there would be adequate separation from the adjacent residential land uses and new landscaping would be installed. Staff has included a condition of approval in the draft resolution which requires the property owner to maintain the landscaping in perpetuity. Landscaping: Landscape plans have not been provided as part of this application. Staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant to provide a conceptual landscape plan to ensure that there will sufficient landscaping to create an adequate buffer on the interior property line with the reduced setbacks, as well as lush landscaping to enhance the street corner. Staff believes with appropriate the provision of landscaping, the project will meet the criteria for the described Administrative Adjustment requests. Architecture: The City has long recognized the importance of community appearance and identity to its vitality, economic health and overall quality of life. In addition, to meet the requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code, the project is encouraged to follow certain design standards for new construction, as described in the City’s General Plan, Community Design Element. The standards for multi ple-family development described in the Community Design Element highlight strategies to accommodate higher density housing that retains a neighborhood feel, contributes to the character of the surrounding streetscape and provides a quality residential environment that is safe and attractive. In reviewing the proposed project architecture shown below, staff provided comments to the applicant for potential enhancements to building form and massing, fenestration, articulation, and materials (see Attachment 12, Planning Comment Memo). While it is not expected that these potential enhancements to the building façade would impact the building footprint, they would achieve a better quality design that is more consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 August 31, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Proposed Elevation Staff recommends continuing the item until architectural plans addressing staff’s comments are submitted. This would allow the Planning Commission, and, subsequently, the City Council to review the project comprehensively. The project architect did not address these comments prior to this meeting indicating that he was unable to return to the U.S. due to travel restrictions during the current global pandemic. Though contrary to staff’s recommendation for continuance, the Planning Commission has the discretion to recommend that the City Council approve the project. As such, staff has included a draft condition of approval in Attachment 5 requiring Planning Commission review of a landscape plan and revised architectural elevations as an R&R item in the future. The applicant has agreed to this condition of approval, but is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the GPA, Reclassification, and Administrative Adjustment to the City Council so that the project may move forward. Affordable Housing: Although the City Council has adopted a policy emphasizing the importance of affordable housing, the developer has not proposed any affordable units. This project was submitted in 2016, two years prior to the adoption of Council’s policy in 2018; therefore, it is not subject to this policy. The developer met with staff to discuss affordable options, but believes that the housing product offered will be an affordable alternative to tenants, and could be considered “workforce housing.” Environmental Impact Analysis: An Initial Study in support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to identify necessary mitigation pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND and the IS were circulated to public agencies and interested parties on July 9, 2020, for a 20-day comment period. Staff received three comment letters during the 20-day comment period for the NOI. Attachment 8 provides copies of the comment letters and responses to these comments. None of the comments received resulted in the need to recirculate the MND or to prepare an environmental impact report. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 August 31, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Mitigation measures have been identified in the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 371, attached to this report. These mitigation measures relate to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, tribal and cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission include the mitigation measures as conditions of approval in the attached draft resolutions for the proposed project. With implementation of these measures, the IS/MND concluded that project impacts will be reduced to levels considered less than significant and there would be no remaining potentially significant adverse impacts related to the project. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends a continuance to ensure that the Planning Commission can comprehensively review the project to ensure building design quality and the provision of appropriate landscaping in conformance with the General Plan Community Design Element guidelines. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor , AICP Niki Wetzel, AICP Associate Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Development Summary 2. Draft MND Resolution 3. Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution 4. Draft Reclassification Resolution 5. Draft Administrative Adjustment Resolution 6. Draft IS/MND 7. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 371 8. Final IS/MND, Comment Letters and Response to Comments 9. Letter of Request 10. Project Justification Letter 11. Project Plans 12. Planning Comment Memo, March 18, 2020 C-G DEV 2016 -00074 VACANT RS-2 AGRICULTURE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T RELIGIOUS USE RM-3 APTS 13 DU RM-4 APTS 23 DU RM-4 APTS 8 DU T OFFICES RM-4 APTS 15 DU RM-4 APARTMENTS 52 DU RM-4 APARTMENTS 43 DU T SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T VACANT T SF R RM-3 CONDOS 16 DU RM-3 APARTMENTS 18 DU C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL RS-2 SF R RM-4 APARTMENTS 18 DU RM-2 CONDOMINIUMS 18 DU T SF R 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 RM-2 TOWN HOMES 14 DU RM-4 APTS 21 DU RM-4 APARTMENTS 45 DU RM-4 APTS 18 DU RM-2 APTS 16 DU RM-2 APTS 8 DU RM-2 APTS 6 DURM-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2 SF R RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE W BA LL R D S W E S T E R N A V E W T ER AN IM AR D R S C O U R T R I G H T S T W R AV EN SW OOD D R S R A M B L E W O O D D R S H A R D I N G A V E W G L EN H OL LY D R W. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S . D A L E A V E S . K N O T T A V E . CERRITO S AVE S . B E A C H B L V D .BALL R D W. CERRITOS AVE 3 1 7 5 W e s t B a ll R o a d D E V N o . 2 0 1 6 -0 0 0 7 4 Subject Property APN: 079-882-34 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o: Ma y 2 01 9 W BA LL R DS W E S T E R N A V E W T ER AN IM AR D R S C O U R T R I G H T S T W R AV EN SW OOD D R S R A M B L E W O O D D R S H A R D I N G A V E W G L EN H OL LY D R W D ONOVAN RAN CH RD S N E V E E N L N W. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S . D A L E A V E S . K N O T T A V E . CERRITO S AVE S . B E A C H B L V D .BALL R D W. CERRITOS AVE 3 1 7 5 W e s t B a ll R o a d D E V N o . 2 0 1 6 -0 0 0 7 4 Subject Property APN: 079-882-34 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o: Ma y 2 01 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Development Standard Proposed Project RM-4 Standards Site Area 0.36 acres 5 acres Density 30.6 du/ac 36 du/ac max. Lot Area 15,863 square feet 13,200 square feet min. Lot Width 100 feet 70 feet Floor Area 1-bed: 707 sq. ft.; 2-bed: 876-945 sq. ft. 1-bed 700 s. ft.; 2-bed: 825 minimum Lot Coverage 52.9% 55% maximum Street Setback 16-feet 20-feet Interior Setback 18-feet 20-feet Building to Building setback N/A 40-feet (3-story) Parking 27 spaces 27 spaces [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 -1- PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 (DEV2018-00074) (3175 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 to construct an 11-unit apartment building with reduced street and interior setbacks (the "Proposed Project"), for that certain real property generally located at the northeast corner of Ball road and Western Avenue and commonly referred to as 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.36 acres in size and is currently vacant. The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for General Commercial land uses. The Property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone. The development standards and regulations of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") shall apply to the Proposed Project, pursuant to approval of Reclassification No. 2016-00297, now pending; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is to construct an 11-unit apartment building with reduced street and interior setbacks subject to Administrative Adjustment No. 2019-05127 by the Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 18.06.030 (Uses), of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of the Code; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 is to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2016-00297 is to reclassify the property from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-family Residential Zone; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act -related provisions of Executive Order N- 25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and -2- PC2020-*** WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 31, 2020, 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 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on July 9, 2020, and was also made available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning and Building Department of the City located on the First Floor of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (b) those individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the Proposed Project (herein referred to as "MMRP No. 371"). A complete copy of MMRP No. 371 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City intends and desires to use the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental documentation required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, based upon a thorough review of the Proposed Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including MMRP No. 371 and the comments received to date and the responses prepared, the Planning Commission, based upon a thorough review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related documents and the evidence received concerning the Mitigated Negative Declaration, does find and determine as follows: -3- PC2020-*** 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual and, together with MMRP No. 371, serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Proposed Project; 2. That it has carefully reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period) prior to acting upon the Proposed Project; 3. Based upon the record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impacts upon the environment with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in MMRP No. 371 and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission, pursuant to the above findings and based upon a thorough review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the evidence received to date, does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period) and find and determine as follows: 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual and, together with MMRP No. 371, serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Proposed Project; 2. Based upon the record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), that the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in MMRP No. 371 and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; 3. That the Planning Commission approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP No. 371; and 4. That the Planning Commission authorize and direct City staff to file with the Clerk of the County of Orange a Notice of Determination in accordance with Section 15075(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. -4- PC2020-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 2020. 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 August 31, 2020, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31 st day of August, 2020. ____________________________________ SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5- PC2020-*** -6- PC2020-*** EXHIBIT B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 371 Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Biological Resources MM-BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, and/or building permit for activities during the avian nesting season (i.e., February 1 and September 1), the property owner/developer shall submit a survey for active nests to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department conducted by a qualified biologist a maximum of 1 week prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project Site. The nesting bird survey shall consist of full coverage of the project footprint and an appropriate buffer, as determined by the biologist. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) shall be established around any active nest. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field by the biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the City of Anaheim within 5 days after the survey. Submittal/ review of nesting bird survey X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department Cultural Resources MM-CUL-1 If skeletal remains are uncovered during construction activities, all work shall stop immediately and the construction supervisor in charge at the Project Site shall notify the County Coroner of the find immediately, in conformance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall notify a most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials subject to City approval. N/A X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department -7- PC2020-*** Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Geology and Soils MM-GEO-1 The property owner/developer shall implement all recommendations in the approved Geotechnical Investigation report for the Proposed Project during site preparation, grading, and construction, and compliance with the approved Geotechnical Investigation shall be verified in the field by a qualified representative. The property owner/developer shall demonstrate to the City of Anaheim’s Planning & Building Department and/or Public Works Department staff that all or equivalent recommendations in the Preliminary Soil Investigation, Liquefaction Evaluation and Infiltration Test Report. Proposed Two-Story Apartment Complex with Partial Subterranean Parking, 3175 W. Ball Road, City of Anaheim, California, prepared by Soil Exploration Company, Inc. September 12, 2016, or any updates to that report have been incorporated into the Proposed Project’s design and grading plans. Submittal/ review of statement of verification by qualified representative X X City of Anaheim Public Works Department Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM-HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a site-specific Health and Safety Plan to the Planning and Building Department. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall require that the property owner/developer include the following instructions to its construction contractor: “The construction contractor shall use a photoionization detector (PID) to regularly inspect the exposed soil for evidence of any contamination.” These instructions shall be included on all plans pertaining to subsurface construction activities for the Proposed Project. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall identify air monitoring action levels based on the benzene Cal-OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) to protect worker health and safety. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall note measures to be taken if air monitoring in the breathing zone of site workers indicates concentrations above the action levels. These measures could include the use of personal protective equipment, including air purifying respirators, or engineering controls, as well as site perimeter monitoring. Submittal/ review of site- specific Health and Safety Plan to the Planning and Building Department X X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department MM-HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that if potential contamination indicators are identified during excavation based on visual observations and/or air monitoring the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons may be stained or odorous. Stained soil may have bluish to dark gray discoloration. Discoloration may remain even after the product has naturally degraded. If suspect petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils are observed during excavation, the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Evaluation will include collection of Submittal/ review of plans; Submittal/ review of statement indicating whether contamination indicators were identified during X X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department -8- PC2020-*** Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis. The number of samples to be collected will be based on potential disposal facility requirements. If concentrations of TPH and VOCs are below direct exposure human health soil screening levels (Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels), then the soil may remain on-site. If the concentrations exceed the screening levels, then the soil will be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. Visually screening the soil will be accompanied by air monitoring using a photoionization detector (PID) or other organic vapor analyzer. In accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations (specifically Rule 1166), VOC-contaminated soil, if identified at the Project Site during excavation activities, will be properly managed. VOC-contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, consists of soil with concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using a PID calibrated with hexane. If volatile organics are measured at concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using a PID calibrated with hexane, then the excavation, stockpile management, and agency notification shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1166. If identified, VOC-contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, shall be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. excavation and if so, submittal/ review of a memorandum or report summarizing how soil was evaluated and/or removed from site. MM-HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that during construction, should groundwater be encountered and require extraction, any extracted groundwater will be managed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction dewatering, in accordance with existing regulations. The NPDES permit will require monitoring of volatile organic compound concentrations in the extracted groundwater per the Monitoring and Reporting Program developed at the time of issuance of a NPDES permit. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a memorandum or report indicating whether construction dewatering was requiring during site preparation and grading. If construction dewatering is necessary, the Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall identify whether effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations. The Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. Submittal/ review of a memorandum or report indicating whether construction dewatering was requiring during site preparation and grading. If construction dewatering is necessary, the Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall identify whether -9- PC2020-*** Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date If the effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations, the Planning and Building Department shall require that the property owner/developer retain a qualified environmental professional to reevaluate the potential human health risk under the residential scenario based on the effluent VOC concentrations at the end of dewatering. If the qualified environmental consultant determines that the potential human health risk under the residential scenario exceeds de minimis thresholds of one in a million for cancer risk or the non-cancer hazard index risk value of 1.0, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for informing the Planning and Building Department and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in writing of the discovery. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for coordinating with the qualified environmental consultant to ensure that the vapor mitigation noted in Mitigation Measure (MM-) HAZ-4 is designed to sufficiently mitigate vapor impacts to human health and safety of future occupants at the Project Site. effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations. MM-HAZ-4 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department, showing that the property owner/developer has incorporated at least one of following options into the Proposed Project: • Option A: Limiting vapor intrusion into future residences through use of a well-ventilated ground-level garage that is not intended for human occupation; or • Option B: Installation of a sub-slab liner/passive ventilation to limit vapor intrusion to the future residences. Submittal/ review of statement of plans to the Planning and Building Department Noise MM-NOI-1 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer and/or its construction contractor, shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department with notes indicating compliance with the following measures during construction: 1. Construction activities shall be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. In the event that construction is required to extend beyond these times, extended hours permits shall be required. 2. Pumps and associated equipment (e.g., portable generators) shall be shielded from sensitive uses using local temporary noise barriers or enclosures, or shall otherwise be designed or configured so as to minimize noise at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. 3. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any noise- or vibration-sensitive land uses. 4. All noise-producing equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers; air-inlet Submittal/ review of grading/ construction plans X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department -10- PC2020-*** Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date silencers where appropriate; and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. 5. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used for the Project that are regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall be in compliance with regulations. 6. Idling equipment shall be kept to a minimum and moved as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. 7. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where feasible. 8. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise- sensitive receptors. 9. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be used for safety warning purposes only. MM-NOI-2 Prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the Planning and Building Department that effective communication with local residents will be maintained prior to and during construction. Specifically, the property owner/developer or their representative shall inform local residents of the schedule, duration, and progress of the construction. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall provide residents contact information for noise- or vibration-related complaints. Evidence of compliance may include copies of letters and mailing lists for adjacent property owners and residents, photographs of posting of information on site, or any other such information as deemed compliant by the Planning and Building Director and/or his/her designee. Submittal/ review of evidence of compliance City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department MM-NOI-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit final design plans, to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, specifying that windows in habitable rooms will have the following minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings: • Windows with northern and eastern-facing exposures: 19 STC or greater • Windows with southern and western-facing exposures: 25 STC or greater Submittal/ review of final design plans City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department Tribal Cultural Resources MM-TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any grading and/or construction activity, the property owner/developer shall retain a Native American Monitor and a copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Submittal/ review of brief letter report of X City of Anaheim Planning and -11- PC2020-*** Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Planning and Building Department. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the Project Site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the property owner/developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. excavations and findings Building Department -12- PC2020-*** Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Utilities and Service Systems MM-UTL-1 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the property owner/developer shall submit Project plans and a Solid Waste Management Plan to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim to the maximum extent feasible, which shall be determined by the Streets and Sanitation Division. Implementation of said plans shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. Submittal/ review of proof of Project Plans, Submission of Solid Waste Management plan for approval X City of Anaheim Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVE AND ADOPT PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510 (DEV2016-00074) (3175 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510") for certain real property generally located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue and commonly referred to as 3175 West Ball Road 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"), for the purpose of allowing the applicant to construct 11 attached, multiple-family residences ; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.36 acres in size and is located in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone. The development standards and regulations of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") shall apply to the Proposed Project, pursuant to approval of Reclassification No. 2016-00297, now pending. The Property is designated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan for "General Commercial" uses; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 proposes to amend "Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan” of the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan to re-designate the Property from the "General Commercial" to the "Medium Density Residential" land use designation; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 is proposed in conjunction with a request (i) for approval of Reclassification No. 2016-00297 to reclassify the property from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-family Residential Zone; and (ii) approval of Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 to permit a n 11-unit, attached multiple- family residential project with reduced setbacks. General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and - 2 - PC2020-*** WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on July 9, 2020, and was also made available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of the Mit igated Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning and Building Department of the City located on the First Floor of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and WHEREAS, t he City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (b) those individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act -related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 31, 2020, 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 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself, and after due consideration of, and based upon, all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does hereby find: 1. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan, as the proposed modifications to the General Plan are consistent with Goals 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, and 6.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of unique neighborhoods, to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs, to promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, and to enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill development and revit alization of existing development. 2. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the proposed amendment to the Anaheim General Plan wo uld result in residential development - 3 - PC2020-*** opportunities that would be compatible with the existing residential and commercial land uses within the vicinity of the project. 3. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 would maintain the balance of land uses within the City because the proposed amendment would provide quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs and would be would be compatible with and complementary to these surrounding land uses. 4. That the Property to be re-designated by proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 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 because the project is designed to complement the 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 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 considerat ion of all evidence presented to it. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 2020. 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 - PC2020-*** 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 August 31, 2020, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of August, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2020-*** - 6 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4 - 1 - PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2016-00074) (3175 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to rezone or reclassify that certain real property generally located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue and commonly referred to as 3175 West Ball Road 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") from the "C-G" General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple- Family Residential Zone, which reclassification is designated as Reclassification No. 2016-00297; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.36 acres in size and is currently vacant and is located in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for “Neighborhood Center” land uses; and WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2016-00297 is proposed in conjunction with a request (i) General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 to redesignate the property from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential; and (ii) Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 to permit a n 11-unit, attached multiple-family residential project with reduced setbacks. General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act -related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 31, 2020, 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 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and - 2 - PC2020-*** WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for "projects", as that term is defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines a nd the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on July 9, 2020, and was also made available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning and Building Department of the City located on the First Floor of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (b) those individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. Reclassification of the Property from the "C-G" General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple -Family Residential Zone is consistent with the Property’s proposed Medium Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan, now pending. 2. The proposed reclassification of the Property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community and is compatible with the neighboring properties to the north, south, east and west, which are developed with multiple-family residential and commercial land uses because it is a Goal of the General Plan to provide high-quality housing, and the surrounding properties are developled with compatible residential land uses and complementary commercial uses. 3. The proposed reclassification of the Property does properly relate to the zone and its permitted uses locally established in close proximity to the Property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community in that surrounding properties include commercial uses within the “C-G” General Commercial Zone, office uses within the “T” Transition Zone, and multiple-family residential uses in the “RM-4” and Multiple-Family Residential Zones. and; - 3 - PC2020-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2016-00297 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the Propert y into the "RM-4" Multiple-Family Residential Zone and recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2016-00297. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the Propert y; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 2020. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2020-*** 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 August 31, 2020, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of August, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2020-*** [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 5 - 1 - PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2016-00074) (3175 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ("Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Administrative Adjustment No. 2020- 00444 to permit street and interior landscape setbacks less than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") for a future 11-unit apartment complex on that certain real property located at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.36 acres in size and is located in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone. The development standards and regulations of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of the Code shall apply to the Proposed Project, pursuant to approval of Reclassification No. 2016-00297, now pending. The Property is designated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan for "General Commercial" uses; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, to redesignate the property from the General Commercial to the Medium Density land use designation, is proposed in conjunction with a request (i) for approval of Reclassification No. 2016-00297 to reclassify the property from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-fa mily Residential Zone; and (ii) approval of Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 to permit an 11-unit, attached multiple-family residential project with reduced setbacks. General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act -related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 31, 2020, 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 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and - 2 - PC2020-*** WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on July 9, 2020, and was also made available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning and Building Department of the City lo cated on the First Floor of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (b) those individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, paragraph .0101 of Subsection .010 (Setbacks Abutting a Public Street), and Subsection .030 (Setbacks Abutting Interior Property Lines), of Section 18.06.090 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple -Family Residential Zones) of the Code requires the minimum landscaped setbacks in the Multiple -Family Zones abutting an arterial highway, such as Ball Road and Western Avenue, to be twenty (20) feet, "as measured from the ultimate highway right -of-way line as designated on the Circulatio n Element of the General Plan" and structural setbacks in the Multiple -Family Zones abutting any interior property lines to be twenty (20) feet. Because the Proposed Project shows a setback of sixteen (16) feet from the ultimate right -of-way of Ball Road and Western Avenues, and a setback of eighteen (18) feet from the eastern interior property line, the applicant has requested an administrative adjustment from the setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for Administrative Adjustme nt No. 2020-00444 should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.06.090.010.0101 Minimum front landscaped setback. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed adjacent to arterial highways) SECTION NO. 18.06.090.030 Minimum interior setback. (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed) - 3 - PC2020-*** 1. The adjustment is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Code because there will be adequate separation from the adjacent residential land uses and there will be comparable setbacks to properties within the vicinity and will include installation of new landscaping. The proposed project would comply with all other development standards of the RM-4 Zone; and 2. The same or similar result cannot be achieved by using provisions in the Code that do not require the adjustment because the small lot size with two street frontages results in a minimal amount of buildable area on the lot; and 3. The adjustment will not produce a result that is out of character or detrimental to the neighborhood as the proposed multiple-family residential use is a compatible use in the area and similar setbacks currently exist for the adjacent multiple family residential properties. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substant ial 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 this Planning Commission does hereby approve Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval described 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, (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 Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Municipal Code of the City of Anaheim 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 - PC2020-*** 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 2020. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a resolution of the City Council 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 August 31, 2020, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of August, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2020-*** - 6 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 (DEV2016-00074) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 That the developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 2 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, finished floor and pad elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code and the California Building Code, latest edition. Public Works Department, Development Services 3 The final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval to Public Works Development Services Division and comply with the most current requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The WQMP shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/ Significant Redevelopment projects, identify potential sources of pollutants during the long-term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site; define Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control (if applicable) best management practices (BMPs) to control or eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring program to address the long-term implementation of and compliance with the defined BMPs. • The use of the sump pump to transfer DCV from HPDE storage pipe to bioretention with underdrain system is not preferred approach due to potential for failure of sump pump. Pumps are only permitted in extreme cases. In final design phases, applicant must consider the implementation of a gravity based system to rout e stormwater to biotreatment BMPs with the goal of eliminating the sump pump. A potential option would be to incorporate above- ground/raised bioretention with underdrain planters on the west, east and south sides of the residential structure if no other space constraints exist. Public Works Department, Development Services - 7 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT • If storage component (36” HDPE) is still proposed in final design, applicant must adjust overflow invert to ensure the entire DCV is stored in HDPE pipe and can be routed to biotreatment BMP rather than overflowing. Current inverts only allow for a portion of the DCV to be stored prior to overflowing and bypassing biotreatment BMP. 4 Prepare and submit a final drainage study, including supporting Q10, Q25, and Q100 hydraulic and hydrological data to the City of Anaheim for review and approval. No offsite run-off shall be blocked during and after grading operations or perimeter wall construction. The Final Drainage Report shall demonstrate that the overall site post -development storm event r un-off shall be less than or equal to the overall site existing pre-development storm event run-off for each watershed and that the proposed building structures and basement(s), if any, shall be flood protected. Finish floor elevations shall be 1-ft. minimum above the 100-year, 24 hour event water surface elevation. The Study shall be based upon and reference the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for the project area. All drainage sub-area boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage shall be maintained. Run-off shall not be diverted and any proposed improvements shall prevent downstream properties from becoming flooded. The Final Drainage report shall address the drainage velocity on the new on- site improvements and potential impacts to the existing drainage system. Also, the plans shall show that all concentrated flow shall be contained within an approved drainage device and preserve the existing flows and manner drainage is conveyed downstream. Any inlets in sump condition shall be designed to capture Q25 and a secondary emergency outlet for the sump condition is required to provide a minimum of 1-ft. freeboard between the maximum water surface elevation and minimum finish floor elevation. The emergency outlet must direct overflows to either an adequate downstream street or natural conveyance system. Public Works Department, Development Services 5 Submit a detailed Geotechnical Report to the Public Works Development Services Divisio n for review and approval. Public Works Department, Development Services 6 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer. Public Works Department, Development Services 7 Prior to issuance of the grading permit and right -of-way construction permit for the storm drain and sewer, whichever occurs first, a Save Harmless agreement in-lieu of an Encroachment Agreement is required to be executed, approved by the City and recorded by the applicant on the property for any Public Works Department, Development Services - 8 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT private storm drains connecting to a City storm drain. 8 The property owner/developer shall implement all recommendations in the approved Geotechnical Investigation report for the Proposed Project during site preparation, grading, and construction, and compliance with the approved Geotechnical Investigation shall be verified in the field by a qualified representative. The property owner/developer shall demonstrate to the City of Anaheim’s Planning & Building Department and/or Public Works Department staff that all or equivalent recommendations in the Preliminary Soil Investigation, Liquefaction Evaluation and Infiltration Test Report. Proposed Two-Story Apartment Complex with Partial Subterranean Parking, 3175 W. Ball Road, City of Anaheim, California, prepared by Soil Exploration Company, Inc. September 12, 2016, or any updates to that report have been incorporated into the Proposed Project’s design and grading plans. MM-GEO-1 Public Works Department, Development Services 9 Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, and/or building permit for activities during the avian nesting season (i.e., February 1 and September 1), the property owner/developer shall submit a survey for active nests to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department conducted by a qualified biologist a maximum of 1 week prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project Site. The nesting bird survey shall consist of full coverage of the project footprint and an appropriate buffer, as determined by the biologist. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) shall be established around any active nest. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field by the biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the City of Anaheim within 5 days after the survey. MM-BIO-1 Planning Department, Planning Services Division 10 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a site-specific Health and Safety Plan to the Planning and Building Department. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall require that the property owner/developer include the following instructions to its construction contractor: “The construction contractor shall use a photoionization detector (PID) to regularly inspect the exposed Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 9 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT soil for evidence of any contamination.” These instructions shall be included on all plans pertaining to subsurface construction activities for the Proposed Project. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall identify air monitoring action levels based on the benzene Cal-OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) to protect worker health and safety. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall note measures to be taken if air monitoring in the breathing zone of site workers indicates concentrations above the action levels. These measures could include the use of personal protective equipment, including air purifying respirators, or engineering controls, as well as site perimeter monitoring. MM- HAZ-1 11 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that if potential contamination indicators are identified during excavation based on visual observations and/or air monitoring the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons may be stained or odorous. Stained soil may have bluish to dark gray discoloration. Discoloration may remain even after the product has naturally degraded. If suspect petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils are observed during excavation, the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Evaluation will include collection of samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis. The number of samples to be collected will be based on potential disposal facility requirements. If concentrations of TPH and VOCs are below direct exposure human health soil screening levels (Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels), then the soil may remain on-site. If the concentrations exceed the screening levels, then the soil will be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. Visually screening the soil will be accompanied by air monitoring using a photoionization detector (PID) or other organic vapor analyzer. In accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations (specifically Rule 1166), VOC-contaminated soil, if identified at the Project Site during excavation activities, will be properly managed. VOC- contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, consists of soil with concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using a PID calibrated with hexane. If volatile organics are measured at concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using a PID calibrated with hexane, then the excavation, stockpile management, and agency notification shall comply with Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 10 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT SCAQMD Rule 1166. If identified, VOC-contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, shall be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. MM-HAZ-2 12 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that during construction, should groundwater be encountered and require extraction, any extracted groundwater will be managed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction dewatering, in accordance with existing regulations. The NPDES permit will require monitoring of volatile organic compound concentrations in the extracted groundwater per the Monitoring and Reporting Program developed at the time of issuance of a NPDES permit. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a memorandum or report indicating whether construction dewatering was requiring during site preparation and grading. If construction dewatering is necessary, the Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall identify whether effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations. The Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. If the effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations, the Planning and Building Department shall require that the property owner/developer retain a qualified environmental professional to reevaluate the potential human health risk under the residential scenario based on the effluent VOC concentrations at the end of dewatering. If the qualified environmental consultant determines that the potential human health risk under the residential scenario exceeds de minimis thresholds of one in a million for cancer risk or the non- cancer hazard index risk value of 1.0, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for informing the Planning and Building Department and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in writing of the discovery. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for coordinating with the qualified environmental consultant to ensure that the vapor mitigation noted in Mitigation Measure (MM-) HAZ-4 is designed to sufficiently mitigate vapor impacts to human health and safety of future occupants at the Project Site. MM-HAZ-3 13 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department, showing that the property owner/developer - 11 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT has incorporated at least one of following options into the Proposed Project: • Option A: Limiting vapor intrusion into future residences through use of a well-ventilated ground-level garage that is not intended for human occupation; or • Option B: Installation of a sub-slab liner/passive ventilation to limit vapor intrusion to the future residences. MM- HAZ-4 14 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer and/or its construction contractor, shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department with notes indicating compliance with the following measures during construction: Construction activities shall be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. In the event that construction is required to extend beyond these times, extended hours permits shall be required. Pumps and associated equipment (e.g., portable generators) shall be shielded from sensitive uses using local temporary noise barriers or enclosures, or shall otherwise be designed or configured so as to minimize noise at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any noise- or vibration-sensitive land uses. All noise-producing equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers; air-inlet silencers where appropriate; and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise -reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used for the Project that are regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall be in compliance with regulations. Idling equipment shall be kept to a min imum and moved as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where feasible. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 12 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT noise-sensitive receptors. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be used for safety warning purposes only. MM-NOI-1 15 Prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the Planning and Building Department that effective communication with local residents will be maintained prior to and during construction. Specifically, the property owner/developer or their representative shall inform local residents of the schedule, duration, and progress of the construction. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall provide residents contact information for noise- or vibration- related complaints. Evidence of compliance may include copies of letters and mailing lists for adjacent property owners and residents, photographs of posting of information on site, or any other such information as deemed compliant by the Planning and Building Director and/or his/her designee. MM-NOI-2 Planning Department, Planning Services Division 16 Prior to the commencement of any grading and/or construction activity, the property owner/developer shall retain a Native American Monitor and a copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the Project Site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the property owner/developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 13 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. MM-TCR- 1 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 17 The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate in a signed deed to the City of Anaheim an easement consisting of a ROW corner cut-back at Ball Road and Western Avenue for road, public utilities, and other public purposes in compliance with City Standard 110-B based on the ultimate curb location. Public Works Department, Development Services 18 The developer shall pay all applicable development impact fees required under the Anaheim Municipal Code. Public Works Department, Development Services 19 After the grading permit is issued and once the pad grading is completed, the following items must be submitted (to the Public Works Engineering Front Counter) for review and approval: 1. Any revisions to the original grading plan related to the building pad. 2. Two (2) copies of the interim soils report indicating pad compaction and site stability prepared by the project's Geotechnical Engineer of Record. The pad compaction report needs to include a site plan showing the compaction testing locations. 3. The original and two (2) copies of a letter of certification Public Works Department, Development Services - 14 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT for the building pads from the project's Civil Engineer of Record using City’s Exhibit D, which can be found at: http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/207 At the time the required items indicated above are submitted, the PW permit technician will schedule a pad certification verification inspection for the next available business date with the Public Works Inspector. Once the Public Works Inspector approves the pad verification inspection and the submitted documents are reviewed and approved, then the Building Permit will be signed off by Public Works Development Services if all comments on the building plans have already been addressed. 20 The developer shall submit street improvement plans, obtain a right of way construction permit, and post a security (Performance and Labor & Materials Bonds) in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney for the construction of all required off-site and public improvements within the City street right of way of Ball Road and Western Avenue. Improvements shall conform to City Standard Detail 160- A per current Master Plan and as approved by the City Engineer. The street improvement plans shall include all traffic related improvements adjacent to the project site including all driveways, utility installations, signing and striping, and all other offsite work as well as the proposed catch basin relocation. If there will be multiple street utility cuts, then the entire street shall be resurfaced via 2” grind and cap from edge of gutter to edge of gutter or to centerline/median. Limits to be determined by the Public Works Inspector. Public Works Department, Development Services 21 A cash-in-lieu payment based on the project engineer’s cost estimate, in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to pay for the future street widening along Western Avenue and street narrowing along Ball Road in compliance with City Standard 160-A per current Master Plan, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim. Public Works Department, Development Services 22 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881). Public Works Department, Development Services 23 The legal property owner shall submit an application for a Subdivision Map Act Certificate of Compliance to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. A Certificate of Compliance or Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall be approved by the City Surveyor and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Department, Development Services - 15 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 24 The public catch basins that will be relocated as part of this project shall have full capture screens and automat ic screens on the curb surface (ARS and CPS). Public Works Department, Development Services 25 Comply with all applicable requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Public Works Department, Development Services 26 That prior to the issuance of a building permit, plans shall be submitted showing stop control and left -turn restriction for southbound approach at Project driveway/Ball Road intersection. R1-1 (STOP) sign, R3-2 (NO LEFT-TURN) sign, STOP pavement legend, and right -turn arrow pavement legend shall be installed in the southbound traffic direction at the project driveway prior to final building inspection. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 27 That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, street improvement plans shall be submitted for all traffic related improvements adjacent to the project site to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. All improvements shall be installed and completed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 28 Prior to the issuance of building permit, the red curbs on Ball Road and Western Avenue shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 29 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall coordinate with OCTA Bus Stop and Zones on any operational impacts to the existing WB Route 46 bus stop at the NE corner of the ball Road/Western Avenue intersection. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 30 That a private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic water shall be provided and shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Water Engineering 31 Per California Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537-537.5) as amended by Senate Bill 7, water submetering shall be furnished and installed by the Owner/Developer and a water submeter shall be installed to each individual unit. Provisions for the ongoing maintenance and operation (including meter billing) of the submeters shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. Public Utilities Water Engineering 32 That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current standards. Public Utilities Water Engineering - 16 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. 33 That all requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Water Engineering 34 The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC & Rs for the project. Public Utilities Water Engineering 35 That the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities Water Engineering 36 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilit ies, Electrical Engineering 37 The applicant shall submit final architectural plans for review by Planning Department, - 17 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations (R&R) item. The Planning Commission shall determine the plans are in compliance with design standards for new construction, as described in the City’s General Plan, Community Design Element , and Municipal Code. These design standards emphasize the importance of community appearance and identity to its vitality, economic health and overall quality of life. The standards for multiple-family development described in the Community Design Element highlight strategies to accommodate higher density housing that retains a neighborhood feel, contributes to the character of the surrounding streetscape and provides a quality residential environment that is safe and attractive. Planning Services Division 38 The applicant shall submit conceptual landscape plans for review by the Planning Commission as a Reports & Recommendations (R&R) item. The land scape plan shall be determined to be in compliance with Municipal Code Standards. Where there are reduced landscaping setbacks, the plan shall also include planting enhancements as follows: • Enhanced landscaping along Ball Road and Western Avenue to complement the building architecture; and • An adequate buffer along the east property line to ensure adequate privacy and screening between the project and the adjacent multiple-family residential use. The final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and determination that they are consistent with the conceptual plan approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 39 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit final design plans, to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, specifying that windows in habitable rooms will have the following minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings: • Windows with northern and eastern-facing exposures: 19 STC or greater • Windows with southern and western-facing exposures: 25 STC or greater MM-NOI-3 Planning Department, Planning Services Division PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 40 Owner shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 41 Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspections, the property owner/developer shall execute and record with the Orange County Public Works, Traffic Engineering - 18 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT Recorder an unsubordinated declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to run with the land, satisfactory to the City Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which restricts the installation of vehicle gates across the project driveways or access roads as the site design does not allow any such gates to conform to City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 pertaining to gate set back distance, turnaround area, guest phone, separate lane for guest access, and minimum width for ingress/egress as required by the Fire Department. Should gates be desired in the future, an amendment to the CC&R’s approved by the City Engineer, Planning Director and the City Attorney's office and recorded. Gates, if any, shall comply with the current version of City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 42 That prior to final building and zoning inspection, the red curb shall be installed as shown on building plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 43 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the property owner/developer shall submit Project plans and a Solid Waste Management Plan to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim to the maximum extent feasible, which shall be determined by the Streets and Sanitation Division. Implementation of said plans shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. MM-UTL-1 Public Works, Streets and Sanitation 44 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 45 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 46 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right -of-way, Public Utilities Department, - 19 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded Master CC&Rs for the project and the City easement deeds. Water Engineering Division 47 All required on-site Water Quality Management Plan, sewer, storm drain and public right of way improvements shall be completed, operational, and are subject to review and approval by the Construction Services Inspector. Public Works, Development Services 48 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must be paid in full. Public Works, Development Services 49 The developer shall improve Ball Road and Western Avenue per the latest City of Anaheim Public Works requirements, approved traffic study requirements, and as approved by the City Engineer. All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected and accepted by Construction Services. Public Works, Development Services 50 Record Drawing Plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division. Public Works, Development Services 51 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance and 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 Department, Code Enforcement Division 52 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning Department, Planning Services Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 53 Vehicle gates shall not be installed across the project driveways or access roads without providing a vehicle turnaround area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 54 The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): Public Utilities Water Engineering - 20 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT • 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. • 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground facilities. 55 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in private alleys or paseo areas. Public Utilities Water Engineering 56 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking lots. Public Utilities Water Engineering 57 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals. Public Utilities Water Engineering 58 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to building permits, grading permits, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 59 The Applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 60 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 61 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with Planning Department, - 21 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 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 Services Division 62 If skeletal remains are uncovered during construction activities, all work shall stop immediately and the construction supervisor in charge at the Project Site shall notify the County Coroner of the find immediately, in conformance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall notify a most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials subject to City approval. MM-CUL-1 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project (Development Project No. 2016-00074) Prepared for: CCity of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Contact: Andy Uk, Associate Planner Prepared by: 27372 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Contact: Collin Ramsey, Senior Planner JULY 2020 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 9289.0003 i July 2020 Table of Contents SSECTION PAGE NO. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. V 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................ 1 1.3 Preparation and Processing of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................. 1 1.4 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Existing Documents Incorporated by Reference .................................................................................. 2 1.6 Points of Contact .................................................................................................................................... 3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Project Site .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Construction and Phasing ................................................................................................................... 38 2.5 Project Approvals ................................................................................................................................. 38 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST .......................................................................................................................... 39 3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 43 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 48 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 50 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 61 3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 69 3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 71 3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 77 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 82 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 88 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 97 3.11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................................... 103 3.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................ 104 3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................. 105 3.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................... 122 3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................. 124 3.16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................... 127 3.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................... 128 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 138 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................ 141 3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................... 145 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................. 147 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 ii July 2020 44 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS................................................................................................................ 149 4.1 References Cited ............................................................................................................................... 149 4.2 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 155 APPENDICES A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Calculations B Biological Resources Attachments C Cultural Resources Report D Geotechnical Study E Soil Vapor Investigation Report F Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan G Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report H Noise Analysis Attachments I Traffic Impact Analysis J Tribal Cultural Resources Consultation Correspondence FIGURES 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Aerial Map............................................................................................................................................................. 9 3 Existing Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 13 4 Current General Plan Land Use Designation ................................................................................................... 17 5 Current Zoning ................................................................................................................................................... 19 6A Site Plan – Ground Floor .................................................................................................................................. 21 6B Site Plan – First Floor ........................................................................................................................................ 23 6C Site Plan – Second Floor .................................................................................................................................. 25 7 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation ............................................................................................... 27 8 Proposed Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 29 9A Architectural Elevations .................................................................................................................................... 31 9B Architectural Elevations .................................................................................................................................... 33 9C Architectural Elevations .................................................................................................................................... 35 10 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 65 11 Noise Measurement / Modeling Locations ................................................................................................... 109 12 Study Area Intersections and Roadway Segments ....................................................................................... 131 13 Project Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................. 133 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 iii July 2020 TTABLES 1 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Regional Growth Forecast............................................................................................ 52 2 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .................................................................................................. 54 3 Construction Scenario Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 55 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ..................................................... 56 5 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ....................................................... 56 6 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis .............................................................................. 58 7 Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment ............................................................................................. 73 8 Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ........................................................................................................ 73 9 Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand ............................................................................................. 74 10 Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand .................................................................................................... 74 11 Estimated Electrical Demand – Project Operation ......................................................................................... 75 12 Estimated Natural Gas Demand – Project Operation ..................................................................................... 75 13 Mobile Source Fuel Consumption – Project Operation................................................................................... 76 14 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................... 85 15 Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions ............................................................................................... 86 16 Typical Sound Levels in the Environment and Industry ................................................................................ 106 17 Measured Noise Levels .................................................................................................................................. 108 18 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels .............................................................................. 114 19 Construction Noise Model Results Summary ................................................................................................ 115 20 Traffic Noise (Existing and Existing-Plus-Project) .......................................................................................... 118 21 Traffic Noise (Future and Future Plus Project) .............................................................................................. 118 22 Traffic Noise (Future with Project) at On-Site Residential Receivers ........................................................... 119 23 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)............................................................................ 142 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 iv July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9289.0003 v July 2020 Acronyms and Abbreviations AAcronym/Abbreviation DDefinition AB Assembly Bill AESD Anaheim Elementary School District AFR Anaheim Fire and Rescue Alquist–Priolo Act Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act ALUC Airport Land Use Commission APD Anaheim Police Department AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin BMP best management practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane City City of Anaheim CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale DMA drainage management area EIR environmental impact report EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EV electric vehicle GHG greenhouse gas GHG Reduction Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan GWP global warming potential I Interstate IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ldn day–night average noise level Leq equivalent noise level over a given period Lmax maximum noise levels LOS level of service LST localized significance threshold Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California mgd million gallons per day MM- Mitigation Measure MT metric tons INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 vi July 2020 AAcronym/Abbreviation DDefinition N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOX oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O3 ozone OCWD Orange County Water District PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns PPV peak particle velocity Project Applicant Sarkis Tatarian Proposed Project proposed 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RTP Regional Transportation Plan SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SLF Sacred Lands File SO2 sulfur dioxide SOX sulfur oxides SR State Route SRA Source Receptor Area STC Sound Transmission Class SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan TAC toxic air contaminant TCR tribal cultural resource TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TIA Guidelines Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis UST underground storage tank V/C volume to capacity VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound WQMP Water Quality Management Plan 9289.0003 1 July 2020 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Overview The City of Anaheim (City) received a development application from Sarkis Tatarian (Project Applicant) requesting approval of the following discretionary actions for the proposed 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project (Proposed Project): x General Plan Amendment (GPA2016-00510) to change the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential x Zoning Reclassification (RCL2016-00297) to change the Project Site’s zoning from the General Commercial (C-G) Zone to the Multiple-Family Residential (RM-4) Zone x Administrative Adjustment (ADJ2020-00444) to allow reduced landscape setbacks of 16-feet adjacent to an arterial highway where 20-feet would be required; and an interior structural setback of 18-feet where 20-feet would be required. The Proposed Project would involve the construction of an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building, along with associated on-site and site-adjacent improvements such as parking, pedestrian walkways, and landscape areas. The Proposed Project is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15367, the City is the lead agency with principal responsibility for considering the Proposed Project for approval (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance CEQA, a statewide environmental law contained in California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000–21177, applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. The overarching goal of CEQA is to protect the physical environment. To achieve that goal, CEQA requires that public agencies identify the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other public agencies and the public an opportunity to comment on the information. If significant adverse impacts cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) and balance the project’s environmental concerns with other goals and benefits in a statement of overriding considerations. 1.3 Preparation and Processing of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The City’s Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division, directed and supervised the preparation of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Although prepared with assistance from the consulting firm Dudek, the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this IS/MND reflect the independent judgment of the City, as the Lead Agency. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2016-00074) 9289.0003 2 July 2020 1.4 Initial Study Checklist CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15063 15065. The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate whether a project would have an adverse impact on the environment. The checklist is in Section 3, Initial Study, of this document. Following the Environmental Checklist, Sections 3.1 through 3.21 include an explanation and discussion of each significance determination made in the checklist for the Proposed Project. For this IS/MND, the following four possible responses to each individual environmental issue area are included in the checklist: 1. Potentially Significant Impact 2. Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 3. Less-Than-Significant Impact 4. No Impact The checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist responses provide the information and analysis necessary to assess relative environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the Proposed Project. 1.5 Existing Documents Incorporated by Reference CEQA Guidelines Sections 15150, 15168(c)(3), and 15168(d)(2) permit and encourage that an environmental document incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The City of Anaheim General Plan (City of Anaheim 2020a), the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR (City of Anaheim 2004), and the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2020b), which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, and are available for review from the following: City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 http://www.anaheim.net/691/Planning-Zoning INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 3 July 2020 1.6 Points of Contact The City of Anaheim is the lead agency for this environmental document. Please refer any questions about the preparation of this IS/MND, its assumptions, or its conclusions to: Andy Uk, Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, California 92805 714.765.5238 auk@anaheim.net The point of contact for the Project Applicant is as follows: Sarkis Tatarian 8469 Beach Circle Cypress, California 90630 714.717.0400 sakotatarian@yahoo.com INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 4 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9289.0003 5 July 2020 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Site The Project Site is located in the western part of the City of Anaheim, which is in northwestern Orange County. Regionally, the City and the Project Site are located south of the City of Fullerton, west and north of the City of Orange, northeast of the City of Garden Grove, and southeast of the City of Buena Park. State Route (SR) 91 is located approximately 2.6 miles north of the Project Site; SR-22 is approximately 3.1 miles to the south; and Interstate (I) 5 is 4.8 miles east of the Project Site. The 0.36-acre Project Site is comprised of one parcel, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 250-051-03. The street address associated with the Project Site is 3175 West Ball Road. Adjacent land uses include Ball Road immediately to the south, Western Avenue immediately to the west, and existing medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) uses to the north and to the east (Figure 1, Project Location; Figure 2, Aerial Map). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 6 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Project Location 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; B i n g M a p s 01 , 0 0 0 50 0 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y FIGURE 1 Sa n C l e m e n t e Da n a P o i n t Sa n J u a n Ca p i s t r a n o La g u n a Ni g u e l Ra n c h o Sa n t a M a r g a r i t a Mi s s i o n V i e j o Co s t a Me s a La k e F o r e s t Hu n t i n g t o n Be a c h Ir v i n e We s t m i n s t e r Sa n t a An a Se a l Be a c h Ga r d e n G r o v e Cy p r e s s Or a n g e An a h e i m Bu e n a Pa r k Fu l l e r t o n Br e a Pl a c e n t i a Ne w p o r t B e a c h Tu s t i n Yo r b a L i n d a Lo s A n g e l e s C o u n t y Ri v e r s i d e Co u n t y Sa n D i e g o Co u n t y 57 39 91 55 73 24 1 83 14 2 72 13 3 71 22 90 19 74 1 5 60 5 21 5 10 5 40 5 71 0 15 Pr o j e c t S i t e StantonAnaheim Cy p r e s s An a h e i m INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 8 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Aerial Map 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; B i n g M a p s 0 1 0 0 50 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y FIGURE 2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 10 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 11 July 2020 2.2 Environmental Setting CCity of Anaheim The City encompasses more than 28,000 acres of land stretching nearly 20 miles along the SR-91, and includes another approximately 2,400 acres of unincorporated land within its sphere of influence. The City is a geographically diverse community. The western and central portions of the City are characterized by relatively flat ground that slopes gently to the southwest. This portion of the City is characterized by a mix of suburban and urban development and is relatively built out. The area is home to Center City (downtown Anaheim) and the Anaheim Colony Historic District, which are located within the City’s original 1.8-square-mile boundary and contain the majority of the City’s valued historic structures (City of Anaheim 2020a). The eastern portion of the City extends along the Santa Ana River to the Riverside County line. This part of the City includes hillside terrain and an abundance of natural resources. Residential development in the eastern portion of the City largely consists of the various hillside communities on the southern side of SR-91 that extend to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241). Residential neighborhoods located north of the Santa Ana River, east of Imperial Highway, and south of the Santa Ana River at the intersection of SR-91 and SR-55 are relatively flat. Also located in the eastern part of the City, Anaheim Canyon is a regional employment center consisting of office, industrial, and commercial uses that spans the northern side of SR-91 between SR-57 and Imperial Highway (City of Anaheim 2020a). Project Site The approximately 0.36-acre, square-shaped Project Site is currently vacant. A chain-link fence encloses the Project Site’s southern and western boundaries along the frontage of Western Avenue and Ball Road, and a cinderblock wall separates the Project Site from the residential properties to the north and east (Figure 3, Existing Site Photos). Additional residential uses are located southeast and west of the Project Site. A low-growing layer of perennial ruderal grasses covers the Project Site. The Project Site is currently vacant, but was formerly the location of an E-Z Service Station facility. In May 1988, Caliber Contractors, working on behalf of the Property Owner at the time, removed three 10,000-gallon underground gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs), one 550-gallon waste oil UST, and associated appurtenances from the Project Site. Upon removal, these USTs were found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbons, and site characterization, monitoring, and remediation activities were subsequently performed by hazardous materials specialists under contract with property owner at the time on the Project Site under the oversight of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). A contamination clean-up case opened by the SARWQCB in June 1998, was closed in April 2012 with the requirement that a soil vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the General Commercial land use designation. Dudek prepared a vapor human health risk assessment in 2017, which determined that residual contamination levels on the Project Site would not result in unacceptable human health risks (based on thresholds used by Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to future site occupants), and the Project Site is suitable for residential development (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for additional detail). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 12 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Existing Site Photographs 3175 West Ball Road FIGURE 3 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ - Photograph A: View of Project Site from the northwest corner looking south towards Ball Road Photograph C: View of Project Site from the northwest corner looking east towards residences Photograph B: View of Project Site from the southwest corner looking northeast towards residences Photograph D: View of Project Site from the southeast corner looking northwest towards Western Avenue DUDEK INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 14 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 15 July 2020 The City’s General Plan Land Use Plan Map designates the Project Site as General Commercial (Figure 4, Current General Plan Land Use Designation) and the City’s Zoning Map identifies the Project Site as being within the “C-G” General Commercial Zone(Figure 5, Current Zoning). SSuurrrroouunnddiinngg LLaanndd UUsseess The Project Site is located in a highly urbanized part of the City. The following mix of land uses surrounds the Project Site, including existing medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) and commercial uses: x North: Medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) x East: Medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) x South: Ball Road, followed by general commercial uses x West: Western Avenue, followed by a dentist office and medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) 2.3 Proposed Project The Project involves construction of an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building, along with associated on-site and site- adjacent improvements (Figure 6A–6C, Site Plan). The proposed apartment building will include a 27-space parking garage on the ground floor and two floors of residential units above the first floor parking garage. The residential units would include ten two-bedroom units ranging between approximately 876 to 924 square feet and one one- bedroom unit at approximately 581 square feet. Project amenities would include an interior common court area and a recreation room. In total, the Proposed Project would include 16,917 square feet of building area. To facilitate the proposed residential use, the Project Applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential, and a zoning reclassification from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential Zone (Figure 7, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation; Figure 8, Proposed Zoning). Design and Architecture The Applicant has designed the Proposed Project to include vertical and horizontal elements that would break up the overall massing of the buildings and provide visual interest. Parkway and setback landscape areas along Ball Road and Western Avenue would also soften views of the Project Site and enhance the overall visual quality of the Proposed Project (Figure 9A–9C, Architectural Elevations). The Applicant has designed the proposed residential building, and associated improvements, with a strong and appropriately scaled framework of architectural and landscape elements. The building’s massing and the Project Site’s landscaping create a sense of unity within on-site elements and with off-site elements. High-quality development features would be provided through site design (e.g., building orientation, screening), architecture (e.g., mass, scale, form, style, material, and color) and streetscape elements (e.g., lighting, paving materials). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 16 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Cu r r e n t G e n e r a l P l a n L a n d U s e D e s i g n a t i o n 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; B i n g M a p s 0 2 0 0 10 0 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Re s i d e n t i a l Lo w D e n s i t y Lo w - M e d i u m D e n s i t y Mi d D e n s i t y Me d i u m D e n s i t y Co m m e r c i a l Ge n e r a l C o m m e r c i a l FIGURE 4 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 18 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Current Zoning 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; B i n g M a p s 0 2 0 0 10 0 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y FIGURE 5 T - T r a n s i t i o n a l Pu b l i c a n d S p e c i a l P u r p o s e C- G - G e n e r a l C o m m e r c i a l Co m m e r c i a l RM - 4 - M u l t i f a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RM - 3 - M u l t i f a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RM - 2 - M u l t i f a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RS - 4 - S i n g l e - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RS - 2 - S i n g l e - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l Re d i d e n t i a l INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 20 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Site Plan - Ground Floor 3175 West Ball RoadFIGURE 6A SO U R C E : a & d d e s i g n Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D D U D E K I - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ j 2: ! ' - 1 " fT ~ '-' ~PNI TK l(Tl l ~ ""'V W - H I" fi ' \ U l f " ' I C : : - · , I 1 I l. N I D E A "" eo i ' - 1 11 ' r. t i . T I = " ,, . . .. . - 1 I -. 1 C ON T . CU l l l l / l ~·- d- a • 11~ :1 1 -0 - - < > - - - -< i I •• I r - - ,~ =: J - - - I I I~ :~~ I I I ® IT ~ nc _ - - ~ ~-·- , . . _ ' -- # i h - u -r 1 - 1 >- · - - - ® '" '" ~ D I ··~· ,_, © T 1 D ,_ _ _ _ © ® 0 1 T I ~ , I d J H : O I 1 • 1 I l ._,. I I I I I ~ I 2 I ) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 22 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Site Plan - First Floor 3175 West Ball RoadFIGURE 6B SO U R C E : a & d d e s i g n Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D D U D E K U N IT 1 02 9 14 s f 8 'x 2& ·- ~· INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 24 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Site Plan - Second Floor 3175 West Ball RoadFIGURE 6C SO U R C E : a & d d e s i g n Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D sa ' -1 0 ' J r ~ "" f ,# ,.._(.; !W l ' - io ' D U D E K INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 26 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Pr o p o s e d G e n e r a l P l a n L a n d U s e D e s i g n a t i o n 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; B i n g M a p s 0 2 0 0 10 0 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Re s i d e n t i a l Lo w D e n s i t y Lo w - M e d i u m D e n s i t y Mi d D e n s i t y Me d i u m D e n s i t y Co m m e r c i a l Ge n e r a l C o m m e r c i a l FIGURE 7 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 28 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Proposed Zoning 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; B i n g M a p s 0 2 0 0 10 0 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y FIGURE 8 T - T r a n s i t i o n a l Pu b l i c a n d S p e c i a l P u r p o s e C- G - G e n e r a l C o m m e r c i a l Co m m e r c i a l RM - 4 - M u l t i f a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RM - 3 - M u l t i f a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RM - 2 - M u l t i f a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RS - 4 - S i n g l e - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l RS - 2 - S i n g l e - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l Re d i d e n t i a l INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 30 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Architectural Elevations 3175 West Ball RoadFIGURE 9A SO U R C E : a & d d e s i g n Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D IN O TR U E CO R N ER EL E VA TI O N WE S T E R N AV E N U E / WE S T EL E V A T I O N D U D E K INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 32 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Architectural Elevations 3175 West Ball RoadFIGURE 9B SO U R C E : a & d d e s i g n Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D W £STERN AVENUE NO R T H EL E VA T I ON SC A L E: 1 ; .. . • .. 1 · - 0 · BA U . R< J AD EA S T E LE V A TI O N D U D E K INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 34 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Architectural Elevations 3175 West Ball RoadFIGURE 9C SO U R C E : a & d d e s i g n Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D ~ ST R EE T D U D E K P AR K W A Y p L I p L 2n d FL OO R l t '-cl" ~ 1s t F L OO R ~GRO U ND F LO O R ~ ~ J' W A L K I FR O N T Y A R D I o o rn ~ ' = ""' " ' " DD '- - + - - - ~ - - - - 1 ~ ~[ - ~ - - ~ - - - " 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;L - L L - D D ~ ~ L - ~ ~n - ~ - - ~ i rn rn D D DD DD "" ; J i ~ --·!. ,· ·-~-''. L J L J L J S E CT I ON A - EA S T / W ES T FA C I NG NO R T H SE C TI ON B - N OR TH / SO U T H F AC I NG E AS T 111'-C ' REAR YARD S E TBACK p L I p L I INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 36 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 37 July 2020 SSite Access, Internal Circulation, and Parking The Project Site would be accessible from Ball Road via a 25-foot a right-in/right-out driveway located at the southwestern corner of the Project Site that would provide access to a central drive aisle and the Project’s 27 parking spaces. Of the 27 parking spaces provided, the property owner or developer would assign 22 spaces to specific units, four would be unassigned, and one space would be for handicapped vehicles. The Project also provides pedestrian walkways throughout the Project Site. Additionally, the Applicant would install a sign in front of the Project driveway to indicate to drivers exiting the Project Site that the City only permits right turns out of the driveway to Ball Road. Landscaping Consistent with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.46, Landscaping and Screening, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Applicant would provide landscape setbacks along the street frontages of the Proposed Project facing Ball Road and Western Avenue, including a minimum landscape setback of 16 feet along Western Avenue and along Ball Road, in conjunction with and Administrative Adjustment (ADJ2020-00444). In addition to shrubs and other groundcover, Section 18.46.030, Required Landscaping – Trees, of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that the Applicant plant trees on the Project Site in the setbacks along Ball Road and Western Avenue at a minimum of one tree for every 20 linear feet of street frontage. Pursuant to this section, the size of these new trees must be a minimum of 24-inch box trees. Utilities and Infrastructure Improvements There are existing domestic water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, electrical and natural gas utilities immediately adjacent to the Project Site. The Project would connect to these utilities from their current locations within Ball Road and Western Avenue. Stormwater Drainage Currently, the Project Site is undeveloped and completely pervious. Within the vicinity of the Project site, a 24-inch- diameter storm drain is located adjacent to the Project Site’s western boundary in Western Avenue, which receives stormwater flows from a catch basin located on the eastern side of Western Avenue. This 24-inch-diameter storm drain connects to a 60-inch-diameter storm drain located adjacent to the Project Site’s southern boundary in Ball Road. This storm drain line also receives stormwater flows from a catch basin located along the northern side of Ball Road. As part of the Proposed Project, the Project Site would be graded to have a highpoint in the northeasterly corner and direct flows through various storm water diversion devices towards the right of way on both Ball Road. and Western Avenue. The majority of stormwater collected onǦsite would be retained on the roof of the structure which will then be routed to two landscape areas on the West and South sides of the building. Other surrounding area drains for landscaped and parking areas surrounding the building would also be routed into the same landscape areas. Runoff from hardscape and parking areas would be diverted by sheet flowing towards a low point fitted with a concrete catch basin. Once runoff is collected from various areas onǦsite and is diverted to the previously described landscape areas in the western and southern areas of the Project Site, all runoff would be diverted to a proposed 36-inch-diameter high-density polyethylene tank on the western side of the Project Site. The tank would be able to handle the INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 38 July 2020 combined Design Capture Volume1 of the single proposed drainage management area (DMA). Water would be stored in the tank before being pumped to a proposed biotreatment planter at a fixed rate to not overflow the planter. The bioretention planter would have a ponding depth of 6” before entering the catch basin inside the planter. After treatment from the planter, water would be diverted towards the proposed relocated catch basin (the old storm drain catch basin within Ball Road would be demolished) on the street via a 6-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride pipes cored into the back of the catch basin, and subsequently to the 60-inch-diameter storm drain line adjacent to the Project Site’s southern boundary in Ball Road. DDomestic Water and SSanity Sewer Anaheim Public Utilities Department would provide domestic water and sanitary sewer service. An existing water main is located within Western Avenue. The Proposed Project would connect to an existing 10-inch-diameter water line at two points in Western Avenue for domestic and irrigation purposes. An existing 8-inch-diameter City sewer line is located within Western Road. The Project would connect to this sewer line via a proposed 6-inch-diameter sewer lateral. An analysis on the 8-inch-diameter City sewer line indicates there is adequate capacity to handle the Project’s sanitary sewer needs (City of Anaheim 2020c). Natural Gas and Electric Service Southern California Gas Company would provide natural gas service. The Proposed Project would connect to an existing underground gas line located within Western Avenue. The Anaheim Public Utilities Department would provide electric service. The Proposed Project would connect to an existing overhead electrical line located immediately adjacent to the Project Site’s southeastern corner. 2.4 Construction and Phasing The Applicant would construct the Project in a single phase, starting as early as January 2021, and lasting approximately 6 months. Construction would include site preparation, grading, trenching, construction, paving, and architectural treatments. For a breakdown of the construction schedule, refer to the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) air quality modeling outputs provided in Appendix A. 2.5 Project Approvals The Proposed Project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City Council prior to the issuance of grading and building permits and the start of construction: x General Plan Amendment (GPA2016-00510) to change the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation from General Commercial to Low-Medium Residential x Zoning Reclassification (RCL2016-00297) from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential Zone x Administrative Adjustment (ADJ2020-00444) to allow reduced landscape setbacks of 16 feet adjacent to an arterial highway where 20 feet would be required; and an interior structural setback of 18 feet where 20 feet would be required. 1 Per Section 7.II-2.4.3 of the Model Water Quality Management Plan, priority projects (of which the Proposed Project is one) must infiltrate, harvest and use, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85th percentile, 24Ǧhour storm event, referred to as the design capture volume. 9289.0003 39 July 2020 3 Initial Study Checklist 11. Project title: 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, California 92805 3. Contact person: Andy Uk, Associate Planner auk@anaheim.net 4. Project location: 3175 West Ball Road Anaheim, California 92804 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Sarkis Tatarian 8469 Beach Circle Cypress, California 90630 714.717.0400 sakotatarian@yahoo.com 6. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: Existing: General Commercial Proposed: Medium Density Residential 7. Existing and Proposed Zoning: Existing: “C-G” General Commercial Zone Proposed: “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential Zone 8. Description of Proposed Project: The Proposed Project would involve the construction of an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building, along with associated on-site and site-adjacent improvements such as parking, pedestrian walkways, and landscape areas. Refer to Section 2.3, Proposed Project, for a full description of the Proposed Project. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 40 July 2020 99. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings): The Project Site is located in a highly urbanized part of the City. The following mix of land uses surrounds the Project Site, including existing medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) and commercial uses: x North: Medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) x East: Medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) x South: Ball Road, followed by general commercial uses x West: Western Avenue, followed by a dentist office and Medium-density residential (36 dwelling units per acre) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): No other public agency approval is required. 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 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 41 July 2020 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 Proposed Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project Applicant. 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. Andy Uk, Associate Planner Date Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: July 07, 2020 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 42 July 2020 EEvaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. 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 involved (e.g., the project falls outside 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). 2. 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. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. 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 Analysis 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. 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. 6. 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. 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. 9. 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 significance INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 43 July 2020 3.1 Aesthetics PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated LLess--Than- Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Scenic vistas and other important visual resources are typically associated with natural landforms such as mountains such as mountains, foothills, ridgelines, and coastlines. The City’s General Plan Green Element identifies the Hill and Canyon Area of the City, Santa Ana Mountains, and Santa Ana River as important visual landmarks within the City. Goal 2.1 of the Green Element states, “Preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space, and other scenic vistas wherever possible.” To achieve this goal, the Green Element discusses four policies. These policies include controlling infill development on visually significant ridgelines, canyon edges and hilltops; encouraging development that preserves natural contours and views of existing backdrop ridgelines or prominent views; siting parks and other open space amenities to take advantage of natural vistas; and encouraging future development and public improvements to maximize private and public views of golf course fairways. In addition, the General Plan Green Element specifically states that golf courses and the Santa Ana River provide visual relief from the surrounding built environment (City of Anaheim 2020a). The Project Site is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue, surrounded by existing urbanized land uses, and in a highly developed area of the western part of the City. The Project Site is approximately 8 miles southwest from the nearest golf course (i.e., Coyote Hills Golf Course), and over 15 miles west of the Hill and Canyon area of the City, Santa Ana Mountains, and Santa INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 44 July 2020 Ana River. The Proposed Project would not be within the viewshed of any scenic vistas or otherwise impact visual resources in the broader area surrounding the Project Site, because of the distances between the Project Site and these visual resources, the intervening natural topographic variations and constructed development located between the site and these resources. Therefore, no impacts associated with scenic vistas would occur. bb) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The nearest designated state scenic highway to the Project Site is the segment of SR-91 (Riverside Freeway) located approximately between SR-55 and the Orange County/Riverside County line (Caltrans 2019). This segment of SR-91 is located approximately 10 miles west of the Project Site. Additionally, the Project site is not located near a City-designated scenic expressway, as shown on Figure C-1 of the City’s Circulation Element (City of Anaheim 2020a). The nearest scenic expressway is Santa Ana Canyon Road between Lakeview Avenue and Imperial Highway, over 11 miles to the east. Due to the significant distance between the Project Site and these roadways, and because of the amount of intervening natural topographic variations and constructed development between these roadways and the Project Site, the Proposed Project would not be located in the viewshed of a designated state scenic highway or City-designated scenic expressway. Therefore, no impacts associated with state scenic highways or City-designated scenic expressways would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less-than-Significant-Impact. The Project Site is located in an urbanized part of the City, at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue, surrounded by existing multifamily residential and commercial uses. The Proposed Project involves a General Plan Amendment to change the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation from General Commercial to Low-Medium Residential; a Zoning Reclassification to change the Project Site’s zoning designation from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential Zone; and an Administrative Adjustment to allow reduced landscape setbacks adjacent to an arterial highway and reduced interior structural setbacks. Upon approval of these discretionary actions, the Proposed Project would be a permitted use within the RM-4 Zone and would be consistent with the Low-Medium Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. To ensure that adjacent land uses are aesthetically compatible with one another, and to prevent visual incompatibility issues between neighboring uses, the City requires a review of all building and site plans by the Building Division of the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.90.110.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2020b). The purpose of this review is to ensure that the design of a proposed development project is consistent with all applicable requirements, standards, and regulations set forth by the Anaheim Municipal Code, as well as other relevant local, state, and federal regulations. Included as part of this review, is an assessment of a project’s architecture to ensure that the Applicant is proposing an integrated architectural theme that is compatible with and would complement the site and surrounding properties. As such, approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Reclassification, and Administrative Adjustment and compliance with the City’s required building and site INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 45 July 2020 plan review would ensure that the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning regulations governing scenic quality. Additionally, the City’s General Plan contains various goals, policies, and objectives related to scenic quality. Specifically, the Green Element contains goals, policies, and objectives related to the preservation and enhancement of natural and green spaces throughout the City, and the Community Design Element contains goals, policies, and objectives related to community-wide design features such as gateways, streets and public signage, as well as special policies for specific districts within the City. While these General Plan Elements do not provide specific development regulations, they do provide policy guidance that is intended to provide a practical framework for development within the City (City of Anaheim 2020a). Specific policies, goals, and objectives from the Green Element and Community Design Element of the City’s General Plan related to scenic quality that are applicable to the Proposed Project, as well as the Proposed Project’s consistency with these policies, goals, and objectives, are discussed below. GGreen Element: x Objective 3: Beautify arterial corridors with landscape plans, edge treatments and gateways x Consistency Analysis for Objective 3: The Proposed Project, which is located on Ball Road, a primary arterial, would include improvements to the frontage of Ball Road and Western Avenue consisting of a new sidewalk and landscaping. x Goal 2.1: Preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space and other scenic vistas wherever possible. x Consistency Analysis for Goal 2.1: As discussed above, the Proposed Project is not located within the viewshed of any scenic vistas or otherwise impact visual resources in the broader area surrounding the Project Site. x Policy 23.1-5: Continue to strengthen neighborhood and community identity by using tree species consistent with the City’s Official Tree Species List. x Consistency Analysis for Policy 23.1-5: The Proposed Project would include tree species that are listed on the City’s Official Tree Species List. x Goal 23.2: Complete the City’s comprehensive program of corridor landscaping, including entryways, medians, and parkways, to strengthen the identity of major corridors and the City as a whole. x Consistency Analysis for Goal 23.2: The Proposed Project would include improvements to the frontage of Ball Road and Western Avenue consisting of a new sidewalk and landscaping, which would strengthen the identity of these major corridors. Community Design Element x Goal 2.1: Attractively landscape and maintain Anaheim’s major arterial corridors and prepare/ implement distinctive streetscape improvement plans. x Consistency Analysis for Goal 2.1: The Proposed Project, which is located on Ball Road, a primary arterial, would include improvements to the frontage of Ball Road and Western Avenue consisting of a new sidewalk and landscaping. x Goal 4.1: Multiple-family housing is attractively designed and scaled to complement the neighborhood and provides visual interest through varied architectural detailing. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 46 July 2020 x Consistency Analysis for Goal 4.1: The Applicant has designed the proposed residential building, and associated improvements, with a strong and appropriately scaled framework of architectural and landscape elements. The Proposed Project would be visually consistent with surrounding multi-family development within the Project area. x Policy 4.1-1: 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. x Consistency Analysis for Policy 4.1-1: The Proposed Project be an 11-unit apartment building, which in the context of other multi-family buildings in the City, is a relatively small building, and would be consistent with other multi-family development in the Project area. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include an articulated entry feature and variations in rooflines, wall articulation, window treatments, colors and building materials to create a visually interesting and high-quality appearance. x Policy 4.1-2: 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. x Consistency Analysis for Policy 4.1-2: The Proposed Project would include an articulated entry feature and variations in rooflines, wall articulation, window treatments, colors and building materials to create a visually interesting and high-quality appearance. x Policy 4.1-4: Reduce the visual impact of parking areas by utilizing interior courtyard garages, parking structures, subterranean lots, or tuck-under, alley-loaded designs. x Consistency Analysis for Goal 2.1: The Proposed Project would reduce the visual impact of parking areas by placing parking within an interior covered garage. x Policy 4.1-9: Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible. x Consistency Analysis for Policy 4.1-9: Given the disposition of existing overhead utilities and the limited extent of where these utilities front the Project Site, it is unfeasible to underground existing utilities as part of the Proposed Project. However, these utilities may be undergrounded in the future as part of the City’s Underground Conversion Program. x Goal 17.1: Improve West Anaheim’s residential neighborhoods and strategically locate quality retail development x Consistency Analysis for Goal 17.1-1: See Consistency Analysis for Policy 17.1-2 below. x Policy 17.1-2: Enhance the image of West Anaheim by continuing to implement streetscape and landscape improvements on major corridors and local streets. x Consistency Analysis for Goal 17.1-1 and Policy 17.1-2: Under the existing conditions, the Project site consists of an underutilized vacant lot. The Proposed Project would involve the development of an apartment building on the Project Site that features high-quality design, provides landscaping throughout the Project Site, including along Ball Road and Western Avenue, and provides sidewalk improvements. These Project components would strengthen the image of the Project Site and improve the overall visual character of an area within West Anaheim. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 47 July 2020 As discussed above, with approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Reclassification, and Administrative Adjustment, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts associated with the visual character and quality of the Project Site and its surroundings would be less than significant. dd) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less-than-Significant Impact. Exterior lighting can be a nuisance to adjacent land uses that are sensitive to lighting. This nuisance, or light trespass, is the presence of unwanted light on properties located adjacent to a light source. The following analyzes the potential light and glare impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Short-Term Construction Impacts The Proposed Project would be required to comply with Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which prohibits noise sources associated with construction between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. As such, Project construction would be limited to the daytime hours, and nighttime lighting would not be required until the Proposed Project is operational. Therefore, no short-term construction impacts associated with light and glare would occur. Long-Term Operational Impacts The Proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting from decorative exterior lighting and parking garages and within residences. In general, nighttime lighting would be required for safety and security and aesthetic purposes. Lighting from the Project Site would be visible from the residential and commercial properties that are adjacent to the Project Site. However, lighting would be typical of residential uses and would not include any intense lighting uses. Per the Proposed Project’s plans, the Applicant has designed the exterior lighting to be shielded/hooded to prevent light trespass onto nearby properties, including the residences immediately north and east of the Project Site. Considering the existing sources of lighting in surrounding areas, including headlights along Ball Road and Western Avenue, streetlights, and exterior lighting from neighboring properties, the amount and intensity of nighttime lighting proposed on site would not be substantially greater or different from existing lighting in the surrounding area. With regard to glare, the Applicant would construct the Proposed Project with a variety of building materials, including stucco, wood, and painted surfaces, many of which would have minimal or no reflective properties. All reflective materials such as glass, metals, and windows would be consistent with reflective building materials currently found in the surrounding area under existing conditions. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 48 July 2020 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AAND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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? a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (F armland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Project Site is located in a predominantly urbanized area. The California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder identifies the Project Site and surrounding area as Urban and Built-Up Land (CDOC 2020). The Project Site is not located on or adjacent to any parcels identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of State Importance (collectively called INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 49 July 2020 Important Farmland). Due to the lack of Important Farmland on the Project Site and the surrounding area, development of the Proposed Project would not convert or otherwise convert any Important Farmland. Therefore, no impacts associated with conversion of Important Farmland would occur. bb) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project Site is located within the “C-G” General Commercial Zone and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. Neither the Project Site nor any surrounding parcel is within a zone for agricultural use. Additionally, the Project Site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an existing zone for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. No Impact would occur. c) Would the project 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 Project Site is located within a highly developed portion of the City. According to the City’s Zoning Map, the Project Site is not located on or adjacent to forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts associated with forest land or timberland zoning would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project Site is located within a largely urban setting. The Project Site is not located on or adjacent forestland. No private timberlands or public lands with forests are located in the City. Therefore, no impact associated with the loss or conversion of forestland would occur. e ) Would the project involve other c hanges in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, cou ld result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricu ltural use or conversion of fores t land t o non-forest use? No Impact. As previously addressed, the Project Site is not located on or adjacent to any lands identified by either the state or the City as Important Farmland or forestland. The Proposed Project would not include any on-site or Project-adjacent improvements that would result in the conversion of Important Farmland or forestland uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with the conversion of Important Farmland or forestland would occur. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 50 July 2020 3.3 Air Quality PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated LLess--Than- Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) 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? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD administers the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB, which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining all California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The most recent adopted AQMP is the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017), which the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted in March 2017. The 2016 AQMP represents a new approach, focusing on available, proven, and cost-effective alternatives to traditional strategies while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017). The purpose of a consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and, thus, if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 51 July 2020 consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria are as follows (SCAQMD 1993): x Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. x Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. To address the first criterion regarding the Project’s potential to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, Project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions were estimated and analyzed for significance. Section 3.3(b) addresses these emissions; detailed results of this analysis are included in Appendix A. As presented in Section 3.3(b), Project construction would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, and the Project is not anticipated to generate operational criteria air pollutant emissions. The second criterion regarding the Project’s potential to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of Project buildout and phase is primarily assessed by determining consistency between the Project’s land use designations and potential to generate population growth. In general, the Proposed Project would be consistent with, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of, the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP (per Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). The SCAQMD primarily uses demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (SCAG 2016). SCAG bases its growth forecasts on general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB. The SCAQMD uses these growth forecasts for the development of the AQMP emissions inventory (SCAQMD 2017).2 The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, and associated Regional Growth Forecast, are generally consistent with the local plans; therefore, the 2016 AQMP is generally consistent with local government plans. Although the Connect SoCal (also known as the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS) is the most recent RTP/SCS, the SCAQMD is still in the early stages of updating their AQMP. Therefore, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and associated Regional Growth Forecast would be applicable in this analysis. The Final SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS provides population estimates for the years 2012 and 2040. To provide an interim year comparison, this analysis interpolates the City’s projected population in the Project’s operational year (2019) based on the average growth rate to compare with the estimated increase in population generated by the Project. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS estimates that the City’s population will increase by approximately 58,100 people between 2012 and 2040, or approximately 2,075 people annually. Table 1 provides the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS interpolated 2022 population forecasts for the City. 2 Information necessary to produce the emission inventory for the SCAB is obtained from the SCAQMD and other governmental agencies, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Department of Transportation, and SCAG. Each of these agencies is responsible for collecting data (e.g., industry growth factors, socioeconomic projections, travel activity levels, emission factors, emission speciation profile, and emissions) and developing methodologies (e.g., model and demographic forecast improvements) required to generate a comprehensive emissions inventory. SCAG incorporates these data into its Travel Demand Model for estimating/projecting vehicle miles traveled and driving speeds. SCAG’s socioeconomic and transportation activities projections in their 2016 RTP/SCS are integrated in the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 52 July 2020 TTable 11.. SSCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Regional Growth Forecast YYear PPopulation Estimate 2012 345,300 2022a 366,050 2040 403,400 SSource: SCAG 2016. Note: a The population estimate for 2022 was interpolated based on the population forecast values for 2012 and 2040 provided in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. Pursuant to the household estimates provided in the SCAG Local Profiles Report, the average household size in the City in the year 2018 is 3.5 persons per household (SCAG 2019a). Based on this assumption, the proposed 11 residential units could generate 39 persons upon its completion in 2022. As discussed in in this IS/MND, the Project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial and is within the “C-G” General Commercial Zone. In order to facilitate the Project, the Project Applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the current land use and zoning designations to Residential Medium and RM-4 – Multiple-Family Residential. Although the Proposed Project is currently inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation for the Project Site, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the adjacent residential and commercial land uses and would be in substantial compliance with the Land Use Element goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, when compared to the General Plan land use designation used in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, the Proposed Project’s proposed use of the Project site (i.e., Residential Medium) would be similar to, if not less intensive than, the assumed commercial use of the Project Site. Additionally, the Project is not a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance (Section 15206(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project is of statewide, regional, or area- wide significance if it would involve a net increase of over 500 residential dwelling units). Moreover, the addition of 39 persons in 2022 would only be 1.9 percent of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS interpolated annual population increase estimate of 2,075 persons, which would be a nominal deviation from the assumed Regional Growth Forecast. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan (i.e., the 2016 AQMP). Accordingly, the Project would meet Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Summary As described previously, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, and would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1. Implementation of the Project would be not contribute significantly or exceed the demographic growth forecasts in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; therefore, the Project would also be consistent with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, which based future emission estimates on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. Thus, the Proposed Project would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2. Based on these considerations, impacts related to the Proposed Project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 53 July 2020 bb) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less-than-Significant Impact. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, this analysis uses project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively considerable contribution on air quality. If a project’s emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, the analysis would conclude that the Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not cumulatively significant (SCAQMD 2003). Dudek conducted a quantitative analysis to determine whether the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the NAAQS or CAAQS designates the SCAB as nonattainment for these emissions. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10; course particulate matter), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5; fine particulate matter), and lead. The analysis included volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are important because they are precursors to O3, as well as CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, and PM2.5. Regarding NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status,3 the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal and state O3 and PM2.5 standards (CARB 2017a; EPA 2018). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates the SCAB as a nonattainment area for state PM10 standards; however, it is an attainment area for federal PM10 standards. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from various sources of air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB, including motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and commercial and industrial facilities. The EPA and CARB also designates SCAB as an attainment area for federal and state CO and NO2 standards, as well as for state SO2 standards. Although the EPA designates the SCAB as nonattainment for the federal rolling 3-month average lead standard, CARB designates the SCAB as attainment for the state lead standard.4 The Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which CARB and EPA have adopted ambient air quality standards (i.e., the NAAQS and CAAQS). Projects that emit these pollutants have the potential to cause, or contribute to, violations of these standards. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, as revised in April 2019, set forth quantitative emission significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, which, if exceeded, would indicate the potential for a project to contribute to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS. Table 2 lists the revised SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD 2019). 3 An area is designated as in attainment when it is in compliance with the NAAQS and/or the CAAQS. These standards for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and CARB, respectively. Attainment = meets the standards; attainment/maintenance = achieves the standards after a nonattainment designation; nonattainment = does not meet the standards. 4 The phase-out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 54 July 2020 TTable 2. SSCAQMD AAir Quality Significance Thresholds CCriteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds PPollutant CConstruction (in pounds/day) OOperation (in ppounds/day) VOC 75 55 NOX 100 55 CO 550 550 SOX 150 150 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 Leada 3 3 TToxic Air Contaminants and Odor Thresholds TACsb Maximum incremental cancer risk t 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic and Acute Hazard index t 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 SSource: SCAQMD 2019. Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (coarse particulate matter); PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (fine particulate matter); SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; TAC = toxic air contaminant. a The phase-out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. b TACs include carcinogens and noncarcinogens. The Project would result in a substantial contribution to an existing air quality violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS for O3, which is a nonattainment pollutant, if the Proposed Project’s construction or operational emissions exceed the SCAQMD VOC or NOX thresholds shown in Table 2. SCAQMD intends these emission- based thresholds for O3 precursors to serve as surrogates for an “ozone significance threshold” (i.e., the potential for adverse O3 impacts to occur). SCAQMD uses this threshold because O3 itself is not emitted directly, and the effects of an individual project’s emissions of O3 precursors (i.e., VOCs and NOX) on O3 levels in ambient air cannot be reliably or meaningfully determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. Construction Emissions Proposed construction activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment and soil disturbance) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, delivery trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity; the specific type of operation; and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, this analysis can only approximately estimate such emission levels d with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts. The analysis used CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2, to estimate emissions for construction of the Project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts, to quantify criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. CalEEMod input parameters, including the project size, construction schedule, number of worker/delivery/haul trips, and anticipated construction equipment utilization, were based on information provided by the Project Applicant and default model assumptions when Project-specific data was not available. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 55 July 2020 For conservatively estimating Project emissions, the analysis assumed that construction of the Project would start in January 2021 and would last approximately 6 months. Table 3 shows the construction phasing, schedule and duration; vehicle trip assumptions; and, construction equipment mix used for estimating the Project-generated emissions. TTable 3. CConstruction SScenario Assumptions CConstruction PPhase SStart Date FFinish Date OOne--WWay Vehicle Trips EEquipment AAverage DDaily WWorkers AAverage DDaily VVendor TTrucks TTotal HHaul TTrucks TType QQuantity UUsage HHours Site Preparation 01/04/2021 01/04/2021 6 0 0 Graders 1 8 Tractors/loaders/ backhoes 1 8 Grading 01/05/2021 01/06/2021 10 0 0 Concrete/ industrial saws 1 8 Rubber-tired dozers 1 1 Tractors/loaders/ backhoes 2 6 Building Construction 01/07/2021 05/26/2021 12 4 0 Cranes 1 4 Forklifts 2 6 Tractors/loaders/ backhoes 2 8 Paving 05/27/2021 06/02/2021 18 0 0 Cement and mortar mixers 4 6 Pavers 1 7 Rollers 1 7 Tractors/loaders/ backhoes 1 7 Architectural Coating 06/03/2021 06/09/2021 2 0 0 Air compressors 1 6 NNotes: See Appendix A for details.. Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. PM10 and PM2.5. Entrained dust, which results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, would also generate emissions. The Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to control dust emissions during any dust- generating activities. The Applicant would employ standard construction practices to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active grading areas two times per day, with additional watering depending on weather conditions. Table 4 provides estimated maximum daily construction criteria air pollutant emissions from all on-site and off-site emission sources. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 56 July 2020 TTablle 4. EEstimated MMaximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions YYear VVOC NNOxx CO SOxx PM10 PM2.5 Pounds per Day 2021 22 8 8 <1 1 1 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No Source: SCAQMD 2019. Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. See Appendix A for detailed results. As shown in Table 4, daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during Project construction. Operational Emissions The Project involves development of an 11-unit apartment complex. Operation of the Project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including vehicle trips from future residents; area sources, including the use of consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, and landscape maintenance equipment; and energy sources. As discussed previously, this analysis quantified pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations using CalEEMod. The analysis estimated project-generated mobile source emissions on Project-specific trip rates. CalEEMod used default values to estimate emissions from the Project area and energy sources. Table 5 presents the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with operation (year 2022) of the Project. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Appendix A provides details of the emission calculations. Table 55. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Pounds per Day Area 3 <1 7 <1 1 1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile <1 1 2 <1 1 <1 Total 3 1 8 <1 1 1 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. See Appendix A for complete results. Values of “<0.01” indicate that the estimated emissions are less than two decimals. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. The total values may not add up exactly due to rounding. As shown in Table 5, the combined daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 57 July 2020 As discussed previously, the EPA and CARB has designated the SCAB as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and PM2.5, and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction and operational activities of the Proposed Project would generate VOC and NOX emissions (precursors to O3) and emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. However, as indicated in Tables 3 and 5, Project-generated emissions would be minimal and would not exceed the SCAQMD emission-based significance thresholds for VOCs, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if construction of a project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project. Schedules for potential future projects near the Project area are currently unknown; therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, potential impacts associated with two or more simultaneous projects would be speculative.5 However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require air quality analysis and, where necessary, mitigation. The implementation of control measures required by SCAQMD would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, which sets forth general and specific requirements for all sites in the SCAQMD, and SCAQMD Rule 1113, which regulates VOC emissions in architectural coatings, would reduce cumulative PM10, PM2.5, and VOC emissions. Based on the preceding considerations, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant during construction and operation. cc) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less-than-Significant Impact. The following analysis assesses localized Project impacts associated with construction criteria air pollutants emissions. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. Air pollution is most likely to affect children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). The closest sensitive receptor land uses are multifamily residences adjacent to the Project site to the north and east. Localized Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD recommends a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis to evaluate localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site because of construction activities. The impacts were analyzed using methods consistent with those in the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2009). The Project is located in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17 (Central Orange County). The Project’s construction activities would occur over a 0.36-acre area; therefore, the LST analysis based its emissions thresholds on a 1-acre site. This is a conservative approach, as LSTs increase with the size of a project site. As mentioned previously, the closest sensitive receptors are 5 The CEQA Guidelines state that if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact (14 CCR 15145). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 58 July 2020 multifamily residences adjacent to Project site to the north and east. The LSTs assumed for a distance of 25 meters, which is the shortest distance that the SCAQMD lookup tables provide for this analysis. Project construction activities would result in temporary sources of on-site criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction equipment exhaust and dust-generating activities. The maximum daily on-site construction emissions generated during construction of the Project is presented in Table 6 and compared to the SCAQMD localized significance criteria for SRA 17 to determine whether Project-generated, on-site construction emissions would result in potential LST impacts. TTable 6. Construction LLocalized SSignificance Thresholds Analysis YYear NNO22 CCO PPM110 PM2.5 Pounds per Day (on site) 2021 22 8 1 1 SCAQMD LST Criteria 188 3,351 63 26 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: SCAQMD 2009. Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = localized significance threshold. See Appendix A for detailed results. Localized significance thresholds are shown for a 1-acre project site corresponding to a distance to a sensitive receptor of 82 feet (25 meters). These estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by Rule 403. Greatest on-site CO emissions was from the building construction phase. The greatest PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are associated with the grading phase while greatest NO2 are associated with the architectural coating phase. As shown in Table 6, proposed construction activities would not generate emissions in excess of site- specific LSTs; therefore, localized Project construction impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. CO Hotspots Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” CO transport is extremely limited, because CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with severely congested intersections. Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots and require additional analysis if a project would result in a significant impact or contribute to an adverse traffic impact at a signalized intersection that would potentially subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. During construction of the Project, construction traffic would affect the intersections near the Project Site. However, construction activities would be temporary. Regarding long-term mobile-source emissions, the Project would not generate a substantial amount of traffic that would contribute to potential adverse traffic impacts that may result in the formation of CO hotspots. In addition, due to continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing. Finally, as discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis, all existing study intersections within the Project area would continue to operate at acceptable Level-of-Service after development of the INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 59 July 2020 Project. Therefore, the Project would not generate additional traffic volumes, and impacts related to CO hot spots would be less than significant. TToxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. As discussed under the LST analysis, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project are multifamily residences located adjacent to the Project site to the north and east. Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SCAQMD recommends an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million. “Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period will contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non-carcinogenic effects. The SCAQMD recommends a Hazard Index of 1 or more for acute (short- term) and chronic (long-term) non-carcinogenic effects.6 TACs that the Project would potentially emit during construction activities associated with diesel particulate matter. The Project would include diesel particulate matter emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy- duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment is subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions. As described for the LST analysis, PM10 and PM2.5 (representative of diesel particulate matter) exposure would be minimal. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments (which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions) should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should also be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the Proposed Project. The duration of the proposed construction activities would constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year exposure period. The construction period for the Project would be approximately 6 months, after which construction-related TAC emissions would cease. Due to this relatively short period of exposure and minimal particulate emissions on site, TACs generated during construction would not be expected to result in concentrations causing significant health risks. Following completion of on-site construction activities, the Project would not involve routine operational activities that would generate TAC emissions. Operation of the Project would not result in any non-permitted direct emissions (e.g., those from a point source such as diesel generators). For the reasons previously described, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial TAC exposure to sensitive receptors near the Project Site, and impacts would be less than significant. 6 This analysis measures non-cancer adverse health risks against a hazard index, which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentrations of the various non-carcinogens from the project to published reference exposure levels that can cause adverse health effects. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 60 July 2020 HHealth Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Construction and operation of the Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds, as shown in Tables 4 and 5. VOCs would be associated with motor vehicles, construction equipment, and architectural coatings; however, Project-generated VOC emissions would not result in the exceedances of the SCAQMD thresholds. Generally, the VOCs in architectural coatings are of relatively low toxicity. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 1113 restricts the VOC content of coatings for both construction and operational applications. VOCs and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the EPA and CARB designates the SCAB as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of VOCs and NOx to regional ambient O3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O3 concentrations in the SCAB due to O3 precursor emissions tend to be downwind from the source location to allow time for the photochemical reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur because exceedances of the O3 NAAQS and CAAQS tend to occur between May and October when solar radiation is highest. The holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this impact. Nonetheless, because VOC and NOx emissions associated with construction and/or operation would not exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds (as depicted in Tables 4 and 5), this analysis finds that the Project would not contribute substantially to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health effects. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. No mitigation is required. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, construction and operation of the Project would not exceed thresholds for PM10 or PM2.5 and would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter or obstruct the SCAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Additionally, the Proposed Project would implement dust control strategies and be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. Due to the minimal contribution of particulate matter during construction and operation, this analysis finds that health impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Construction and operation of the Project would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2. Health impacts that result from NO2 include respiratory irritation, which nearby receptors could experience during the periods of heaviest use of off-road construction equipment. However, Proposed Project construction would be relatively short term, and off-road construction equipment would be operating at various portions of the site and would not be concentrated in one portion of the Project Site at any one time. In addition, existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards. As indicated in Table 6, construction of the Project would result in a minimal increase in localized NO2 emissions and would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO 2. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial NO2 emissions or the potential health effects associated with NO2. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thereby reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. This analysis previously states that CO hotspots were a INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 61 July 2020 less-than-significant impact. Thus, the Project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant. In summary, health impacts of criteria air pollutants would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Based on the preceding considerations, this analysis finds that health impacts associated with criteria air pollutants would be less than significant. dd) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less-than-Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depend on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying, cause distress among the public, and generate citizen complaints. During Project construction, exhaust from equipment may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment. However, such odors would disperse rapidly from the Project Site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Accordingly, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant. Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). Operation of the Project would not entail any of these potentially odor- causing land uses. Therefore, the Project would not create any new sources of odor during operation and would result in a less than significant odor impact. 3.4 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: 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? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 62 July 2020 PPotentiallyy Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 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? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (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 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, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The following analysis relies on a biological resources assessment conducted by Dudek Biologist Tommy Molioo in April 2019. This assessment included a review of the latest available relevant literature, published research, maps, soil data, data on biological baselines, special-status habitats, and species distributions to determine those biological resources that have the potential to occur within the Project Site. To account for potential impacts that could occur to biological resources in the Project vicinity, this analysis covers the Project site and includes a 100- foot buffer around the Project Site (the Study Area). A field survey was conducted to characterize the environmental conditions, vegetation communities/land covers, and any plants or wildlife (including their habitats) within the Study Area that could be impacted during Project implementation. During the field survey, the Dudek Biologist catalogued and confirmed the existing conditions of vegetation communities and land covers. Vegetation communities were mapped according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (or Natural Communities List), which is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition (Sawyer et. al. 2009). Dudek compiled a general inventory of plant and wildlife species detected by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other field indicators, and made a determination concerning the potential for special-status species to occur within the Study Area. Additionally, Dudek conducted a preliminary investigation of the extent and distribution of jurisdictional waters of the United States regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, jurisdictional waters of the state regulated by the SARWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 63 July 2020 Dudek searched the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2020a, 2020b) and the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2020) to identify special- status biological resources from the region (Appendix B). Dudek searched the California Natural Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society based on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map for Los Alamitos, where the Study Area is located, as well as the surrounding seven 7.5-minute quadrangle maps (i.e., Anaheim, South Gate, La Habra, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Newport Beach, and Whittier). Potential and/or historic drainages and aquatic features were investigated based on a review of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (1:24,000 scale), aerial photographs, the National Wetland Inventory database (USFWS 2020), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (USDA 2020). The Study Area contains disturbed and developed land due to previous development in west Anaheim. The Project Site has been a vacant lot since at least 1988, and has been subject to regular weed abatement activities that have resulted in a vegetation community dominated by non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs. There are no existing developments or structures on the Project Site. The site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 60 feet above mean sea level. There are no significant topographic features on the Project Site or in adjacent off site areas as the surrounding land use consists of residential and commercial development. No native vegetation communities or natural habitats occur on the Project Site, and several ornamental trees are located immediately adjacent to the Project Site associated with adjacent residential buildings. The vegetation communities mapped for the Study Area include red brome-mixed herbs (RB-MH) and urban/developed land (DEV) as depicted on Figure 10, Biological Resources. Dominant plant species include red brome (Bromus rubens madritensis), wild oats (Avena fatua), filaree (Erodium botrys), short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). A limited number of wildlife species commonly found in urban settings were observed or detected during the field survey of the Study Area, including house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), common raven (Corvus corax), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Other species expected to occur include house sparrow (Passer domesticus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). According to soil maps prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Study Area is mapped as containing Metz loamy sand (USDA 2020). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 64 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Biological Resources 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; U S D A N R C S ; B i n g M a p s 0 1 0 0 50 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y St u d y A r e a ( 1 0 0 - F o o t B u f f e r ) Ve g e t a t i o n C o m m u n i t i e s a n d L a n d C o v e r T y p e s FIGURE 10 RB - M H - R e d b r o m e - m i x e d h e r b s DE V - U r b a n / D e v e l o p e d So i l T y p e : Me t z l o a m y s a n d ( E n t i r e m a p e x t e n t ) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 66 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 67 July 2020 aa) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within an entirely disturbed area surrounded by developed land. The vegetation on the Project Site consists of non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs that the property owner typically mows for weed abatement activities. No natural habitats occur on the Project Site, and the observed surface soils are significantly disturbed. The habitat quality on the Project Site is of very low value and does not provide suitable habitat to support any species that the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies as a protected, candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. Although development of the Proposed Project would not affect trees, several ornamental trees (that are part of the adjacent residential developments’ landscaping) are located adjacent to the eastern and northern boundaries of the Project Site, which could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code 3500 et seq. further protect birds and their nests. The Proposed Project would not remove these trees, reducing the potential for a significant direct impact to occur. However, due to the proximity of the trees to the Project Site, implementation of the Proposed Project may result in an indirect impact from construction noise and increased human disturbance if construction activities occur during the general avian nesting season from February through August. California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800, require the avoidance of the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or activities that lead to nest abandonment. To avoid potential indirect impacts to nesting birds in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, Mitigation Measure (MM-) BIO-1 would be required. MM-BIO-1 would require the Project Applicant to retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys to ensure that no nests are located within the ornamental trees adjacent to the Project Site, in accordance with CDFW requirements, if construction activities were to occur during nesting season (typically between February 1 and September 1). Compliance with MM-BIO-1 and conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code would ensure that the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to a protected bird species. Impacts associated with protected bird species would be less than significant after mitigation. Therefore, impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species would be less-than-significant. MM-BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, and/or building permit for activities during the avian nesting season (i.e., February 1 and September 1), the property owner/developer shall submit a survey for active nests to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department conducted by a qualified biologist a maximum of 1 week prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project Site. The nesting bird survey shall consist of full coverage of the project footprint and an appropriate buffer, as determined by the biologist. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) shall be established around any active nest. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field by the biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 68 July 2020 area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the City of Anaheim within 5 days after the survey. bb) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Project Site is located within an upland area7 characterized by disturbed habitat and surrounded by existing development. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Project Site or in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The Project Site is located within an upland area characterized by disturbed habitat and surrounded by existing development. There are no drainages or watercourses on site or within the vicinity of the site. There are no wetlands mapped for the site on the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2020), and the Dudek Biologist did not observe any wetlands or areas capable of supporting wetlands during the survey. The Project Site lacks suitable hydrology, soils, and vegetation to support wetland features. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on state or federally protected waters or wetlands. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Meffe and Carrol (1997) define wildlife movement corridors, also referred to as dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, as linear features along which animals can travel from one habitat or resource area to another. The Project Site does not contain any greenbelts for wildlife movement or native vegetation capable of supporting the movement of wildlife, particularly corridors that facilitate movement of species between larger stands of native habitat. Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in the encroachment into or impediment of a wildlife corridor or nursery site that local wildlife could use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors or wildlife nursery sites. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The Project Site is located within an entirely developed area in the City of Anaheim. Sections 11.12 and 13.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code address the protection of landmark trees and street trees, respectively. No landmark tree shall be removed without prior approval of the City Council. Additionally, no person shall cut, trim, prune, plant, remove, spray, or in any other manner interfere with any street tree within the City without first having secured written permission from the Director of Community Services or his or her 7 According to the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, uplands are defined as any area that does not qualify as a wetland because the associated hydrologic regime is not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegetation, soils, and/or hydrologic characteristics associated with wetlands (ACOE 1987). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 69 July 2020 designee. The Proposed Project would not result in the removal of any landmark trees or street trees as none are located within the Project Site, and the Proposed Project would not affect trees that are located beyond the eastern and northern boundaries of the Project Site. Additionally, Sections 18.18.30 and 18.18.040 provide regulations to preserve significant stands and single specified trees in the (SC) Overlay Zone to preserve the natural beauty of the Santa Ana Canyon environment. However, the Project is not located within the SC Overlay Zone8, and the Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of Sections 18.18.30 and 18.18.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no impact would occur. ff) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or similar plan. The Project Site is not located within or proximate to any Significant Ecological Area, Land Trust, or Conservation Plan. As such, construction of the Proposed Project would not conflict with an adopted conservation plan, and no impact would occur. 3.5 Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? The basis for the following analysis is a Cultural Resources Report prepared for the Project Site in May 2019 by Dudek (Appendix C). As part of Cultural Resources Report, recent photographs of the Project Site, historic maps, aerial photographs, a California Historical Resources Information System records search conducted at the South Central Coast Information Center, a Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search, informal tribal consultation, and an intensive pedestrian survey were conducted. 8 Section 18.18.020 defines the SC Overlay Zone boundaries as the area of the City lying easterly of the intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly of the Orange County line, southerly of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, and northerly of the present or any future south city limits of the City of Anaheim, with the exception of those properties within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-01 (SP2015-01) Zone. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 70 July 2020 aa) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less-than-Significant Impact. An E-Z Service Gas Station previously occupied the Project site from the early 1960s until it was demolished in 1988. The E-Z Service Gas station contained three USTs, including two 10,000-gallon tanks and one 500-gallon tank, which were also removed in 1988. Remediation efforts were conducted on the Project Site by hazardous materials specialists under contract with property owner at the time and under the oversight of the SARWQCB between 1988 and 2000, which involved extensive ground disturbance, including the removal of over 3,000 tons of petroleum-contaminated soil. The extensive amount of ground disturbance that has occurred on the Project Site for the construction and the demolition of the E-Z Service Gas Station, as well the ground disturbance associated with the remediation efforts, has likely destroyed any historical or archaeological deposits that may have once been present on the Project Site. In addition, Dudek did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project Site during the South Central Coast Information Center records search, the intensive pedestrian survey, the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search or informal tribal consultation, or through Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation conducted by the City. Further, Dudek did not identify any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within a 1-mile radius of the Project Site. Considering these factors, the likelihood that there are prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits on the Project Site would be low. As such, the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less-than-Significant-impact. As discussed above, the Project Site has been subject to extensive ground disturbance associated with construction, demolition, and remediation of an EZ-Service Gas Station, which involved removal of over 3,000 tons of petroleum-contaminated soil from the Project Site. Dudek did not identify any archaeological resources on the Project Site during the South Central Coast Information Center records search, the intensive pedestrian survey, the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search or informal tribal consultation, or through AB 52 and SB 18 consultation conducted by the City. Further, Dudek did not identify any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within a 1-mile radius of the Project Site. As such, the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, the Project Site has been subject to extensive ground disturbance associated with construction, demolition, and remediation of an EZ-Service Gas Station. Nevertheless, because there is always the possibility, although extremely unlikely in this case, that human remains could be encountered during grading, MM-CUL-1 shall be required. MM-CUL-1 outlines procedures that would be implemented if skeletal remains are uncovered during construction activities in conformance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, which includes stopping all construction work, notifying the county coroner immediately, and identifying a most likely descendant. With implementation of MM-CUL-1, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 71 July 2020 MMM-CUL-1 If skeletal remains are uncovered during construction activities, all work shall stop immediately and the construction supervisor in charge at the Project Site shall notify the County Coroner of the find immediately, in conformance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall notify a most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials subject to City approval. 3.6 Energy Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact VII. EEnergy – Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less-than-Significant Impact. The short-term construction and long-term operation of the Project would require the consumption of energy resources in several forms at the Project Site and within the Project area. Construction and operational energy consumption is evaluated in detail below. Energy Overview Electricity The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department provides electricity service to the Project Site. Anaheim Public Utilities Department provides electric service to approximately 358,000 people and businesses across a 50-square-mile service area. According to the California Energy Commission, approximately 2,306 gigawatt-hours of electricity were used in Anaheim Public Utilities Department’s service area in 2018 (CEC 2019a). According to the Anaheim Public Utilities 2017 Power Content Label, 34% of Anaheim Public Utilities Department’s power came from renewable energy sources in 2017, including biomass/waste, INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 72 July 2020 geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind sources (APUD 2017). Due to the state’s energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and conservation programs, California’s electricity use per capita has remained stable for more than 30 years, while the national average has steadily increased (CEC 2015). NNatural Gas SoCalGas serves the Project area. SoCalGas serves 21.6 million customers in a 20,000-square-mile service area that includes over 500 communities (SoCalGas 2020). In 2018 (the most recent year for which data is available), SoCalGas delivered 5,156 million therms of natural gas, with the majority going to residential uses (CEC 2019b). Demand for natural gas can vary depending on factors such as weather, price of electricity, the health of the economy, environmental regulations, energy-efficiency programs, and the availability of alternative renewable energy sources. Natural gas is available from a variety of in-state and out-of-state sources and is provided throughout the state in response to market supply and demand. Petroleum Transportation accounts for the majority of California’s total energy consumption. According to the California Energy Commission, California used approximately 16 billion gallons of petroleum in 2019 (CEC 2019c). As technological advances, market trends, consumer behavior, and government policies could result in significant changes in fuel consumption by type and in total. At the federal and state levels, various policies, rules, and regulations have been enacted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency, promote the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce transportationǦsource air pollutants and GHG emissions, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Construction Electricity Anaheim Public Utilities Department would provide temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment. The amount of electricity used during construction would be minimal, because typical demand would stem from electrically powered hand tools. The electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and minimal; therefore, Project construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity. Impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas The Project Applicant does not anticipate the Proposed Project requiring natural gas during Project construction. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, discussed below. Any minor amounts of natural gas that Project construction activities may consume would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect; therefore, Project construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas. Impacts would be less than significant. Petroleum Construction activities would require petroleum consumption throughout construction. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction. Transportation of construction materials and construction workers would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment, vendor trucks, and haul trucks would use diesel fuel. Construction workers INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 73 July 2020 would likely travel to and from the Project area in gasoline-powered vehicles. For purposes of modeling, it was assumed that construction would occur over a 6-month period as early as 2021. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities would rely on diesel fuel, as would haul and vendor trucks involved in delivery of materials to the Project Site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project Site throughout the duration of construction. This analysis assumes that construction workers would travel to and from the site in gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles. The Project Applicant would use heavy-duty construction equipment of various types during Project construction. Appendix A lists the assumed equipment usage for construction. As presented in Table 7, Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment, the analysis estimates that the Project’s construction equipment would operate a total combined 3,513 hours. TTable 77.. Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment PPhase HHours of Equipment Use Site Preparation 16 Grading 42 Building Construction 3,200 Paving 225 Architectural Coating 30 TTotal 33,513 SSource: See Appendix A for details. The analysis estimated fuel consumption from construction equipment by converting the total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO 2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2019). The estimated diesel fuel usage from construction equipment is shown in Table 8, Construction Equipment Diesel Demand Table 88. Construction Equipment Diesel Demand Phase Pieces of Equipment Equipment CO2 ((MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons Site Preparation 2 0.43 10.21 41.88 Grading 4 1.05 10.21 101.95 Building Construction 5 50.43 10.21 4,901.18 Paving 7 2.35 10.21 229.98 Architectural Coating 1 0.64 10.21 62.52 Total 5,337.50 Sources: a See Appendix A for details. b The Climate Registry 2019. Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram;. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 74 July 2020 Fuel consumption from worker and vendor trips was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from the construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline-fueled, and vendor/hauling vehicles are assumed to be diesel-fueled. Calculations for total worker and vendor fuel consumption are provided in Table 9, Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand, and Table 10, Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand. TTable 99.. CConstruction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand PPhase TTrips VVehicle CO22 ((MT)aa kkg CO22/Gallonb Gallons Site Preparation 6 0.03 8.78 3.27 Grading 20 0.10 8.78 10.89 Building Construction 1,200 5.73 8.78 653.08 Paving 90 0.43 8.78 48.99 Architectural Coating 10 0.05 8.78 5.44 Total 721.667 Sources: a See Appendix A for details. b The Climate Registry 2019. Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram. Table 110. CConstruction VVendor Truck Diesel Demand Phase Trips Vehicle CO2 ((MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons Site Preparation 0 0.00 10.21 0.00 Grading 0 0.00 10.21 0.00 Building Construction 400 4.88 10.21 478.25 Paving 0 0.00 10.21 0.00 Architectural Coating 0 0.00 10.21 0.00 Total 478.25 Sources: a See Appendix A for details. b The Climate Registry 2019. Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram. As shown in Tables 8 through 10, the analysis estimates that the Project would consume approximately 6,537 gallons of petroleum during the construction phase. For comparison, the state of California will likely consume approximately 9 billion gallons of petroleum over the course of the Proposed Project’s construction phase, based on the California daily petroleum consumption estimate of approximately 78.6 million gallons per day (EIA 2019). Overall, because petroleum use during construction would be temporary, and would not be wasteful or inefficient, impacts would be less than significant. Operation Electricity At full buildout, the Project’s operational phase would require electricity. CalEEMod default values for electricity consumption for the apartments mid-rise land use were applied (CAPCOA 2017). The California Building Standards Commission approved and adopted the 2019 Title 24 standards in December 2018. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 75 July 2020 The 2019 standards became effective January 1, 2020. However, the most recent version of CalEEMod, which this analysis used, uses the 2016 version of Title 24 as a basis for energy modelling. Table 11, Estimated Electrical Demand – Project Operation, provides operational electricity use for the Project. TTable 111.. Estimated Electrical Demand –– PProject Operation LLand Use Type Estimated Electrical Demand AAnaheim Public Utilities Department ((kilowatt--hours per year) Apartments Mid-Rise 43,728 Source: See Appendix A for details. As shown in Table 11, this analysis estimates that the Project would have a total electrical demand of approximately 43,728 kilowatt-hours per year. By comparison, in 2018, Anaheim Public Utilities Department supplied 2,306 gigawatt-hours of electricity to customers (CEC 2019a). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a wasteful use of energy. Impacts related to operational electricity use would be less than significant. Natural Gas Building heating options would be the primary consumer of natural gas throughout operation of the Project, As described above and consistent with electricity use, this analysis estimated the Project’s natural gas use using CalEEMod. Table 12, Estimated Natural Gas Demand – Project Operation, shows the estimated natural gas use (in therms per year) for the Project during operation. Table 112. Estimated Natural Gas Demand –– PProject Operation Land Use Type Estimated Natural Gas Demand (therms per year) Apartments Mid-Rise 125,702 Source: See Appendix A for details. As presented in Table 12, the analysis estimates that the Project would use approximately 125,702 therms of natural gas per year. By comparison, in 2018, SoCalGas supplied 5,156 million therms of natural gas to customers (CEC 2019b). Therefore, natural gas consumption impacts would be less than significant. Petroleum The majority of fuel consumption resulting from the Project’s operational phase would be attributable to the use of visitor and delivery motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, as well as fuels used for alternative modes of transportation by visitors and deliveries. Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site is a function of VMT because of Project operation. As shown in Appendix A, the analysis estimates that the annual vehicle VMT attributable to the Project would be approximately 244,326 VMT per year. Similar to INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 76 July 2020 construction worker and vendor trips, the analysis estimated fuel consumption by converting the total CO2 emissions to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Based on the annual fleet mix provided in CalEEMod, the analysis assumed that 92.9% of the fleet range from light-duty to medium-duty vehicles and motorcycles would run on gasoline. The remaining 7.1% of vehicles represent medium-heavy duty to heavy-duty vehicles and buses/recreational vehicles, which would run on diesel. Table 13, Mobile Source Fuel Consumption – Operation provides the calculations for annual mobile-source fuel consumption are provided in. TTable 113.. Mobile Source Fuel Consumption –– PProject Operation FFuel VVehicle MT CO22 kg CO2/Gallon Gallons Gasoline 94.94 8.78 10,813.72 Diesel 7.27 10.21 711.63 Total 11,525.35 Sources: See Appendix A for details (mobile source CO2); The Climate Registry 2019 (kg/CO2/gallon). Notes: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram. As depicted in Table 13, Project operation would result in approximately 11,525 gallons of petroleum fuel usage per year. This is a conservative estimate, since it does not account for usage of electric vehicles (EVs). By comparison, California as a whole consumes approximately 28.7 billion gallons of petroleum per year (EIA 2019). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, over the lifetime of the Project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to increase (EIA 2017). As such, the amount of petroleum consumed because of vehicular trips to and from the Project Site during operation would decrease over time. There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency, such as efforts to accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero-emissions vehicles in California and increasingly stringent emissions standards (CARB 2011). As such, operation of the Project would use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy. Impacts related to operational petroleum use would therefore be less than significant. In summary, although the Project would increase energy use, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide use and, due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time (particularly with respect to petroleum). Given these considerations, energy consumption associated with the Project would not be inefficient or wasteful and would result in a less than significant impact. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would follow applicable energy standards and regulations during the construction phases. Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. The California Energy Commission updates Part 6 periodically (every 3 years) to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies. Title 24 also includes Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground- up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings, as well as, schools and INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 77 July 2020 hospitals. The Project would meet all applicable Title 24 and CALGreen standards to reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency. As such, impacts related to the Project’s potential to conflict with plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency would be less than significant. The Anaheim Public Utilities Department’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan) demonstrates the City’s commitment to pursue energy efficiency and reduce GHGs across the community and municipal operations (APUD 2015). The Project would be consistent with the intent of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan since the Applicant has designed the Project to be inherently energy efficient by implementing measures as provided in the Title 24 and CALGreen standards. Homes built under the 2019 Standards will use about 7% less energy than the current 2016 standards. Furthermore, the 2019 Title 24 Standards require the construction of new residential buildings, to be solar ready to facilitate the installation of rooftop solar systems; this requirement would be applicable to the Proposed Project. Overall, the Project would not conflict with existing energy standards and regulations; therefore, impacts during construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 3.7 Geology and Soils PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact VIII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 78 July 2020 PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 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? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause 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 Zoning Act (Alquist–Priolo Act) requires the delineation of fault zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist–Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce hazards associated with fault rupture. The Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are the regulatory zones that include surface traces of active faults. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of Anaheim 2020a), the City is located in an area considered to be seismically active, similar to most of Southern California. Active and potentially active faults are adjacent to the City. However, there are no faults underlying the City or any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City. As such, although it is likely that the Project Site would experience strong ground shaking as a result of an earthquake over the life of the Proposed Project (refer to Section 3.7(a)(ii)), the Proposed Project would not be subject to surface rupture impacts as a result of a seismic event. Therefore, no impacts associated with fault rupture would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less-than-Significant Impact. Like most of Southern California, the Project Site is located within a seismically active area. Numerous faults considered active or potentially active have been mapped in Southern California, including within the City and in neighboring cities. Thus, the Proposed Project could expose future residents and their visitors to strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of Anaheim 2020a), the City is located between two major active fault zones: the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located to the southwest INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 79 July 2020 and the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone located to the northeast. Both the Newport-Inglewood and the Whittier-Elsinore Faults are under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone passes within approximately 7 miles of the western limits of the City. Although no onshore surface fault rupture has taken place since 1769, the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 on the Richter scale according to the City’s General Plan EIR (City of Anaheim 2004). The Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone is the closest major fault system to the City and one of the largest in Southern California. The fault zone does not extend inside the City boundaries but approaches within less than 1 mile of the northeastern corner of the City. The Whittier-Elsinore Fault is currently active and capable of generating an earthquake of up to a magnitude of 6.8 on the Richter scale (City of Anaheim 2020a). Appropriate measures to mitigate and minimize the effects of earthquakes and other geotechnical hazards are included in the California Building Code, with specific provisions pertaining to seismic load and design. The City of Anaheim has adopted the California Building Code as Chapter 15 (Building and Housing) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The design and construction of the Proposed Project, in accordance with the California Building Code, would minimize the adverse effects of strong ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible during an earthquake. In review, the Project Site is not in a considerably close range of an earthquake zone that would produce seismic activities that would cause surface ruptures. The City would require the Applicant to build the Proposed Project with geotechnical hazards that would comply with the California Building Code. Therefore, strong seismic ground shaking impacts would be less than significant. iiii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Soil liquefaction is a seismically induced form of ground failure that has been a major cause of earthquake damage in Southern California. Liquefaction takes place when granular materials become saturated by water, lose strength and transform from a solid to a liquid. Liquefaction generally occurs during significant earthquake activity, and structures located on soils such as silt or sand may experience significant damage during an earthquake because of the instability of structural foundations and the moving earth. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular materials situated at depths of less than 50 feet with silt and clay contents of less than 30% that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. These geological and groundwater conditions exist in parts of Southern California, typically in valley regions and alluviated floodplains. Liquefaction has the potential to impact properties that are located along the Santa Ana River within the City and in western portions of the City. According to Figure S-3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards, of the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of Anaheim 2020a), the Project Site is located within an area susceptible to liquefaction. Soil Exploration Company, Inc. performed a site-specific geotechnical study (Appendix D) to understand any development constraints because of the characteristics of the underlying soils. To mitigate for potential impacts related ground failure, including liquefaction, MM-GEO-1 shall be INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 80 July 2020 required. MM-GEO-1 requires that the Proposed Project incorporate all applicable geotechnical recommendations made in the site-specific geotechnical study, including those related to seismic guidelines and liquefaction, into the Proposed Project’s design and engineering. Application of these recommendations, including the recommendation to over excavate and recompact the existing surficial soils to provide adequate and uniform support for the Proposed Project, would further reduce the potential to expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss or injury due to liquefaction. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. MMM-GEO-1: The property owner/developer shall implement all recommendations in the approved Geotechnical Investigation report for the Proposed Project during site preparation, grading, and construction, and compliance with the approved Geotechnical Investigation shall be verified in the field by a qualified representative. The property owner/developer shall demonstrate to the City of Anaheim’s Planning & Building Department and/or Public Works Department staff that all or equivalent recommendations in the Preliminary Soil Investigation, Liquefaction Evaluation and Infiltration Test Report. Proposed Two-Story Apartment Complex with Partial Subterranean Parking, 3175 W. Ball Road, City of Anaheim, California, prepared by Soil Exploration Company, Inc. September 12, 2016, or any updates to that report have been incorporated into the Proposed Project’s design and grading plans. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The Project Site, and land within the surrounding area, is relatively flat and lacks any hillsides or other natural topographic features typically susceptible to landslides. According to Figure S-3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards, of the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of Anaheim 2020a), the Project Site is located outside of an area susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides. Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Short-Term Construction Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would involve earthwork and other construction activities that would disturb surface soils and temporarily leave exposed soil on the ground’s surface. Common causes of soil erosion from construction sites include stormwater, wind, and soil that vehicles would track off site. To help curb erosion, Proposed Project construction activities must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations for erosion control. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with standard regulations, including SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce construction erosion impacts. Rule 402 requires the Project Applicant to implement dust suppression techniques to prevent dust and soil erosion from creating a nuisance off site (SCAQMD 1976). Rule 403 requires the applicant to control fugitive dust with best available control measures so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source (SCAQMD 2005). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 81 July 2020 In addition, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Chapter 17.04, Grading, Excavations, Fills, Watercourses, of the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2020b), which sets forth a series of requirements intended to minimize erosion impacts during construction activities to the extent feasible. These requirements include measures to be implemented on and adjacent to a construction site to control runoff. Consistency with RWCQB’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements would prevent accelerated erosion that has led to, or could lead to, degradation of water quality, damage to property, loss of topsoil and vegetation cover, disruption of water supply, and/or the deposition of sediments and associated nutrients. Therefore, short-term impacts associated with soil erosion and topsoil loss would be less than significant. LLong-Term Operational Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the 11-unit apartment complex would improve the Project Site, including associated on-site and site-adjacent improvements such as parking, and pedestrian walkways and landscape areas. Collectively, these on-site areas would reduce the potential for soil erosion and topsoil loss. The structural and paved improvements would generally be impervious areas lacking any exposed soils. The landscape areas, although pervious, would contain ornamental vegetation that would help stabilize and retain surface soils on the Project Site. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with soil erosion and topsoil loss would be less than significant. c) Would the project 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Soil Exploration Company, Inc. performed a site- specific geotechnical study (Appendix D) to understand the specific development constraints because of the characteristics of the underlying soils. To mitigate for potential impacts related unstable geologic units or soils, MM-GEO-1 shall be required. MM-GEO-1 requires that the Proposed Project incorporate all applicable geotechnical recommendations made in the study, including the recommendation to over excavate and recompact the existing surficial soils to provide adequate and uniform support for the Proposed Project, into the design and engineering of the Proposed Project. Application of these recommendations would further reduce the potential to expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss or injury due to unstable geologic units or soils. Therefore, with implementation of MM-GEO-1impacts associated with unstable geologic units or soils would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, expansive soils those possessing g clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking (when they dry) or swelling (when they become wet). Expansive soils can also consist of silty to sandy clay. The extent of shrinking and swelling is influenced by the environment, such as alternating wet and dry cycles, and by the amount of clay in the soil. This physical change in the soils can react unfavorably with building foundations, concrete walkways, swimming pools, roadways, and masonry walls, etc. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 82 July 2020 The Proposed Project’s site-specific geotechnical study (Appendix D) included an analysis of on-site soils. According to the geotechnical study, the expansion potential of near-surface soils at the Project Site is very low. Notwithstanding, to ensure all potential impacts relating to on-site soils are adequately addressed, MM-GEO-1 shall be required. MM-GEO-1 requires that the Proposed Project incorporate all applicable geotechnical recommendations made in the site-specific geotechnical study, including those related to expansive soils, into the design and engineering of the Proposed Project. Application of these recommendations would further reduce the potential to expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss or injury due to expansive soils. Therefore, with implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. ee) Would the project 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 Proposed Project would connect to the existing City sewer system that currently serves the Project Site. As such, the Proposed Project would not require a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impacts associated with the ability of soils to support septic tanks would occur. f) W ould the project d ire c tly or indirectly destro y a uni que p al eontolo gical resource or site or un ique geolog ic feature? Less-than-Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan EIR (City of Anaheim 2004), because most of the City is built-out, there are very few areas containing rock croppings that could potentially contain significant paleontological resources such as fossils. The Hill and Canyon Area of the City contain sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Late Cretaceous to Middle Miocene. The oldest sedimentary rocks belong to the upper Cretaceous Holz Shale and the Schulz Ranch Member of the Williams Formation. These strata are confined to the southeastern corner of the Hill and Canyon Area, and no fossils have been reported. Conversely, the Project area is not identified in the City’s General Plan EIR as containing any rock croppings, being underlain by important sedimentary formations, or having sensitivity for paleontological resources, and the Hill and Canyon Area is 4 miles or more to the east of the Project Site. Moreover, as discussed previously in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the Project Site has been subject to extensive ground disturbance, including the removal of approximately 3,000 tons of soil. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not directly, or indirectly, destroy a unique paleontological resource, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact VIIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 83 July 2020 PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Would the project g enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system, and many factors (natural and human) can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance. The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature, and it creates a livable environment on Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project contributes to this impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. Thus, CAPCOA recognizes GHG impacts exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008). A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) for purposes of administering many of the state’s primary GHG emissions reduction programs, GHGs include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluorid (see also 14 CCR 15364.5). The three GHGs evaluated herein are CO2, CH4, and N2O, because these are the only GHG gases that the Proposed Project would be emit during project construction and/or operations. Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly.9 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, this analysis measures the GWP-weighted emissions in metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Consistent with CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, this GHG emissions analysis assumed the GWP for CH4 is 25 (emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). 9 Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations o f the substance produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 84 July 2020 As discussed in Section 3.3 of this IS/MND, the Project is located within the SCAQMD’s jurisdictional boundaries. In October 2008, the SCAQMD proposed recommended numeric CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects as presented in its Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (SCAQMD 2008). This document, which builds on the previous guidance prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, explored various approaches for establishing a significance threshold for GHG emissions. The SCAQMD Governing Board did not adopt or approve the draft interim CEQA thresholds guidance document. However, in December 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an interim 10,000 MT CO2e per-year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency (see SCAQMD Resolution No. 08-35, December 5, 2008). The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. From December 2008 to September 2010, the SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in a subsequent document. The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general land use development projects. The most recent proposal, issued in September 2010, uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses (SCAQMD 2010): TTier 1. Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2. Tier 2. Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3. Tier 3. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MT CO2e per-year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MT CO2e per year), commercial projects (1,400 MT CO2e per year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MT CO2e per year). Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4. Tier 4. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MT CO 2e per-service population for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e per-service population for plan-level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5. Tier 5. Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) specifies that “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 85 July 2020 agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” The CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, establish specific thresholds of significance, or mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance that are consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009). To determine the Project’s potential to generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, the Project’s GHG emissions were compared to the residential land use project quantitative threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e per year. Per the SCAQMD guidance, the analysis should amortize construction emissions over the operational life of the project, which the SCAQMD guidance assumes to be 30 years (SCAQMD 2008). This impact analysis, therefore, compares amortized construction emissions to the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e per year. CConstruction Emissions Construction of the Project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, on-road trucks, and worker vehicles. The expected construction schedules (including information regarding phasing, equipment used during each phase, truck trips, and worker vehicle trips) assumed for the purposes of emissions estimation is provided in Table 3 and in Appendix A. On-site sources of GHG emissions include off-road equipment; off-site sources include trucks and worker vehicles. Table 14 presents construction GHG emissions for the Project from on-site and off-site emissions sources. Table 114. Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Metric Tons pper Year 2021 65.71 0.02 0.00 66.16 Amortized Construction Emissions 2.21 Source: See Appendix A for complete results. Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent. As shown in Table 14, the estimated total GHG emissions in 2021 would be approximately 66 MT CO2e. Amortized over 30 years, construction GHG emissions would be approximately 2 MT CO 2e per year. In addition, as with Project-generated construction criteria air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during proposed construction activities would be short-term, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions. Because there is no separate GHG threshold for construction, the evaluation of significance is part of the operational emissions analysis in the following text. Operational Emissions Once construction is complete, operation of the Project would generate GHG emissions through motor vehicle trips; landscape maintenance equipment operation (area source); energy use (natural gas and electricity); solid INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 86 July 2020 waste disposal; and water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. This analysis used CalEEMod to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the same operational assumptions. The estimated operational Project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, and water supply and wastewater generation are shown in Table 15. TTable 15.. Estimated AAnnual Operational GHG Emissions SSource CCO22 CH4 N2O CO2e Metric Tons per Year Area 3.60 <0.01 <0.01 3.71 Energy 59.08 <0.01 <0.01 59.24 Mobile 102.21 <0.01 0.00 102.33 Solid Waste 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.64 Water Supply and Wastewater Generation 5.91 0.02 <0.01 6.52 Total 171.06 0.04 <0.01 172.44 Amortized Construction Emissions 2.21 Total Net Operational + Amortized Construction GHGs 174.65 Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent. Values of “<0.01” indicate that the estimated emissions are less than two decimals. Source: See Appendix B for complete results. As shown in Table 15, estimated annual Project-generated GHG emissions would be approximately 172 MT CO2e per year because of Project operations only. After accounting for amortized Project construction emissions, total GHGs generated by the Project would be approximately 175 MT CO2e per year. As such, annual operational GHG emissions with amortized construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the Project’s GHG contribution would be less than significant. b) Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less-than-Significant Impact. The City adopted a GHG Reduction Plan in 2015; the Anaheim Public Utilities Department developed the plan to identify goals for 2020 and 2030 and to reduce community and municipal GHG emissions as mandated under AB 32. As discussed in Section 3.6(b), the Project would be consistent with the intent of the GHG Reduction Plan due to the Project following applicable energy standards and regulations during construction and operations. Therefore, the Project would meet the energy use reduction targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan. Consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan The CARB Scoping Plan, approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017, provides a framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor does INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 87 July 2020 CARB intend it to be used for project-level evaluations.10 Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard), among others. CConsistency with the Southern California Association of Governments 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG’s Connect SoCal (also known as the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS) is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Connect SoCal charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. Successful implementation of the Connect SoCal would result in increasing transportation choices, reducing dependence on personal automobiles, encouraging growth in walkable/mixed-use communities with ready access to transit infrastructure and employment opportunities, and improving air quality. The Connect SoCal plan builds up the strategies identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS including land use strategies with the committed and projected transportation investments such that they emphasize system preservation and enhancement, active transportation, and land use integration. These strategies identify how the SCAG region can implement Connect SoCal and achieve related GHG reductions. The Project would develop the Project Site with 11 residential units and would not conflict with the goals of the Connect SoCal. Utilizing SCAG’s Connect SoCal growth forecasts, the addition of 39 persons in 2022 would not exceed the growth assumptions in the Connect SoCal, as this would represent a nominal amount (2.2%) of the estimated annual growth within the City (SCAG 2020). Because the Connect SoCal was developed by working with local jurisdictions and utilizing the most up-to-date planning assumptions, the Project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal as well. Consistency with Executive Order S-3-05 and Senate Bill 32 The Project would not impede the attainment of the GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 identified in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 and SB 32. EO S-3-05 establishes the following goals: California should reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that cumulatively statewide actions would reduce GHG emissions to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. While there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future 10 The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of Reasons that “[t]he Scoping Plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 88 July 2020 year analysis, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014). CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” (CARB 2014). With regard to the 2050 target for reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan states that the level of reduction is achievable in California (CARB 2014). CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and EO S-3-05. The 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017b) states: The Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Project would not interfere with implementation of any of the previously described GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 because the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e per year (SCAQMD 2008). Because the Project would not exceed the threshold, this analysis provides support for the conclusion that the Project would not impede the state’s trajectory toward the previously described statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050. The Project’s consistency with the state’s Scoping Plan would assist in meeting the City’s contribution to GHG emission reduction targets in California. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and EO S-3-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the SB 32 40% reduction target by 2030 and the EO S-3-05 80% reduction target by 2050. This legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that California will adopt future regulations to continue the trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets. Based on the considerations previously outlined, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be less than significant. 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignifiicant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact IX.. HHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 89 July 2020 PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignifiicant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The following analysis is based on the Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) prepared by Dudek in October 2017. The Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) includes a human health risk assessment that uses the Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Level Risk model to evaluate the carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic risk to future site occupants of the Project Site using maximum detected soil vapor concentrations from soil vapor samples taken from the Project Site by Jones Environmental on July 18, 2017. In the context of the human health risk assessment, a significant impact would occur if carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health hazard indices exceed human health de minimus risk thresholds, which are one in a million for carcinogenic risks or 1.0 for the non-carcinogenic health hazard index. Additional detail is provided in Appendix E. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 90 July 2020 aa) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Short-Term Construction Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. During construction of the Proposed Project, the Project Applicant and/or his/her contractor would likely handle potentially hazardous materials on the Project Site. These materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment. Handling these potentially hazardous materials would be temporary and would coincide with the short-term construction phase of the Proposed Project. Although these materials would likely be stored on the Project Site, storage would be required to comply with the guidelines set forth by each product’s manufacturer, as well as in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the storage of hazardous materials. For the transport of hazardous materials, a hired licensed contractor would transport hazardous materials on and off the Project Site. The licensed contractor is required to follow procedures set forth by federal, state, and local requirements, pertaining to the transport of hazardous materials on and off the Project Site. Further, any handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the EPA, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, California Department of Transportation, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the City of Anaheim’s Certified Unified Program Agency. In 1963, construction of an E-Z Serve gasoline station occurred on the Project Site and then in May 1988, the demolition of the E-Z Serve gasoline station took place, leaving the Project Site vacant. At the time of the demolition of the E-Z Serve gasoline station, Caliber Contractors, working on behalf of the property owner at the time, removed three 10,000-gallon underground gasoline USTs, one 550-gallon waste oil UST, and associated appurtenances from the Project Site. Upon removal, Caliber Contractors found the USTs to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbons into the soil and groundwater. Over the course of a decade, hazardous materials specialists under contract with property owner at the time and under the oversight of the SARWQCB performed site characterization efforts to identify the extent of contamination and identify safe procedures by which remediation activities could occur. Subsequently, hazardous materials specialists under contract with property owner at the time performed site remediation activities. Site characterization and remediation efforts included soil borings, hydropunch sampling, installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells, and a brief dual-phase vapor extraction/air sparge pilot test. Remediation activities ultimately involved excavation and removal of over 3,000-tons of petroleum-contaminated soil and groundwater monitoring and extraction at the site. On April 9, 2012, the SARWQCB issued a closure letter stating that remediation activities had remediated contaminants to acceptable levels for commercial and industrial use, but noted that if there were to be a change in land-use to a residential or more restrictive use (i.e., school, nursery, hospital, residential, or senior housing), a vapor human health risk assessment may be required (SARWQCB 2012). Because the Proposed Project would require a land use change from commercial to residential, a soil vapor human health risk assessment was prepared (Appendix E) to evaluate on-site soils and estimate the potential human health risk to future building occupants due to vapor intrusion of gasoline-related VOCs from the subsurface. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 91 July 2020 As part of the Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E), Jones Environmental conducted soil vapor sampling on July 18, 2017. No contaminants were detected in the soil samples collected; however, soil vapor sampling indicated the presence of VOCs (mainly the gasoline constituents benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes) in the subsurface at the Project Site. The sampling also detected concentrations of chloroform, isopropylbenzene, and styrene that were above the laboratory reporting limits11, indicating their concentrations should be analyzed in the context of their potential impacts on human health. The Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) includes a human health risk assessment, conducted by Dudek. The health risk assessment uses the Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Level Risk model, with inputs from the sampling event. The model utilizes these inputs to evaluate the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk to future site occupants using the maximum detected soil vapor concentrations of all detected VOCs. The model’s results indicate that the modeled excess carcinogenic risk for the Project Site is “one in a million”, which is equal to the de minimus human health risk threshold of one in a million. The calculated cumulative non-carcinogenic health hazard index at the site is 0.03, which is below the threshold value of 1.0. These carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health hazard indices are equal to or below human health de minimus risk thresholds. Nevertheless, to minimize risk to construction workers who would handle subsurface soils on the Project Site and to properly manage excavated soils and any extracted groundwater, mitigation measures (MM-) HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, and MM-HAZ-3 would be required: MMM-HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a site-specific Health and Safety Plan to the Planning and Building Department. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall require that the property owner/developer include the following instructions to its construction contractor: “The construction contractor shall use a photoionization detector (PID) to regularly inspect the exposed soil for evidence of any contamination.” These instructions shall be included on all plans pertaining to subsurface construction activities for the Proposed Project. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall identify air monitoring action levels based on the benzene Cal- OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) to protect worker health and safety. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall note measures to be taken if air monitoring in the breathing zone of site workers indicates concentrations above the action levels. These measures could include the use of personal protective equipment, including air purifying respirators, or engineering controls, as well as site perimeter monitoring. MM-HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that if potential contamination indicators are identified during excavation based on visual observations and/or air monitoring the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons may be stained or odorous. Stained soil may have bluish to dark gray discoloration. Discoloration may remain even after the product has naturally degraded. If suspect petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils are observed during excavation, the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Evaluation will include collection of samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis. The number of samples to be collected will be based on potential disposal facility requirements. If 11 The smallest concentration (or amount) of analyte, that can be reported by a laboratory is called the laboratory reporting limit. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 92 July 2020 concentrations of TPH and VOCs are below direct exposure human health soil screening levels (Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels), then the soil may remain on-site. If the concentrations exceed the screening levels, then the soil will be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. Visually screening the soil will be accompanied by air monitoring using a photoionization detector (PID) or other organic vapor analyzer. In accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations (specifically Rule 1166), VOC-contaminated soil, if identified at the Project Site during excavation activities, will be properly managed. VOC-contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, consists of soil with concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using a PID calibrated with hexane. If volatile organics are measured at concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using a PID calibrated with hexane, then the excavation, stockpile management, and agency notification shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1166. If identified, VOC-contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, shall be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. MMM-HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that during construction, should groundwater be encountered and require extraction, any extracted groundwater will be managed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction dewatering, in accordance with existing regulations. The NPDES permit will require monitoring of volatile organic compound concentrations in the extracted groundwater per the Monitoring and Reporting Program developed at the time of issuance of a NPDES permit. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a memorandum or report indicating whether construction dewatering was requiring during site preparation and grading. If construction dewatering is necessary, the Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall identify whether effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations. The Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. If the effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations, the Planning and Building Department shall require that the property owner/developer retain a qualified environmental professional to reevaluate the potential human health risk under the residential scenario based on the effluent VOC concentrations at the end of dewatering. If the qualified environmental consultant determines that the potential human health risk under the residential scenario exceeds de minimis thresholds of one in a million for cancer risk or the non-cancer hazard index risk value of 1.0, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for informing the Planning and Building Department and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in writing of the discovery. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for coordinating with the qualified environmental consultant to ensure that the vapor mitigation noted in Mitigation INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 93 July 2020 Measure (MM-) HAZ-4 is designed to sufficiently mitigate vapor impacts to human health and safety of future occupants at the Project Site. With the incorporation of mitigation, short-term impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. LLong-Term Operational Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As a residential land use, potentially hazardous materials associated with operation of the Proposed Project would include those materials typically associated with cleaning and maintenance activities. Although these materials would vary, they would generally include household cleaning products, solvents, paints, fertilizers, and herbicides and pesticides. The EPA considers many of these materials as household hazardous wastes, common wastes, and universal wastes. The EPA also considers these types of wastes common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes when properly handled, transported, used, and disposed of (EPA 2020). Because of less-stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, many of these wastes do not need the same special handling as hazardous wastes typically would under federal, state, and local regulations. The regulations typically allow unlicensed individuals to handle and dispose of these types of wastes. Additionally, any potentially hazardous material handled on the Project Site would be limited in quantity and concentration, consistent with other similar residential uses located in the City, and any handling, transport, use, and disposal of such material would comply with applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Furthermore, as mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, required postings of Materials Safety Data Sheets, accompanying all hazardous materials stored on the Project Site, would inform on-site personnel and residents of the necessary remediation procedures in the case of accidental release (OSHA 2020). Therefore, long-term impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Although it was determined in the Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) that the presence of VOCs on the Project Site did not exceed the de minimis risk level, as the risk level was equal to the de minimis level, the Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) recommended vapor intrusion measures. These measures would minimize risk to future residents of the Proposed Project, as outlined in MM-HAZ-4: MM-HAZ-4 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department, showing that the property owner/developer has incorporated at least one of following options into the Proposed Project: x Option A: Limiting vapor intrusion into future residences through use of a well- ventilated ground-level garage that is not intended for human occupation; or x Option B: Installation of a sub-slab liner/passive ventilation to limit vapor intrusion to the future residences. With the incorporation of MM-HAZ-4, long-term impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. (Note that based on the current site plan [see Figure 6a], the Proposed Project’s design already incorporates a well-ventilated ground-level garage that is not INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 94 July 2020 intended for human occupation, and thus, barring any significant redesign that removes this ground-level garage component of the Proposed Project, this mitigation measure has been satisfied through a Project design feature). bb) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Short-Term Construction Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3.9(a), Dudek prepared a Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) to determine if the health risks involved with soil vapor at the Project Site would affect future occupants of the Proposed Project. Results of the Soil Vapor Investigation Report indicated that carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks at the Project Site are below equal to or human health de minimus risk thresholds. To minimize risk to construction workers who would handle subsurface soils MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, and MM-HAZ-3 would be required. With the incorporation of mitigation, short-term impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Long-Term Operational Impacts Less--than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As a residential land use, potentially hazardous materials associated with operation of the Proposed Project would include those materials typically associated with cleaning and maintenance activities. Although these materials would vary, they would generally include household cleaning products, solvents, paints, fertilizers, and herbicides and pesticides. The EPA considers many of these materials to be household hazardous wastes, common wastes, and universal wastes. The EPA considers these types of wastes common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes when individuals properly handle, transport, use, and dispose of them (EPA 2020). Federal, state, and local regulations typically allow individuals to handle and dispose of these types of wastes under less-stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, and many of these wastes do not need management as hazardous waste. Additionally, any potentially hazardous material handled on the Project Site would be limited in quantity and concentration, consistent with other similar residential uses located in the City, and any handling, transport, use, and disposal of such material would comply with applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Additionally, as mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a Materials Safety Data Sheet would accompany all hazardous materials stored on the Project Site. The Materials Safety Data Sheet would inform on-site personnel and residents of the necessary remediation procedures in the case of accidental release (OSHA 2020). Therefore, long-term impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Although the Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) determined that the presence of VOCs on the Project Site did not exceed the de minimis risk level, as the risk level was equal to the de minimis level, the report recommended vapor intrusion measures to minimize risk to future residents of the Proposed Project, as outlined in MM-HAZ-4. With the incorporation of mitigation, long-term impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 95 July 2020 cc) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less-than-Significant Impact. Land uses and activities typically associated with hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste include heavy commercial, manufacturing, research, and industrial uses. The Proposed Project does not include any such uses or activities. In addition, as a residential land use, potentially hazardous materials associated with operation of the Proposed Project would include those materials typically associated with cleaning and maintenance activities, including household hazardous wastes, common wastes, and universal wastes. The EPA considers these materials to be common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes when individuals properly handle, transport, use and dispose of them (EPA 2020). Further, any potentially hazardous material handled on the Project Site would be limited in quantity and concentration, consistent with other similar residential uses located in the City, and any handling, transport, use, and disposal of such material would comply with applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. As such, even though the closest school to the Project Site (Twila Reid Elementary School) is 0.22 miles north of the Project Site, the Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. Therefore, impacts associated with the emitting or handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site that 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 Impact. The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with the CEQA requirements in providing information about the locations of hazardous materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California EPA to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. From 1963 to 1988 the Project Site was developed with an E-Z Serve gasoline station, which was found to have leaking underground storage tanks that released gasoline products into the soil. Because of this release, the State Water Resources Control Board listed the Project Site on its Leaking Underground Storage Tank List. Over the course of a decade, hazardous materials specialists under contract with property owner at the time on the Project Site under the oversight of the SARWQCB undertook efforts to remediate on-site soils, and in 2012, the State Water Resources Control Board closed the case (Appendix E). As discussed in Section 3.9(a), it was determined in the Soil Vapor Investigation Report (Appendix E) that the presence of VOCs resulting from this leaking underground storage case would not pose a threat to the Proposed Project and its residents. The Project Site is not located on any other regulatory database, such as the EnviroStor database maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2020). As such, impacts would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 96 July 2020 ee) 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport is Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, located approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest, which is a military airfield. The closest public airport to the Project Site is Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 5.0 miles northeast of the Project Site in the City of Fullerton. The Project Site is not part of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base or for Fullerton Municipal Airport (ALUC 2004, 2016). The Project Site is outside of the areas that the ALUC regulates land use with respect to air crash hazards. The Project Site is also outside of the areas where ALUC would limit the heights of structures to prevent airspace obstructions for aircraft approaching or departing an airport. The Proposed Project would not result in safety hazards related to aircraft operations. Therefore, no impacts associated with public airport hazards would occur. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to Figure C-1, Planned Roadway Network, in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element (City of Anaheim 2020a), West Ball Road is identified as a Primary Arterial, and Western Avenue is identified as a Secondary Arterial. Both of these roadway facilities traverse the City and connect to regional facilities, including I-5, SR-91 and SR-39. Due to this local and regional connectivity, in the unlikely event of an emergency, both of these Project-adjacent roadway facilities would serve as emergency evacuation routes for first responders and residents. As discussed in Section 3.16, Transportation, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect operations on the local or regional circulation system, and as such, would not affect the use of these facilities as emergency response routes. Therefore, no impacts associated with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. According to Figure S-5, Fire Protection Areas, of the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of Anaheim 2020a), the Project Site is located outside of a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Existing development surrounds the Project Site and it is within an urbanized portion of the City, away from any urban/wildland interface. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildland fire hazards would occur. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 97 July 2020 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated LLess--Than- Significant Impact No Impact X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Short-Term Construction Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact. Project construction would include earthwork activities that could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation, which could subsequently degrade downstream receiving waters and INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 98 July 2020 violate water quality standards. Stormwater runoff during the construction phase may contain silt and debris, resulting in a short-term increase in the sediment load of the municipal storm drain system. The construction of the Project may result in construction-related substances such as oils, fuels, paints, solvents, trash, and sanitary waste inadvertently spilled or released on the Project Site and subsequently conveyed via stormwater to nearby drainages, watersheds, and groundwater. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Among the mandated items included within a SWPPP are project design features intended to protect against the potential discharge of construction-related substances, as well as substantial soil erosion because of water and wind erosion, commonly known as best management practices (BMPs). Typical BMPs include maintaining or creating drainages to convey and direct surface runoff from bare areas and installing physical barriers such as berms, silt fencing, wattles, straw bales, and gabions. BMPs also include good housekeeping practices such as properly storing hazardous materials, properly managing waste/trash, and regularly inspecting equipment. The implementation of a Construction General Permit, including preparation of an SWPPP and incorporation of BMPs, would ensure that the proper measures are in place to prevent, to the extent feasible, stormwater runoff from conveying sediments, pollutants, and other constituents off site to downstream receiving waters. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with Chapter 17.04, Grading, Excavations, Fills, Watercourses, of the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2020b), which sets forth a series of requirements intended to minimize erosion impacts during construction activities to the extent feasible. These requirements include measures to be implemented on and adjacent to a construction site to control runoff, consistent with NPDES requirements imposed by SARWQCB, Implementation of these requirements would prevent accelerated erosion that has led to, or could lead to, degradation of water quality, damage to property, loss of topsoil and vegetation cover, disruption of water supply, and the deposition of sediments and associated nutrients. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant. LLong-Term Operational Impacts With respect to operation of the Proposed Project, future uses on-site that could contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff in the long term include parking areas (through small fuel and/or fluid leaks), uncovered refuse storage/management areas, landscape/open space areas (if pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers are improperly applied), and general litter/debris (e.g., generated during facility loading/unloading activities). During storm events, the first few hours of moderate to heavy rainfall could wash a majority of pollutants from the paved areas where, without proper stormwater controls and BMPs, those pollutants could enter the municipal storm drain system before eventually being discharged to adjacent waterways (in this case, Carbon Canyon Creek, Coyote Creek, San Gabriel River Reach 1, San Gabriel River Estuary, San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zone, and its discharge into the Pacific Ocean). The majority of pollutants entering the storm drain system in this manner would be dust, litter, and possibly residual petroleum products (e.g., motor oil, gasoline, diesel fuel). Certain metals, along with nutrients and pesticides from landscape areas, can also be present in stormwater runoff. Between periods of rainfall, surface pollutants tend to accumulate, and runoff from the first significant storm of the year (“first flush”) would likely have the largest concentration of pollutants. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 99 July 2020 Stormwater quality within the Santa Ana Region (of which the Project site is a part) is managed by the SARWQCB, which administers the NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] Permit). The MS4 Permit requires Permittees, including the City, to implement a development planning program to address stormwater pollution. These programs require project applicants for certain types of projects to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) throughout the operational life of each projects. The purpose of a WQMP is to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater and to eliminate increases in pre-existing runoff rates and volumes by outlining BMPs, which must be incorporated into the design plans of new development and redevelopment (SARWQCB 2011a). Per the MS4 Permit, and as described in the Model Water Quality Management Plan for the Santa Ana Region of Orange County, a project-specific WQMP is required to manage the discharge of stormwater pollutants from development projects to the “maximum extent practicable” (SARWQCB 2011b). The maximum extent practicable is the standard for control of stormwater pollutants, as set forth by Section 402(p)(3)(iii) of the Clean Water Act. However, the Clean Water Act does not quantitatively define the term maximum extent practicable. As implemented, maximum extent practicable varies with conditions. In general, to achieve the maximum extent practicable standard, co-permittees must require deployment of whatever BMPs are technically feasible (that is, are likely to be effective) and are not cost prohibitive. To achieve fair and effective implementation, criteria and guidance for those controls must be detailed and specific, while also offering the right amount of flexibility or exceptions for special cases. A project-specific WQMP’s compliance with the requirement to achieve the maximum extent practicable standard is documented within the project-specific WQMP through the completion of worksheets that document the feasibility or infeasibility of the deployment of BMPs. As a Permittee subject to the MS4 permit, the City is responsible for ensuring that all new development and redevelopment projects comply with the MS4 Permit, as required Chapter 10.09, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, of the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2020b). In accordance with the requirements of the MS4 Permit, a preliminary WQMP was prepared for the Proposed Project by CRF Engineering, Inc. in December 2019 (Appendix F). As detailed in the project-specific WQMP, the Proposed Project would incorporate the low impact development BMPs, including structural and non-structural BMPs to ensure that the Proposed Project does not degrade surface or ground water quality. The Proposed Project’s preliminary WQMP was conditionally approved by the City’s Public Works Department. In addition, the WQMP includes an Operations & Maintenance Plan to ensure BMPs are managed throughout the life of the Proposed Project. Implementation of the applicable BMPs per the WQMP would reduce storm water pollutants and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be less than significant. bb) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Groundwater Supplies Less-than-Significant Impact. According to the City of Anaheim’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Anaheim 2016a), the City depends on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to meet its water needs. The City works with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) and Orange County Water District (OCWD) to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 100 July 2020 will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and the State Water Project provided by Metropolitan. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). Currently, the City relies on approximately 70% groundwater and 30% imported water. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan anticipates that the same water supply mix will be available to the City through 2040 (City of Anaheim 2016a). OCWD manages the Basin for the benefit of municipal, agricultural, and private groundwater producers and is responsible for the protection of water rights to the Santa Ana River in Orange County and the management and replenishment of the Basin. OCWD is the groundwater manager over the Basin, and the producers are the local retailers of the groundwater supplies. OCWD prepared a Groundwater Management Plan, which it last updated in July 2015 (OCWD 2015). The Groundwater Management Plan identifies OCWD’s goals and management objectives in protecting and managing the Basin. This plan describes Basin hydrogeology, water supply monitoring, management and operation of recharge facilities, groundwater replenishment system, seawater intrusion monitoring and barrier management, and water quality protection. OCWD manages the Basin to allow utilization of up to 500,000 acre-feet of storage capacity of the Basin during dry periods, acting as an underground reservoir and buffer against drought. OCWD operates the Basin to keep the target dewatered Basin storage at 200,000 acre-feet as an appropriate accumulated overdraft. OCWD has made substantial investment in facilities, Basin management, and water rights protection, resulting in the elimination and prevention of adverse long-term overdraft conditions. OCWD actively manages the Basin to ensure that groundwater produced within the Basin and supplied to retailers does not result in overdraft conditions or other adverse impacts to the Basin. By managing the Basin, OCWD assures the long-term sustainability of the Basin and groundwater supplies. As such, although the Project would rely on water supplies composed of groundwater, the OCWD actively manages the Basin to ensure that existing and future development does not adversely affect groundwater levels and supplies. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater supplies would be less than significant. GGroundwater Recharge Less-than-Significant Impact. Although the Project Site is currently undeveloped, the Project Site is composed of a single 0.36-acre parcel located in an urbanized part of the City. Additionally, the Project Site was once subject to the release of petroleum product, which has since been remediated by a previous property owner (under the oversight of the SARWQCB) to acceptable levels deemed acceptable for human occupation by the SARWQCB . Nonetheless, residual soil vapors within the acceptable risk levels for human occupation remain in on-site soils, making groundwater recharge infeasible at the Project Site, according to CRF Engineering, Inc. (see Appendix F for further detail). For these reasons, and given the Project Site’s minimal size, the parcel is not an important location for groundwater recharge, and the Project would not substantially impair groundwater recharge necessary to replenish the City’s water supply. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 101 July 2020 cc) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; Less-than-Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the entirety of the ground surface is covered with soil. Thus, implementation of the project would increase the amount of impervious areas on site and alter the existing drainage patterns; however, the Project Site does not currently have infiltration basins or drainage systems in place to control stormwater runoff. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the development of an 11-unit apartment building that would feature an engineered drainage system to control, manage, and treat stormwater runoff prior to conveying it into the City’s storm drain system. Implementation of these stormwater facilities would reduce erosion and siltation during operation. Additionally, a storm water flow rate analysis was conducted as part of the preliminary drainage report (prepared by CRF Engineers Inc. in December 2019; see Appendix G), and it determined that, with the incorporation of the proposed on-site storm water infrastructure, the Proposed Project would result in lower flow rates than existing conditions. The Proposed Project would not result in a negative impact to the City’s storm drain system, because the flow leaving the Project Site would be less than existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed above in Section 3.10(ii), a storm water flow rate analysis was conducted as part of the preliminary drainage report (prepared by CRF Engineers Inc. in December 2019; see Appendix G). The storm water flow rate analysis determined that with the incorporation of the proposed on-site storm water infrastructure, the Proposed Project would result in lower flow rates than existing conditions. The Proposed Project would not result in a negative impact to the City’s storm drain system, because the flow leaving the Project Site would be less than existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less-than-Significant Impact. Short-Term Construction Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities would be subject to the NPDES stormwater program, which includes obtaining coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. SARWQCB administers the NPDES Permit Program, in the Project area. This permit program helps control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into receiving waters. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 102 July 2020 The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SARWQCB mandates that the SWPPP include project design features, commonly known as BMPs, intended to protect against substantial soil erosion because of water and wind erosion. The implementation of a Construction General Permit, including preparation of an SWPPP and incorporation of BMPs, would ensure that the proper measures are in place to prevent, to the extent feasible, stormwater runoff from conveying sediments and other constituents off site to downstream receiving waters. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with Chapter 17.04, Grading, Excavations, Fills, Watercourses, of the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2020b), which sets forth a series of requirements intended to minimize erosion impacts during construction activities to the extent feasible. These requirements include measures to be implemented on and adjacent to a construction site to control runoff, consistently with NPDES requirements imposed by SARWQCB. The measures prevent accelerated erosion that has led to, or could lead to, degradation of water quality, damage to property, loss of topsoil and vegetation cover, disruption of water supply, and the deposition of sediments and associated nutrients. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with water quality degradation would be less than significant. LLong-Term Operational Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the development of an 11-unit apartment building that would feature an engineered drainage system to control, manage, and treat stormwater runoff prior to conveying it into the City’s storm drain system. Implementation of these stormwater facilities would reduce the amounts of pollutants exiting the Project Site during operation and would also reduce the velocities and flows of stormwater leaving the Project Site, thereby reducing the potential to exceed the capacity of stormwater systems or contribute substantial sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with water quality degradation would be less than significant. iv) impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. According to Figure S-6, Flood Hazard Areas, and Figure S-7, Dam Inundation Areas, of the City’s Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within a flood hazard area or dam inundation area (City of Anaheim 2020a); therefore, no impacts associated with flooding would occur. Therefore, the placement of an 11-unit apartment building within an urbanized area would have no effect on flood flows, and no impacts would occur in this regard. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. Refer to Section 3.10(c)(iv). The Project Site is not near a lake that could be vulnerable to a seiche during high winds. Also, the Project Site is not within a coastal area or river delta that could be impacted by a tsunami. Finally, the topography of the site and Project area is relatively flat and would not be subject to significant impacts from mudflow. Thus, no impact would occur. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 103 July 2020 ee) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would comply with regional and local regulations requiring preparation of a SWPPP, and would not obstruct existing water quality control plans or groundwater sustainable management plans. In addition, the Project Site is not a suitable site for groundwater recharge; and, therefore the Proposed Project would not introduce impervious areas over a significant groundwater recharge zone. Therefore, impacts associated with a conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant. 3.11 Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less––Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature (such as a major highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. Under the existing conditions, the Project Site does not serve as a connection between established communities. Instead, the City facilitates connectivity within the area surrounding the Project Site via local roadways and pedestrian sidewalks. Therefore, no impacts associated with physical division of an established community would occur. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is in the City of Anaheim and therefore subject to the City’s General Plan and Municipal code, which guide local development. The Proposed Project would include a General Plan Amendment (GPA2016-00510) to change the Project Site’s General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to Residential Medium, and a Zoning Reclassification (RCL2016-00297) from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential Zone. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 104 July 2020 While the Proposed Project would change the Project Site’s existing General Plan Land Use designation and zoning, other multifamily residential uses are located in the area surrounding area. These residential developments include the three- and two-story multi-family developments along Ball Road and Western Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Project Site. These nearby properties are within the RM-4 Zone with corresponding land use designations of Residential Mid Density and Residential Medium Density, among other single-family residential and commercial land uses. According to Section 18.06.040, Intent of Individual Zones, of the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2020b), the intent of the RM-4 Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with multiple- family units with a minimum building site area per dwelling unit of 1,200 square feet. This zone implements the Medium Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. Municipal Code Chapter 18.06, Multiple-Family Residential, sets forth various requirements pertaining to development within the RM-4 Zone, including minimum lot size, dimensions, and coverage; maximum density, height, and setbacks; and landscape coverage (City of Anaheim 2020b). The Proposed Project would comply with these development standards, with the exception of two development standards relating to landscape setbacks adjacent to an arterial highway and interior structural setbacks. However, the Proposed Project would include the processing and approval of an Administrative Adjustment (ADJ2020- 00444), pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.62.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which allows the Planning Director or Planning Commission (if the Planning Director refers an administrative adjustment t the Planning Commission) to grant waivers of certain development standards. With approval of the proposed Administrative Adjustment (ADJ2020-00444), and with compliance with the remaining development standards, the Proposed Project would be constructed consistently with the intent and purpose of the RM-4 Zone, ensuring that the Proposed Project is consistent with its General Plan land use designation, and would also provide an attractive, safe, and healthy setting for residents. The City of Anaheim will thoroughly review all plans for the Proposed Project to ensure compliance with all applicable development standards set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code and other relevant land use plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, impacts associated with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant. 3.12 Mineral Resources PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 105 July 2020 aa) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Green Element of the Anaheim General Plan identifies regionally significant mineral resources in parts of East Anaheim, Anaheim Canyon, and the Hill and Canyon Areas. These resources primarily consist of aggregate, sand, and gravel (City of Anaheim 2020a). These parts of the City are four miles or more east of the Project Site. Figure G-3, Mineral Resources Map, of the General Plan Green Element (City of Anaheim 2020a) shows the location of regionally significant aggregate resource areas and mineral resource zones. The Project Site is not within any of these mineral resource areas. The Project Site is in a developed part of the City; no mineral extraction activities occur on or adjacent to the Project Site; and no known mineral resources are present on site. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of known mineral resources would occur. b) Would the project 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. As discussed previously, no regionally significant aggregate resource areas or mineral resource zones are located on or adjacent to the Project Site. Additionally, no mineral extraction activities occur on or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site would occur. 3.13 Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XIIII. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 106 July 2020 Noise is an unwanted sound, that is loud or unpleasant or a cause of disturbance. Sound may be described in terms of level or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the amplitude of sound is the decibel (dB). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA), relates noise to human sensitivity. The dBA performs this compensation by discriminating against low and very high frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Several descriptors of noise (noise metrics) exist to help predict average community reactions to the adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic-generated noise, on a community. These descriptors include the equivalent noise level over a given period (Leq), the statistical sound level, the day–night average noise level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Each of these descriptors uses units of dBA. Table 16 provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common sounds. In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is barely noticeable and a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable. Humans perceive a change of 10 dB as doubling or halving of the sound level. TTable 116.. Typical Sound Levels in the Environment and Industry CCommon Outdoor Activities NNoise Level (dBA) CCommon Indooor Activities — 110 Rock band Jet flyover at 300 meters (1,000 feet) 100 — Gas lawn mower at 1 meter (3 feet) 90 — Diesel truck at 15 meters (50 feet), at 80 kilometers per hour (50 mph) 80 Food blender at 1 meter (3 feet) Garbage disposal at 1 meter (3 feet) Noisy urban area, daytime gas lawn mower at 30 meters (100 feet) 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters (10 feet) Commercial area Heavy traffic at 90 meters (300 feet) 60 Normal speech at 1 meter (3 feet) Quiet urban daytime 50 Large business office Dishwasher, next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural night time 20 Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) — 10 Broadcast/recording studio Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing SSource: Caltrans 2013a. Note: dBA = A-weighted decibel. Leq is a sound energy level averaged over a specified period (typically no less than 15 minutes for environmental studies). Leq is a single numerical value that represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor during a time interval. For example, a 1-hour Leq measurement would represent the average amount of energy contained in all the noise that occurred in that hour. Leq is an effective noise descriptor because of its ability to assess the total time-varying effects of noise on sensitive receptors. Lmax is the greatest sound level measured during a designated time interval or event. Unlike the Leq metrics, Ldn and CNEL metrics always represent 24-hour periods, usually on an annualized basis. Ldn and CNEL also differ from Leq because they apply a time-weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 107 July 2020 occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when speech and sleep disturbance is of more concern). “Time weighted” refers to the fact that Ldn and CNEL penalize noise that occurs during certain sensitive periods. In the case of CNEL, noise occurring during the daytime (7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise during the evening (7:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m.) is penalized by adding 5 dB, while noise occurring during the nighttime (10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.) is penalized by adding 10 dB. Ldn differs from CNEL in that the daytime period is 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m., thus eliminating the evening period. Ldn and CNEL are the predominant criteria used to measure roadway noise affecting residential receptors. These two metrics generally differ from one another by no more than 0.5 dB to 1 dB and as such, noise analysis often treats these metrics as equivalent to one another. VVibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude is in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration can be a serious concern, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds. In contrast to noise, vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving, and heavy earthmoving equipment. Vibration analysis uses several different methods to quantify vibration. According to the Federal Transit Administration, peak particle velocity (PPV) is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. Vibration analysis typically uses PPV to describe vibration impacts to buildings and measures the impact in inches/second (FTA 2018). Vibration analysis typically uses the root mean square amplitude to describe the effect of vibration on the human body, defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Vibration analysis uses the decibel notation to measure root mean square. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings. However, vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep. In addition, high levels of vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with equipment that is highly sensitive to vibration (e.g., electron microscopes). Most perceptible indoor vibration is from sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If the roadway is smooth, the vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. Sensitive Receptors Noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas are noise and vibration sensitive, and may warrant unique measures to protect from intruding noise. Sensitive receptors near the Project Site include residential uses located to the north, east, southeast, and west of the Project Site. The residential uses north of the Project Site are the closest sensitive receptors, located approximately 10 feet from the boundary of the Project Site. These sensitive receptors represent the nearest sensitive land uses with the potential for the Proposed Project to impact because of construction or operation of the Proposed Project. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 108 July 2020 EExisting Noise Conditions On April 23, 2019, a Dudek noise specialist conducted noise monitoring in the field and recorded ambient noise measurements with a sound-level meter, near the Project Site. The purpose of the noise monitoring is to characterize the existing noise levels (Figure 11, Noise Measurement/Modeling Locations). Table 17 provides the location, date, and time the noise measurements were taken. The sound-level meter equipment used to record noise measurements is a Soft dB Piccolo sound-level meter equipped with a 0.5-inch, pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre-amplifier. The sound-level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 2 (General Use) sound-level meter. The Dudek noise specialist used a field calibrator to verify the accuracy of the sound-level meter, before and after the noise measurements were taken. Additionally, the Dudek noise specialist took the noise measurements with the microphone positioned approximately 5 feet above the ground. Table 117. Measured Noise Levels Receptors Location Date Time Leq (dBA) Lmax (dBA) ST1 On-site, adjacent to the corner of South Western Avenue and West Ball Road 4/23/19 10:38 a.m. to 10:53 a.m. 71.6 83.5 ST2 North of Project Site, east of South Western Avenue and multifamily residences 4/23/19 11:03 a.m. to 11:18 a.m. 70.5 85.2 ST3 East of Project Site, north of West Ball Road and multifamily residences 4/23/19 11:37 a.m. to 11:52 a.m. 71.5 84.7 ST4 West of Project Site, north of West Ball Road and multifamily residences 4/23/19 12:02 p.m. to 12:17 p.m. 70.6 81.7 Source: Appendix H. Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); Lmax = maximum sound level during the measurement interval; dBA = A-weighted decibels. Dudek conducted short-term noise measurements at four locations (ST1 through ST4) adjacent to the Project alignment. ST1 represents the existing ambient noise levels on site near the corner of South Western Avenue and West Ball Road. ST2 is located along the east side of South Western Avenue, and represents ambient noise levels at the adjacent multifamily residences. ST3 and ST4 are located east and west of the Project Site, respectively, and represent existing ambient noise levels at the multifamily residences located there. Table 17 provides the measured energy-averaged (Leq) and maximum (Lmax) noise levels for these locations. Appendix H provides the field noise measurement data sheets. The primary noise sources at the sites identified in Table 17 consisted of traffic on Western Avenue and Ball Road. As shown in Table 17, the measured sound levels ranged from approximately 71 dBA to 72 dBA Leq. No i s e M e a s u r e m e n t / M o d e l i n g L o c a t i o n s 3175 West Ball Road SO U R C E : C o u n t y o f O r a n g e 2 0 2 0 ; B i n g M a p s 0 2 0 0 10 0 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y No i s e M e a s u r e m e n t L o c a t i o n s Me a s u r e d a n d M o d e l e d R e c e i v e r s Mo d e l e d - O n l y R e c e i v e r s FIGURE 11 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 110 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 111 July 2020 RRegulatory Setting The City of Anaheim General Plan and Municipal Code contains standards that regulate the exposure of persons to or the generation of excessive noise levels. The General Plan Noise Element includes the following goals and policies regarding noise that are applicable to the Proposed Project: Goal 1.1 Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and regulation. Policies: 1. Update City regulations to adopt Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure and California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards as appropriate. 2. Continue to enforce acceptable noise standards consistent with health and quality of life goals and employ effective techniques of noise abatement through such means as a noise ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and zoning regulations. 3. Consider the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising or reviewing development proposals. 4. Require mitigation where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes to ensure that noise levels are minimized through appropriate means of mitigation thereby maintaining quality of life standards. 5. Encourage proper site planning and architecture to reduce noise impacts. 6. Discourage the siting of sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation. 7. Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic consultant utilizing acceptable methodologies while reviewing the development of sensitive land uses or development that has the potential to impact sensitive land uses. Goal 2.1 Encourage the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources such as motor vehicles, aircraft operations, and railroad movements. Policies 1. Employ noise mitigation practices, as necessary, when designing future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas. 2. Require that development generating increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses provide appropriate mitigation measures. Goal 3.1 Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from the City’s activity centers. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 112 July 2020 PPolicies 1. Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from exceeding stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses, as appropriate. 2. Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other than emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on weekends or holidays except in the case of construction proximate to schools where these operations could disturb the classroom environment. 3. Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective than originally equipped. 4. Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations performed within 100 feet of existing residences or make applicant provide evidence as to why the use of such barriers is infeasible. In addition to the General Plan Noise Element, the City of Anaheim Municipal Code contains the following ordinances regarding noise that are applicable to the Proposed Project: Chapter 6.70 Sound Pressure Levels Section 6.70.010 Established Sound produced in excess of the sound pressure levels permitted herein are hereby determined to be objectionable and constitute an infringement upon the right and quiet enjoyment of property in this City. 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 line in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response. The sound level measuring microphone shall be placed at any point on the property line, but not closer than three (3) feet from any wall and not less than three (3) feet above the ground, where the above listed maximum sound pressure level shall apply. At any point the measured level shall be the average of not less than three (3) readings taken at two (2) minute intervals. To have valid readings, the levels must be five (5) decibels or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the source’s of the alleged objectionable sound are not operating. Sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound level meter manufactured according to American Standard S1.4-1961 published by the American Standards Association, Inc., New York City, New York. Traffic sounds created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units or their contractors 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. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (Ord. 2526 § 1 (part); June 18, 1968; Ord. 3400 § 1; February 11, 1975: Ord. 6020 § 1; April 25, 2006.) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 113 July 2020 SSection 18.40.090 - Sound Attenuation For Residential Developments Section 18.40.090 of the City’s Municipal Code addresses noise levels for new residential developments involving the construction of two or more dwelling units and located within six hundred feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan. According to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, West Ball Road is identified as a Primary Arterial, and Western Avenue is identified as a Secondary Arterial, and because the Project Site fronts both of these roadways, the provisions of Section 18.40.090 are applicable to the Proposed Project. Per Section 18.40.090, exterior noise within common recreation areas of any single family attached or multiple family dwelling project shall be attenuated to a maximum of sixty-five (65) dB CNEL. Interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of forty-five (45) dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City. Additionally, the Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the requirements, provided the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: x The deviation from prescribed levels does not pertain to interior noise levels; x The deviation does not exceed five (5) dB CNEL above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and x Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the project. Significance Thresholds An increase of 3 dBA is considered barely perceivable to most healthy ears. Typically, an increase of 5 dBA or greater is considered one of significance, as such an increase is considered readily perceptible. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR’s Noise Section 5.10.3, Thresholds of Significance: Mobile-source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation, but is still subject to CEQA. Here, a change of 5 dBA would denote a significant impact if their resultant noise level were to remain within the objectives of the General Plan (e.g., 65 dBA (CNEL) at a residential location), or 3 dBA if the resultant level were to meet or exceed the objectives of the General Plan (Caltrans defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with the project would exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq.). Also note that an impact is only potentially significant if it affects a receptor. An increase in noise in an uninhabited location would not denote a significant impact. a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Short-Term Construction Impacts Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction noise and vibration levels are temporary phenomena, which can vary from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations, and the distance between the source and receptor. Equipment that would be in operation during proposed construction would include, in part, excavators, concrete saws, compressors, welders, and paving equipment. Table 18 presents typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet (note that these are maximum INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 114 July 2020 noise levels). Typically, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels less than the maximum noise level presented in Table 18. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time. TTable 118.. Typical Construction Equipment Noisse Emission Levels EEquipment TTypical Sound Level (dBA) 50 Feet from Source Air compressor 81 Backhoe 80 Compactor 82 Concrete mixer 85 Concrete pump 82 Concrete vibrator 76 Crane, mobile 83 Dozer 85 Generator 81 Grader 85 Impact wrench 85 Jackhammer 88 Loader 85 Paver 89 Pneumatic tool 85 Pump 76 Roller 74 Saw 76 Truck 88 SSource: FTA 2018. Note: dBA = A-weighted decibels. For the equipment typically used to complete a development project such as the Proposed Project, the maximum noise levels at 50 feet would be approximately 89 dBA, although the hourly noise levels would vary. Construction noise in a well-defined area typically attenuates at approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance. Project construction would take place within approximately 20 feet of the nearest noise-sensitive land uses (residences to the north). More typically, construction would take place both far and near relative to any of the nearby residences; the typical construction source – receiver distance would be approximately 50 feet. The Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels. Although the Federal Highway Administration funded and promulgated the model, noise analysis often uses the RCNM for non-roadway projects because Project Applicants for non-roadway projects typically use the same types of construction equipment used for roadway projects. Input variables for the RCNM consist of the receiver/land use types, the equipment type and number of each (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (e.g., percentage of hours the equipment typically works per day), and the distance from the noise-sensitive receiver. The modeling for the Proposed Project did not assume any topographical or structural shielding. The RCNM has default duty-cycle values for the various pieces of equipment; the RCNM derived these INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 115 July 2020 defaults from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Dudek’s noise analysis used these default duty-cycle values. Construction scenario assumptions, including phasing and equipment mix, were based on the CalEEMod default values developed for the air quality and GHG emissions impacts analysis. Dudek assessed the construction noise levels at two distances for each Project phase. The first represents the anticipated construction noise that may be experienced at the nearest sensitive receptor (residences nearest to the Proposed Project, located to the north) when construction equipment is operating at the nearest Project boundary. The second represents the anticipated construction noise experienced at the nearest residences during typical conditions, when construction equipment would operate both near and far from the nearest Project boundary. Table 19 summarizes these estimated construction noise levels, with separate calculations provided for the different types of construction activities that would occur for this Project. Appendix H provides the RCNM inputs and outputs. Table 119. Construction Noise Model Results Summary Construction Phase Construction Noise at Representative Receiver Distances ((Leq (dBA)) Nearest Residence/Nearest Construction Activity (aapprox. 25 feet awway) Nearest Residence/Typical Construction Activity Distance (aapprox. 50 feet awway) Demolition 93 86 Site preparation 91 84 Grading 92 85 Building construction 88 82 Paving 86 80 Architectural coatings 82 74 Source: Appendix G. Notes: Leq = equivalent sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibel. As shown in Table 19, the construction noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive land uses (existing residences located north of the Project Site) are predicted to range from approximately 82 to 93 dBA Leq when construction would take place adjacent to the northern project boundary. More typically, when construction would occur at locations throughout the Project Site, noise levels would range from approximately 74 to 86 dBA Leq. As previously discussed, the Anaheim Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City’s stationary noise standards, if the construction takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The City and the Applicant both expect that construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would take place exclusively within the permitted hours. Although the Proposed Project would expose nearby residences to construction noise levels that would be audible at times, the exposure would be short term and would cease upon completion of the construction of the Proposed Project. Project-related construction noise would not violate the City’s standards for construction noise. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with an exceedance of applicable noise standards would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 116 July 2020 However, construction noise levels would be higher at times than existing ambient daytime noise levels; particularly within proximity of the Applicant’s proposed construction activities (see Tables 16 and 19). Therefore, noise impacts from construction could be potentially significant. However, MM-NOI-1 (Construction Noise Reduction) would reduce construction noise associated with the Proposed Project and MM-NOI-2 (Notification) would ensure that the Project Applicant informs nearby receptors of construction activities. The effectiveness of the measures listed in MM-NOI-1 would vary from several dB (which in general is a relatively small change) to 10 or more dB (which would be as a substantial change). The range of effectiveness would vary based on various factors, including the equipment in use, the original condition of the equipment, the specific location of the noise source and receiver, and others. Installation of a temporary noise barrier, for example, would vary in effectiveness depending upon the degree to which the line-of-sight between the source and receiver is broken. The noise reduction achieved by a barrier typically ranges from 5 dB to 10 dB. The noise reduction achieved by equipment silencers would range from several dB to well over 10 dB. Limiting equipment idling could reduce overall noise levels up to several dB. However, the measures listed in MM-NOI- 1, when applied in conjunction, would result in a substantial decrease in construction noise. Additionally, while MM-NOI-2 would not reduce construction noise levels, it would ensure that receptors in the Project area are prepared for any nuisances that may occur, and would allow them to plan accordingly. Upon implementation of MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, impacts would be less than significant. MMM-NOI-1 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer and/or its construction contractor, shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department with notes indicating compliance with the following measures during construction: 1. Construction activities shall be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. In the event that construction is required to extend beyond these times, extended hours permits shall be required. 2. Pumps and associated equipment (e.g., portable generators) shall be shielded from sensitive uses using local temporary noise barriers or enclosures, or shall otherwise be designed or configured so as to minimize noise at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. 3. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any noise- or vibration-sensitive land uses. 4. All noise-producing equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers; air-inlet silencers where appropriate; and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. 5. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used for the Project that are regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall be in compliance with regulations. 6. Idling equipment shall be kept to a minimum and moved as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. 7. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where feasible. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 117 July 2020 8. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. 9. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be used for safety warning purposes only. MMM-NOI-2 Prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the Planning and Building Department that effective communication with local residents will be maintained prior to and during construction. Specifically, the property owner/developer or their representative shall inform local residents of the schedule, duration, and progress of the construction. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall provide residents contact information for noise- or vibration-related complaints. Evidence of compliance may include copies of letters and mailing lists for adjacent property owners and residents, photographs of posting of information on site, or any other such information as deemed compliant by the Planning and Building Director and/or his/her designee. Long-Term Operational Impacts Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Long-term operational noise associated with the Proposed Project would primarily consist of off-site traffic noise along adjacent roadways (specifically along South Western Avenue and Ball Road). In addition, the proposed residences on site would be subject to traffic noise from South Western Avenue and Ball Road. The Proposed Project would also generate conversational noise from people; music; children playing; dogs barking; car startups; car alarms; vehicles entering and exiting private driveways; noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units; and noise from landscape maintenance activities. However, these secondary noise sources would not be of a type or scale that would be unusual or otherwise incompatible with the adjacent land uses. The section below addresses the primary noise source (traffic noise). Project-Related Traffic Noise Effects on Off-Site Receptors The Proposed Project would generate traffic along South Western Avenue and Ball Road. The City does not have a specific noise criterion for evaluating off-site noise impacts to residences or noise-sensitive areas from Project-related traffic. For the purposes of this noise analysis, such impacts are considered significant when they result in an exceedance of the applicable noise standard (i.e., noise planning threshold of 65 dBA CNEL for noise-sensitive land uses) or cause an increase of 5 dBA compared to existing noise levels. An increase or decrease in noise level of at least 5 dBA is required before a noticeable change in community response would be expected (Caltrans 2013a). Thus, Project-related traffic resulting in the exceedance of the 65 dBA CNEL noise standard at a noise-sensitive land use not already in excess of the standard and/or in a clearly perceptible increase (+5 dBA) in noise levels is considered significant. ADVANTEC Consulting conducted traffic modeling at noise measurement locations ST-2 through ST4, as well as at other off-site noise sensitive receiver locations (M1), to capture potential noise impacts in the surrounding area (Figure 11). Dudek assessed potential noise impacts from traffic using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (FHWA 2004). Information used in the model included site geometry; adjacent roadway speed limits; and the Existing, Existing plus Project, Future (General Plan Buildout) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 118 July 2020 without Project, and Future (General Plan Buildout) with Project traffic volumes, as provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix G, Traffic Impact Analysis). Dudek modeled noise levels at representative existing off-site and future on-site noise-sensitive receivers (Figure 11). The modeling anticipated receivers at five feet above the local ground elevation, except for the future on-site receivers, for which the modeling anticipated receivers at ground level and at second-floor facade floor levels, as appropriate. Table 20, Traffic Noise (Existing and Existing plus Project) summarizes the results of the traffic modeling for the Existing and Existing plus Project scenarios. Appendix H, Noise, provides the Traffic Noise Model input/output files. As shown, project-related traffic would result in a noise level increase of 0 dB CNEL (when rounded to whole numbers) along Ball Road and Western Avenue Site. The additional traffic from the Proposed Project would be minimal in the context of the relatively high traffic volumes on the adjacent arterial roadways. Noise increases would be well below the significance threshold of 5 dB. TTable 220.. TTraffic Noise (Existing and Existing--PPlus--PProject) MModeled Receptor EExisting Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) Existing plus Project Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) Noise Level Increase (dB) ST1: On-site, adjacent to the corner of South Western Avenue and West Ball Road 70 70 0 ST2: North of Project Site, east of South Western Avenue and multifamily residences 70 70 0 ST3: East of Project Site, north of West Ball Road and multifamily residences 67 67 0 ST4: West of Project Site, north of West Ball Road and multifamily residences 67 67 0 M1: South of Project Site, east of South Western Avenue (multifamily residences) 68 68 0 Source: Appendix H. Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dB = decibel; dBA = A-weighted decibel; Ldn = day–night average sound levels Table 21, Traffic Noise (Future and Future with Project) summarizes the noise levels associated with traffic under future (i.e., General Plan Buildout) without the Proposed Project and with the Proposed Project. The change in traffic noise levels associated with the Proposed Project would be 0 dB (rounded to whole numbers) compared to the without Project noise levels. These changes would be well below the significance threshold of 5 dB. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with project-related traffic noise would be less than significant. Table 221. TTraffic Noise (Future and Future Plus Project) Modeled Receptor Future (General Plan Buildout) without Project Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) Future (General Plan Buildout) with Project Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) Noise Level Increase (dB) ST1: On-site, adjacent to the corner of South Western Avenue and West Ball Road 71 71 0 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 119 July 2020 TTable 221.. TTraffic Noise (Future and Future Plus Project) MModeled Receptor FFuture (General Plan BBuildout) without Project Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) FFuture (General Plan BBuildout) with Project Noise LLevel (dBA CNEL/Lddn) Noise Level Increase (dB) ST2: North of Project Site, east of South Western Avenue and multifamily residences 70 70 0 ST3: East of Project Site, north of West Ball Road and multifamily residences 68 68 0 ST4: West of Project Site, north of West Ball Road and multifamily residences 67 67 0 M1: South of Project Site, east of South Western Avenue (multifamily residences) 69 69 0 Source: Appendix H Note: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dB = decibel; dBA = A-weighted decibel; Ldn = day–night average sound levels Off-Site Traffic Noise Effects on On-Site Receptors Exterior Noise Levels Table 22, Traffic Noise (Future with Project) at On-Site Residential Receivers, provides the results of the noise analysis for traffic noise levels at proposed on-site noise-sensitive receivers . On-site future noise- sensitive receiver locations consisted of the exterior facades of the second- and third-floor levels facing South Western Avenue and West Ball Road, as well as the enclosed second-floor level courtyard area. Per the Proposed Project plans, none of the proposed residential units would have usable outdoor private spaces (i.e., patios or balconies). In addition, the first-floor level would consist of a parking garage, partially below-grade. Therefore, the first-floor level is not noise-sensitive and the modeling did not include this level for the purposes of potential on-site noise impacts. As shown in Table 22, the results of the noise modeling indicate that exterior on-site noise levels would range from approximately 64 to 70 dBA CNEL at second-and third-floor facade elevations. The common exterior area (i.e., the interior courtyard) noise level would be approximately 35 dBA CNEL. The common area space would comply with the City noise standard for transportation noise for residential areas (65 dBA CNEL). Per the Proposed Project plans, none of the proposed residential units would have usable outdoor private spaces (i.e., patios or balconies). Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with off-site traffic noise on the Project Site’s exterior spaces would be less than significant. Table 222. Traffic Noise (Future with Project) at On--Site Residential Receivers Receiver Location 2nd floor Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) 3rd floor Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) M2: Proposed residential units - west side 70 70 M3: Proposed residential units - south side 70 70 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 120 July 2020 TTable 222.. Traffic Noise (Future with Project) at On--SSite Residential Receivers RReceiver Location 22nd floor Noise Level ((dBA CNEL/Lddn) 3rd floor Noise Level (dBA CNEL/Ldn) M4: Proposed residential units - north side 64 64 M5: Proposed residential units - east side 64 64 M6: Interior courtyard 35 n/a Source: Appendix H. Notes: n/a = Not applicable (no second-floor courtyard). Interior Noise Levels The City and the state require that interior noise levels not exceed an Ldn/CNEL of 45 dBA within the habitable rooms of residences. Typically, with the windows open, building shells provide approximately 15 dB of noise reduction. Thus, rooms exposed to an exterior CNEL/Ldn greater than 60 dBA could result in an interior CNEL/Ldn greater than 45 dB. The California Building Code recognizes this relationship and, therefore, requires interior noise studies when exterior noise analysis projects noise levels to exceed 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn. The data shown in Table 22 indicates that the Future with Project noise levels at the facades of the proposed residential units with a side-exposure (i.e., the north-facing and east-facing sides of the building) would be approximately 64 dBA CNEL/Ldn. The Future with Project noise levels at the facades of the proposed residential units adjacent to South Western Avenue and West Ball Road (i.e., the south-facing and west-facing and sides of the building) would be approximately 70 dBA CNEL/Ldn. Thus, the unmitigated interior noise level within the habitable rooms of these dwelling units could exceed the 45 dBA Ldn noise criterion. With the 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn interior limit and the calculated exterior traffic noise levels shown in Table 22, the required attenuation (reduction) due to the residential building construction elements can be calculated. Based on those details, the required minimum attenuation is 19 dBA (64 dBA–45 dBA), or 19 Sound Transmission Class (STC) points for the north- and east-facing sides of the building, and 25 dBA (70 dBA–45 dBA), or 25 STC points for the south- and west-facing sides of the building. Hopkins (2015) states that the attenuation performance of a building shell by the relative area (in square feet) that is composed of solid wall, windows, or doors. If each component has an STC rating high enough to satisfy the attenuation target, then it is not necessary to evaluate the composite wall STC rating. However, if there are components that have an STC rating below the target, then the analysis must identify the area of each component in order to perform a more detailed analysis. For residential structures meeting standard civil codes and architectural standards, the walls, roof and doors will far exceed the minimum needed STC ratings of 19 (for north- and east-facing residential units) and 25 (for south- and west-facing residential units). The building component with a potential to not meet or exceed the minimum STC rating would be the windows. Because the building’s design details (such as window type) have not yet been completed, a MM-NOI-3 is provided requiring that the windows selected for habitable rooms have minimum STC ratings of 19 – 25 and would thus provide sufficient noise reduction to ensure that the interior noise level would be 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn or less. Therefore, with mitigation noise impacts with regard to interior noise levels would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 121 July 2020 MMM NOI-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit final design plans, to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, specifying that windows in habitable rooms will have the following minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings: x Windows with northern and eastern-facing exposures: 19 STC or greater x Windows with southern and western-facing exposures: 25 STC or greater By specifying windows with these minimum STC ratings, the proposed residential design will result in compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn interior noise levels as required by the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations) and the City of Anaheim. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities that might expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise could cause a potentially significant impact. Neither the Anaheim Municipal Code nor the General Plan provides a quantifiable vibration threshold. However, the General Plan EIR utilized a vibration threshold of 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold to determine vibration impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan. Research performed by Caltrans (Caltrans 2013b) derived the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold. Since the City has utilized the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold, it is also utilized in the analysis of vibration impacts for the Proposed Project. Information from Caltrans indicates that the vibration analysis may characterize transient vibrations (such as construction activity) with a PPV of approximately 0.035 inches/second as barely perceptible, and vibration levels of 0.24 inches/second as distinctly perceptible. The heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as bulldozers, would have PPV of approximately 0.089 inches/second or less at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). Ground-borne vibration attenuates over short distances. At the existing residential uses nearest to the construction area (approximately 25 feet) and with the anticipated construction equipment, the PPV would be approximately 0.089 inches/second at the residences when construction occurs at or near the northern Project boundary. Thus, vibration would likely be perceptible for the nearest residences to the Project Site when heavy equipment is operating along the northern and eastern boundaries of Project Site but would be below the City’s vibration threshold of 0.2 inches/second. The Proposed Project consists of a residential development, which the property owner/developer does not anticipate to include any machinery or activities capable of producing substantial levels of groundborne vibration. Thus, concerning the entire Proposed Project, impacts associated with ground-borne vibration would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 122 July 2020 cc) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? No Impact. The nearest airport is Los Alamitos Army Airfield, located approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest. Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 3.8 miles to the north–northeast. According to the City General Plan Noise Element (City of Anaheim 2004), the City is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for any commercial or private airports, and fixed-wing aircraft are typically too high to add measurably to local noise. Additionally, no private airstrips are located in the Project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts associated with public or private airport noise would occur. 3.14 Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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 Impact. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for six Southern California counties, including Orange County. SCAG develops plans for transportation, growth management, and hazardous waste management, and develops a regional growth forecast, which forms a foundation for SCAG’s regional plans and regional air quality plans developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. SCAG prepares several plans to analyze and address regional growth, including the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA is mandated by the State Housing Law as part of a periodic process of updating local housing elements in city and county general plans. The RHNA contains a forecast of housing needs within each jurisdiction in the SCAG region for 8-year periods. The 5th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, the RHNA that is currently in effect, covers a planning period of October 2013 through October 2021. The RHNA shows a need for 412,721 additional housing units within the SCAG region. Of the SCAG region INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 123 July 2020 allocation, the total assigned to the City is 5,702 units (SCAG 2012). Once the RHNA is established, local jurisdictions decide how to address their housing needs through the process of updating general plan housing elements. The City’s latest housing element was produced in 2014 for the years 2014–2021. SCAG is in the process of developing the sixth cycle RHNA allocation plan, which will be in effect from October 2021 through October 2029. The Proposed Project would directly induce population growth in the City by constructing 11 apartment units on a property that currently does not include residential land uses. Pursuant to the household estimates provided in the SCAG 2019 Local Profiles Report, the average household size in the City in the year 2018 is 3.5 persons per household (SCAG 2019a). Based on this assumption, the proposed 11 residential units could generate 38 persons upon completion in 2022. Figure 2-1 of the City General Plan Housing Element (City of Anaheim 2020a) indicates that the City anticipates an additional 28,456 new residents between 2020 and 2030. The 38 new residents generated by the Proposed Project would represent less than 1% of the 28,456 new residents expected. In addition, as discussed in the Project Description and Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, utilities and infrastructure are already in place for the Project Site to support the Proposed Project and its new residents. Further, the Proposed Project would assist the City in meeting its housing needs by converting an undeveloped infill commercial area into new housing opportunities. The Proposed Project would also contribute to state-mandated RHNA housing goals and would be consistent with regional efforts to boost housing growth to meet regional housing needs. In its 5th cycle RHNA, SCAG identifies the City’s share of housing needs as 5,702 new units (SCAG 2012). In response to the RHNA allocation, cities must update the Housing Element of the General Plan to address how to meeting the housing needs allocation. Cities must prepare an annual progress report on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element, and thus, meeting its RHNA allocation. According to the 5th cycle annual progress report permit summary, maintained by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, as of June 2019, the City has issued 6,376 permits for housing developments. However, not all of the issued housing permits meet the requirements of categories in the 5th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, such as housing permits for very low income and low income housing, and therefore the City still has a deficiency of 3,059 permits across these RHNA categories, and additional housing development is needed in the City (HCD 2019). Further, as previously indicated, SCAG is in the process of developing the sixth cycle RHNA allocation plan, which is expected to be adopted by October 2020, and would be in effect from 2021 through 2029. While the 6th cycle RHNA methodology is still awaiting approval, the estimated allocation for the City would be 17,412 housing units (SCAG 2019b). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth in the City as a result of increased housing opportunities, as the number of new residents generated by the Proposed Project (i.e., 38) would be a nominal increase over what is currently anticipated (i.e., less than 1% growth); infrastructure is already in place for the Project Site to support the Proposed Project and its new residents; and the Proposed Project would assist the City and region in meeting housing needs. Therefore, impacts associated with population growth would be less than significant. bb) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No residential land uses currently exist on the Project Site, and the Proposed Project would not displace any existing housing. As such, the Project Site also does not presently support a residential population and would not displace any people. Therefore, no impacts associated with displacement of people would occur. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 124 July 2020 3.15 Public Services PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated LLess--Than- Significant Impact No Impact XVV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) Would the 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: Fire protection? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Anaheim Fire and Rescue (AFR) provide fire protection services in the City. The AFR operates 11 fire stations composed of 11 engine companies and 6 truck companies, and employs approximately 200 firefighters, 2 battalion chiefs, and various other support staff (AFR 2020). The AFR is responsible for all fire, rescue, and medical aid calls throughout the City. AFR #11 (3100 West Orange Avenue) is the closest fire station to the Project Site, located approximately 0.8 miles via local roads from the site. The second nearest fire station is AFR #4 (2736 West Orange Avenue), which is roughly 1.7 miles via local roads from the Project Site. In 2019, the AFR received approximately 39,000 calls for service (City of Anaheim 2020d). In the context of the entire City’s population, which the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit estimates to be 357,325 as of January 1, 2020 (DOF 2020), the AFR received approximately 1.1 calls per 10 residents in the City per year. As discussed previously, the Proposed Project involves the development of an 11-unit apartment complex, which would support an estimated 39 persons. Assuming an approximate call generation rate of 1.1 calls per 10 residents per year, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 5 calls per year. Given the minimal number of calls for service that could potentially be generated by future occupants at the Project Site, it is anticipated that AFR would be able to accommodate the Proposed Project without the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. Further, the Project Site is located in a developed portion of the City that is within the existing service area of the AFR, which eliminates the need to extend the service area of AFR. Additionally, impacts to fire services are anticipated to be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenue, over an extended period of time, relative to the increase in development intensity. Additional fire personnel and associated INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 125 July 2020 facilities and equipment would be provided through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process. As part of this annual process, fire department needs would be assessed and budget allocations would be revised accordingly to ensure that adequate levels of service are maintained throughout the City. As such, given the minimal number of calls for service that would potentially be generated by future occupants at the Project Site, the fact that the Project Site is within the existing service boundaries of the AFR, and the fact that the annual budget review process would ensure that adequate levels of service are maintained throughout the City, impacts associated with AFR facilities would be less than significant. PPolice protection? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Anaheim Police Department (APD) provides police protection services to the City. The APD operates out of its headquarters (425 South Harbor Boulevard), East Station (8201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road), and West Station (320 South Beach Boulevard), and employs approximately 400 sworn officers and a support staff of over 173 (City of Anaheim 2020d). The nearest police station to the Project Site is the headquarters (320 South Beach Boulevard), located approximately 1.3 miles via local roads from the Project Site. In 2019, the APD received approximately 192,000 calls for service (City of Anaheim 2020d). In the context of the entire City’s population, which the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit estimates to be 357,325 as of January 1, 2020 (DOF 2020), the AFR received approximately 5.37 calls per 10 residents in the City per year. As discussed previously, the Proposed Project involves the development of an 11-unit apartment complex, which would support an estimated 39 persons. Assuming an approximate call generation rate of 5.37 calls per 10 residents per year, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 21 calls per year. Given the minimal number of calls for service that could potentially be generated by future occupants at the Project Site, it is anticipated that APD would be able to accommodate the Proposed Project without the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. Further, the Project Site is located in a developed portion of the City that is within the existing service area of the APD, which eliminates the need to extend the service area of APD. Additionally, impacts to fire services are anticipated to be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenue, over an extended period of time, relative to the increase in development intensity. Additional police personnel and associated facilities and equipment would be provided through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process. As part of this annual process, police department needs would be assessed and budget allocations would be revised accordingly to ensure that adequate levels of service are maintained throughout the City. As such, given the minimal number of calls for service that would potentially be generated by future occupants at the Project Site, the fact that the Project Site is within the existing service boundaries of the APD, and the fact that the annual budget review process would ensure that adequate levels of service are maintained throughout the City, impacts associated with APD facilities would be less than significant. Schools? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Anaheim Elementary School District (AESD) provides elementary school education services (kindergarten through 6th grade) for students in the project area. The AESD is composed of 23 schools located throughout the City (AESD 2020). Twila Reid Elementary School (720 South Western Avenue) is the closest AESD school to the Project Site, located approximately 0.2 miles north. According to the California Department of Education, during the 2019–2020 school year, AESD had an enrollment of INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 126 July 2020 16,928 students (CDE 2020a), which is a decline of approximately 2,236 students from 5 years ago (the 2014–2015 school year). Regarding middle and high school educational services, the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) serves students in 7th through 12th grades who live in the Project area. The Anaheim Union High School District is composed of 21 schools located throughout the central and western portions of the City (AUHSD 2017). Orangeview Junior High School (3715 West Orange Avenue) and Western High School (1765 West Cerritos Avenue) are the nearest AUHSD schools to the Project Site, located approximately 1.3 miles and 0.5 miles northwest, respectively, of the site. The California Department of Education indicates that enrollment was at 29,832 students for the 2019–2020 school year (CDE 2020b), which is a decline of approximately 1,827 students from 5 years ago (the 2014–2015 school year). Using the student generation rates used in the City General Plan EIR, multi-family residential land uses generate .116 elementary school students, 0.013 middle school students, and 0.032 high school students per dwelling unit. At 11 residential units, the Project could generate approximately two elementary school students, one middle school student, and one high school student. Because the AESD and AUHSD experienced declines in student enrollment, it is likely that each school district has the capacity and facilities to accept what equates to a nominal increase in students generated by the Project. In addition, the Project would be subject to SB 50, which requires the payment of mandatory impact fees to offset any impact to school services or facilities. In accordance with SB 50, the Applicant would pay its fair share of school impact fees based on the number of proposed dwelling units and square footage. Therefore, impacts associated with AESD and AUHSD facilities would be less than significant. PParks? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would include 11 residential units that would house approximately 39 residents. This analysis anticipates that at least a portion of these residents would patronize the various public park and recreation facilities located throughout the project area. The closest park to the Project Site is the Twila Reid Park, which is located 0.7 miles northeast of the site and provides a range of passive and active recreational amenities, including a playground, open play area, barbecues, a basketball court, softball field, and restroom facilities. The Proposed Project would be subject to the state’s Quimby Act, which requires development projects to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay in-lieu fees for park improvements. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the Applicant would pay its fair share of in-lieu fees based on the number and type of dwelling units. In addition, the project would include common areas located throughout the Project Site. These areas include passive sitting areas with water features, barbecue and picnic areas, and courtyard areas between some of the condominium units. These on-site amenities would provide an alternative to off-site public parks and recreational facilities, allowing the project’s residents to recreate on the Project Site while incrementally reducing the project’s impacts to off-site public park and recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with park facilities would be less than significant. Other public facilities? Less-than-Significant Impact. It is reasonable to assume that at least a portion of the approximately 39 residents generated by the Project would patronize public facilities such as local library branches operated INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 127 July 2020 by the City. The Anaheim Public Library system consists of a central library, six branches, the Heritage Center, Books on the Go! (self-service kiosk at Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center), and a bookmobile. The Haskett Branch (2650 W Broadway) is the closest library to the Project Site, located approximately 2.1 miles northeast of the Project Site. The Anaheim Public Library system has 308,223 library card holders with 1.3 million annual visits in FY 18/19. Haskett Library has 106,266 card holders with 183,010 annual visits during FY18/19 which translates to 587 visitors per day at the Haskett Library alone. The Project would add approximately 39 residents, which represents roughly 0.02% of the existing City residents served by the Anaheim Public Library system. Population growth affects online resources because the basis for licensing fees for these databases, eBooks, and other digital resources are generally the population of the library’s service area. With additional residents to serve, the Proposed Project would reduce the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space. Therefore, in order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing agreements, the City would need to provide additional physical and virtual resources to the Anaheim library system. However, the threshold for determining impacts pursuant to CEQA is based upon whether the project would 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. The impacts to the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space would not create significant physical or environmental impacts. Therefore, project-related impacts to library facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3.16 Recreation PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XVII. RECREATION 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? 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? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 128 July 2020 aa) 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 Impact. As mentioned in Section 3.14(a), pursuant to the household estimates provided in the SCAG 2019 Local Profiles Report, the average household size in the City in the year 2018 is 3.5 persons per household (SCAG 2019a). Based on this assumption, the proposed 11 residential units could generate 38 persons upon completion in 2022. This analysis anticipates that at least a portion of these residents would patronize the various public park and recreation facilities located throughout the Project area. The Proposed Project would be subject to the state’s Quimby Act, which requires development projects to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay in-lieu fees for park improvements. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the Project Applicant would pay its fair share of in-lieu fees based on the number and type of dwelling units. In addition, the Proposed Project would include common areas located throughout the Project Site. These areas include a courtyard area in the center of the Project Site and a recreation room on the third floor. These on-site amenities would provide an alternative to off-site public parks and recreational facilities, allowing the Project’s residents to recreate on the Project Site while incrementally reducing the Project’s impacts to off-site public park and recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the increased use of existing recreational facilities would be less than significant. 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 Impact. The Proposed Project would include common areas located throughout the Project Site. These areas include a courtyard and a recreation room. These amenities would be fully contained on the Project Site and are part of the Proposed Project. As such, this IS/MND accounts for any potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of these on-site recreational amenities, as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the Project. No adverse physical effects beyond those already disclosed in this IS/MND would occur due to the implementation of the Proposed Project’s on-site recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant. 3.17 Transportation Potentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XVIII.TTRANSPORTATION – Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 129 July 2020 PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? The California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and level of service (LOS) from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. With the adopted Guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lead agencies were allowed to continue using their current impact criteria until June 30, 2020, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines as required in CEQA Section 15064.3. On June 23, 2020, the City of Anaheim City Council adopted the Vehicle Miles Travelled Thresholds of Significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts and also approved the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (TIA Guidelines) (City of Anaheim 2020e). For the purposes of this IS/MND, the Proposed Project’s transportation impacts are evaluated using a VMT-based approach, consistent with CEQA Section 15064.3. Additionally, the City’s General Plan Circulation Element contains policies relating to LOS and traffic congestion. While the revised CEQA Guidelines prohibit a lead agency from using vehicle delay and LOS to evaluate a Proposed Project’s transportation impact, the following analysis provides the Proposed Project’s consistency with these policies, as well as the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for informational purposes. City of Anaheim General Plan and Traffic Impact Study Criteria Significance Thresholds The City of Anaheim’s General Plan Circulation Element (City of Anaheim 2020a) has the following policies relating to LOS and traffic congestion: x Goal 2.1: Maintain efficient traffic operations on City streets and maintain a peak hour level of service not worse than D at street intersections. In addition, the City’s Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (City of Anaheim 2016b) establishes thresholds for project-related increases in traffic for roadway segments and intersections. For roadways, a project would create a significant impact if the roadway segments operates at LOS D, E, or F under peak-hour conditions and the project traffic increases the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or greater. For intersections, a project would create a significant impact if it causes an intersection to operate from LOS D (minimum satisfactory LOS) or better, to LOS E or F with addition of project traffic, or if the project contributes the following V/C increases at LOS C, D, E, or F: x Increase ≥ 0.050 if final V/C ratio > 0.700 – 0.800 (LOS C) x Increase ≥ 0.030 if final V/C ratio > 0.800 – 0.900 (LOS D) x Increase ≥ 0.010 if final V/C ratio > 0.900 (LOS E and F) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 130 July 2020 ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in February 2020 (Appendix I) to assess transportation impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The scope of analysis conducted in the TIA is consistent with the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (City of Anaheim 2016b) and based on consultation with City Engineering staff. The TIA includes quantification of the trip generation and trip distribution associated with the Proposed Project, and the resulting impacts on existing weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations at five intersections and four roadway segments (see Figure 12, Study Area Intersections and Roadway Segments). The Proposed Project would have one right in/right out driveway on Ball Road. According to the TIA, the Proposed Project would generate approximately six AM and six PM peak hour trips. For the purposes of the TIA, the analysis distributed trips generated by the Proposed Project to the surrounding street based on existing travel patterns derived from traffic counts. Figure 13, Project Trip Distribution, shows the AM and PM peak hour distribution of Project trips to the study intersections. The TIA evaluated AM and PM peak hour intersection operations for the five intersections and four roadway segments under the following scenarios: x Existing Conditions (2019) x Existing Plus Project Conditions (2019) x Opening Year (Existing + Approved Projects) (2021) x Opening Year + Project (Existing + Approved Projects + Project) (2021) x General Plan Buildout Base Conditions (2035) x General Plan Buildout Conditions + Project (2035) FIGURE 12SOURCE: Advantec Consultung Engineers, 2020 Z: \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D 3175 West Ball Road Study Area Intersections and Roadway Segments INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 132 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FIGURE 1SOURCE: Advantec Consultung Engineers, 2020 Z: \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 8 9 0 3 \ M A P D O C \ P D 3175 West Ball Road Project Trip Distribution INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 134 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 135 July 2020 VVehicle Miles Traveled Significance Thresholds As noted previously, on June 23, 2020, the City adopted the Vehicle Miles Travelled Thresholds of Significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts and also approved the TIA Guidelines. Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, certain projects that meet specific screening criteria are presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to CEQA Section 15064.3 absent substantial evidence to the contrary (City of Anaheim 2020e). There are three project-screening types that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from projectǦlevel assessment. A project only needs to fulfill one of the screening types below to qualify for screening. These screening types are summarized below12: x Type 1: Transit Priority Area Screening. A Transit Priority Area is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a highǦquality transit corridor. Projects located within a Transit Priority Area may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project has a total floor area ratio of less than 0.75, includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction, Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderateǦ or highǦincome residential units. x Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening. A low VMT-generating area is an area that has a VMT per service population metric that is 15% below the County average. Residential and office projects located within a low VMTǦgenerating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Other employmentǦrelated and mixed-use projects within a low VMTǦgenerating area may also be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the project can reasonably be expected to generate a VMT per service population metric similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. x Type 3: Project Type Screening. Some project types are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature. Projects that are presumed to have a less than significant impact due to their local serving nature include local-serving K-12 schools, neighborhood and community parks, day care centers, certain local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses, community and religious assembly uses, public services, localǦserving community colleges, affordable or supportive housing, convalescent and rest homes, senior housing, and projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips. Projects not screened through the steps above shall complete a VMT analysis and forecasting to determine if they would result in a significant VMT impact. VMT thresholds to determine potential VMT impacts are provided below. x A project would result in a significant projectǦgenerated VMT impact if the baseline project-generated or cumulative projectǦgenerated VMT per service population exceeds 15% below the County of Orange baseline VMT per service population. x The project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if the baseline or cumulative link-level boundary Citywide VMT per service population increases under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition. 12 Note that this discussion provides a limited summary of the projects that may be screened from projectǦlevel assessment. For a full list of projects, definitions, and circumstances that preclude listed project types from being effectively screened, refer to the City’s TIA Guidelines (City of Anaheim 2020e). INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 136 July 2020 aa) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy that establishes measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, as further discussed below. The TIA analyzed five intersections and four roadway segments during weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The TIA determined that with the addition of the Proposed Project, there would be no significant impacts to the study intersections or roadway segments under Existing Conditions (2019), Opening Year (2021), and General Plan Buildout Base Conditions (2035). Under all conditions, the peak hour intersection operations did not exceed the standard acceptable threshold for intersection service level (LOS D). Thus, impacts to the circulation system would be less than significant. The General Plan includes policies that provide for an integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as for the needs of transit users. The General Plan calls for the construction and enhancement of a bike route network to encourage non-motorized transport between neighborhoods and between neighborhoods, in addition to key destinations for commute, recreational, and other purposes (Goals 2.2, 3.1, 7.1, and 8.1). Additionally, the City of Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan (City of Anaheim 2017) includes a map of existing and planned bikeways throughout the City. According Bicycle Master Plan, the City plans to implement a Class II bike lane on Ball Road from Western Avenue to Gramont Street. An existing Class II bike lane is located on Western Avenue fronting the Project Site. Pedestrian sidewalks are located along Ball Road and Western Avenue. Additionally, an existing Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop is located within the public right-of-way/sidewalk on Ball Road, along the Project Site’s frontage. The Proposed Project would involve modifications to the public right-of-way within Western Avenue and Ball Road. The Proposed Project would involve modifications to the pedestrian sidewalks, including the bus stop. The Proposed Project would construct final sidewalks pursuant to City Standards. Modifications to the bus stop would be coordinated with the City and with the Orange County Transportation Authority. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not include components that would preclude the City from constructing a Class II bicycle lane along Ball Road. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing circulation facilities, including transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less-than-Significant Impact. According to Attachment B of the TIA Guidelines, the Proposed Project is located with a census tract that has an average VMT per service population metric that is more than 15% below the countywide average. Per TIA Guidelines, residential projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The TIA Guidelines states that this presumption would apply if following is true: x The project is composed of similar land types and of a similar density to the land uses within that zone x The project is assumed to generate VMT per service population that is similar to those existing uses. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 137 July 2020 The Proposed Project is a multi-story, multi-family residential development. The proposed use is similar to adjacent properties, particularly on Ball Road. Since the Proposed Project is similar to the surrounding multi-family properties, it is assumed to generate VMT per service population metric that is similar to the surrounding properties. Therefore, the Project could be screened from a VMT analysis, and would result in a less than significant impact with regard to CEQA Section 15064.3, per the City’s TIA Guidelines. cc) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project Applicant would be responsible the construction of the Proposed Project’s driveway as well as the Proposed Project’s frontage improvements (pedestrian facilities, utility connections, landscape areas) adjacent to Ball Road and Western Avenue. The Project Site would be accessible via a 25-foot right-in/right-out driveway located at the southwestern corner of the Project Site on Ball Road. The Proposed Project’s driveway would be in proximity to the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue. Given the limited space between the Proposed Project’s driveway and the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue, vehicles exiting the Project Site will not be permitted to cross Ball Road to access eastbound lanes of Ball Road. As such, the Proposed Project would include the installation of signage at this driveway to indicate clearly to vehicles exiting the Project Site that only right turns are permitted. The Project Applicant would design these on-site and adjacent improvements in accordance with all applicable design standards set forth by the City, which it established to ensure safe and efficient vehicular circulation on City roadway facilities. In addition, the City reviews all site plans to ensure that adequate line-of-sight is provided at all driveways, making sure that no structures or landscaping block the views of vehicles entering and exiting a site. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce any sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous design features or incompatible land uses would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The Project Site would be accessible via a 25-foot right-in/right-out driveway located at the southwestern corner of the Project Site on Ball Road. The Proposed Project’s driveway would be designed and constructed to City standards and comply with City width, clearance, and turning-radius requirements. The Project Site would be accessible to emergency responders during construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not in involve any components that could potentially interfere with use of Ball Road or Western Avenue by emergency vehicles. Because the Proposed Project would comply with all applicable local requirements related to emergency vehicle access and circulation, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would occur. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 138 July 2020 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated LLess--Than- Significant Impact No Impact XVIIII. TTRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? The basis for the following analysis is a Cultural Resources Report prepared for the Project Site in May 2019 by Dudek (Appendix C). As part of Cultural Resources Report, recent photographs of the Project Site, historic maps, aerial photographs, a California Historical Resources Information System records search conducted at the South Central Coast Information Center, a Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search, informal tribal consultation, and an intensive pedestrian survey were conducted. Additionally, the City conducted tribal consultation in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18. Correspondence between the City and the Native American Tribes is provided in Appendix J, Tribal Cultural Resources Consultation Correspondence). a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.5, the Project Site has been subject to previous development, demolition activities, and excavation activities, and the Project Site is not eligible or listed in the CRHR or local register of historical resources (California Public Resources INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 139 July 2020 Code Section 21074) (Appendix C). Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any substantial adverse change in a tribal cultural resource (TCR) defined pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 or California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Impacts would be less than significant. iii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial e vidence, to be significant purs uant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Co de Section 5024.1, the lead age ncy shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known TCRs within the boundaries of the Project Site. The Project Site has been subject to previous development, demolition activities, and excavation activities, and does not meet any of the historical resources criteria outlined in the California Public Resources Code Section 2024.1. In considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe, the City contacted the NAHC for the listing of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the Project Site and to search the Sacred Lands File (SLF). The SLF search result was negative. The City contacted the tribes per the NAHC listing, and only one tribal representative responded—Andrew Salas of Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation considers the Project Site to be within its ancestral tribal territory, descending from a higher degree of kinship than traditional or cultural affiliation. They also indicated that the Project Site is in a sensitive area and may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of their TCRs. For this reason, they recommended a tribal monitor(s) be present during ground-disturbing activities. Upon discovery, if the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation indicated that to the tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones, but also the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as human bones that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture. Other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered associated funerary objects. Because there is a possibility that grading and excavation activities during implementation of the Proposed Project could impact previously undisturbed TCRs, MM-TCR-1 shall be required to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. MM-TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any grading and/or construction activity, the property owner/developer shall retain a Native American Monitor and a copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 140 July 2020 may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the Project Site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the property owner/developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 141 July 2020 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems PPotentially Significant Impact Less--Than-- Significant Impact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XIIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would extend utility service lines, from their existing locations adjacent to the Project Site, onto the Project Site. These utility lines include water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Given that the activity of connecting utilities from their current locations onto the Project Site require ground disturbance and the use of heavy machinery associated with trenching, the connection of these utility services to the Proposed Project could potentially result in environmental effects. However, the extension of these utility lines is part of the Proposed Project analyzed herein. As such, this IS/MND has already accounted for any potential environmental impacts related to these components of the Proposed Project as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the Proposed Project. No adverse physical effects beyond those already disclosed in this IS/MND would occur because of implementation of the Proposed Project’s utility INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 142 July 2020 system connections. Additionally, the Proposed Project would constitute a nominal increase in utility usage beyond what has already been accounted for in growth projections for the City (i.e., the utility usage associated with use of the Project Site for multi-family uses would be a nominal increase compared to the utility usage associated with use of the Project Site for commercial uses, especially given the size of the Project Site at 0.36 acre), and by each utility provider. No modifications to utility infrastructure would be necessary outside of the Project Site. As such, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of utility line connections would be less than significant. bb) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less-than-Significant Impact. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Anaheim 2016a), the City depends on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to meet its water needs. The City works together with two primary agencies, Metropolitan and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and the State Water Project provided by Metropolitan. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the Basin. Currently, the City relies on approximately 70% groundwater and 30% imported water. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan anticipates the same water supply mix to be available to the City through 2040. Table 23 provides the City’s projected water demand and supplies for the single- and multiple-year dry year scenario. Tablle 23.. MMultiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) Dry Year Scenario Supply and Demand 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 First Year Supply totals 65,774 70,605 71,089 71,070 71,172 Demand totals 65,774 70,605 71,089 71,070 71,172 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Second Year Supply totals 65,774 70,605 71,089 71,070 71,172 Demand totals 65,774 70,605 71,089 71,070 71,172 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Third Year Supply totals 65,774 70,605 71,089 71,070 71,172 Demand totals 65,774 70,605 71,089 71,070 71,172 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Source: City of Anaheim 2016a. Every urban water supplier is required to assess the reliability of their water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. The City depends on a combination of imported and local supplies to meet its water demands. The City has taken numerous steps to ensure it has adequate INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 143 July 2020 supplies. Various factors may affect the reliability of supplies such as legal, environmental, water quality, and climatic. With the projects and programs implemented by Metropolitan, OCWD, and the City, these agencies are projected to have water supplies to meet full-service demands. Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP found that they would be able to meet full-service demands of its member agencies from 2020 through 2040 during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years (City of Anaheim 2016a). As discussed, the City’s water demands can be met under multiple dry years and supply is expected to meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures. As such, although use of the Project Site for multi-family uses would result in a slight increase in water demand when compared to the anticipated use of the Project Site for commercial uses (as was anticipated in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan), any increase would be nominal, especially given the size of the Project Site at 0.36 acre. Given the nominal nature of this deviation, the City’s projected current and future supplies would be able to serve the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts associated with water facilities and supplies would be less than significant. cc) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Orange County Sanitation District Reclamation Plant No. 1, located in the City of Fountain Valley, and Reclamation Plant No. 2, located in the City of Huntington Beach would receive wastewater transported via trunk sewers, generated from the Project area. The effluent discharge to the ocean is a blend of advanced primary and secondary treated wastewater, as specified in the OCSD’s NPDES permit. Both of these reclamation plants are required to comply with the treatment requirements specified in the NPDES permits issued by SARWQCB. Reclamation Plant No. 1 currently has a design capacity of 144 million gallons per day (mgd), and Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a design capacity of 108 mgd (City of Anaheim 2004). Although these treatment capacities would expand in the future, these existing design capacities would be sufficient to serve the Project. For the 2019–2020 fiscal year, average wastewater flows at Reclamation Plant No. 1 were 119 mgd, while flows at Reclamation Plant No. 2 were 70 mgd, totaling 189 mgd (OCSD 2020). Thus, under their current design capacities, Reclamation Plant Nos. 1 and 2 have a collectively surplus treatment capacity of approximately 71 mgd. The Project does not include industrial uses or activities that would require unique wastewater treatment processes and the Project would generate the same types of municipal wastewater currently generated throughout the City. Additionally, the Project’s wastewater generation would represent only a nominal fraction of this present surplus treatment capacity, and because Reclamation Plant Nos. 1 and 2 are required to adhere to the treatment requirements specified in the NPDES permits issued by SARWQCB, wastewater produced by the Project and requiring treatment would comply with SARWQCB’s treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirement would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 144 July 2020 dd) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less-than-Significant Impact. The City contracts with a franchised hauler to transport its solid waste to material recovery facilities located in various parts of the City. However, the Olinda Alpha Landfill, near the City of Brea primarily intakes remaining waste, produced by the City. Additionally, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill near the City of Irvine and the Prima Deshecha Landfill near the City of San Juan Capistrano receives refuse, generated from the City. Lastly, trash trucks may need to transport material to one or the other, to ensure that the trucks do not exceed the maximum permitted daily tonnage at a particular landfill. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery publishes solid waste generation rates based on land use types. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, multifamily residential uses can generate solid waste at a rate of approximately 12.231 pounds per dwelling unit per day (CalRecycle 2020a). Based on these generation rates, the project’s 11 residential units could generate solid waste at a rate of approximately 134.5 pounds per day.13 Olinda Alpha Landfill has a permitted maximum daily throughput of 8,000 tons (CalRecycle 2020b), the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a permitted maximum daily throughput of 11,500 tons (CalRecycle 2020c), and the Prima Deshecha Landfill has a permitted maximum daily throughput of 4,000 tons (CalRecycle 2020d). As such, even when considering the impending closure of the Olinda Alpha Landfill in or around 2021, solid waste generated by the Project would represent a nominal percentage of the collective maximum daily throughput permitted for the local landfills. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the City is required to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills. AB 939 mandates local jurisdictions to divert at least 50% of their solid waste generation into recycling. To ensure the Proposed Project complies with the requirements of AB 939, MM-UTL-1 requires the property owner/developer to submit Project plans to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, as well as the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, with implementation of MM-UTL-1, impacts associated with solid waste disposal regulations would be less than significant. MM-UTL-1 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the property owner/developer shall submit Project plans and a Solid Waste Management Plan to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim to the maximum extent feasible, which shall be 13 Note that this estimate does not account for diversion of recyclables from the solid waste stream, and thus, should be considered a conservative projection. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 145 July 2020 determined by the Streets and Sanitation Division. Implementation of said plans shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: x Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. x Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. 3.20 Wildfire PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated LLess--Than- Significant Impact No Impact XXX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) (CAL FIRE 2011a-b). In addition, the Project site is located within a developed portion of the City. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Proposed Project would not significantly affect emergency response or evaluation activities and the Project would not conflict with or impair implementation of an emergency evacuation plan. As such, the Project would not expose INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 146 July 2020 people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in wildfire-related impacts. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildfire would. bb) Due to s lope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2011a-b). In addition, the Project site is located within a developed portion of the City. Further, the Project site contains only limited amounts of ruderal vegetation and does not contain extensive amounts of vegetation or wildland fuel. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would exacerbate wildfire risks or expose future occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Thus, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in wildfire-related impacts. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildfire would occur. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2011a-b). The Project Site is located within a developed portion of the City and the Proposed Project would connect to existing utilities around the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not require installation or maintenance of other associated infrastructure such as fuel breaks, power lines, or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. As such, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in wildfire-related impacts. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildfire would occur. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The Project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2011a-b). As discussed in Section 3.8, Geology and Soils, and Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Proposed Project would not result in significant risks associated with flooding, landslides, runoff, or drainage changes, and the Proposed Project does not propose the use of fire (such as for a controlled vegetation burn) that would result in post-fire slope instability. Further, the Project Site is located within a developed portion of the City that is not susceptible to wildland fires, given its considerable distance from open, natural areas. Thus, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in wildfire-related impacts. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildfire would occur. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 147 July 2020 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance PPotentially SSignificant IImpact LLess--TThan-- SSignificant IImpact Wiith Mitigation Incorporated LLess--Than- Significant Impact No Impact XXII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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 Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources; Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, with the incorporation of mitigation (MM-BIO-1, MM-CUL-1, and TCR-1, to minimize potential impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not 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. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 148 July 2020 bb) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a pr oject are considerable when viewed in connection with the effec t s of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the e ffects of probable future projec ts)? Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As addressed throughout this IS/MND, the Proposed Project would have no impact, a less-than-significant impact, or a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated with respect to all environmental impact areas. Cumulative impacts of several resource areas have already been addressed in individual resource sections, Section 3.13, Noise; and Section 3.17, Transportation. CalEEMod was used to assess the air quality and GHG emissions impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, concluding less-than-significant impacts. Noise and traffic assessments conducted as part of this IS/MND considered cumulative increases in traffic and concluded that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Some of the other resource areas (i.e., Section 3.1, Aesthetics; Section 3.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources; Section 3.6, Energy, Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning; Section 3.12, Mineral Resources; Section 3.14, Population and Housing; Section 3.15, Public Services; Section 3.16, Recreation; and Section 3.20, Wildfire) were determined to have a less-than-significant or no impact compared to existing conditions, and thus, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these environmental topics. Other issues areas (i.e., Section 3.5, Cultural Resources; Section 3.7, Geology and Soils; Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources) are by their nature site-specific, and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. For all resource areas analyzed, with the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures (MM-BIO-1, MM- CUL-1, MM-GEO-1, MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-3, MM-TRC-1, and MM-UTL-1) identified within this IS/MND (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources; Section 3.5, Cultural Resources; Section 3.7, Geology and Soils; Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 3.13, Noise; Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources; and Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems), the Proposed Project’s individual-level impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, which would, in turn, reduce the potential for these impacts to be considered part of any possible cumulative impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in individually limited but cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As evaluated throughout this document, with incorporation of mitigation (MM-BIO-1, MM-CUL-1, MM-GEO-1, MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-3, MM-TRC-1, and MM-UTL-1), environmental impacts associated with Proposed Project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Thus, the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. 9289.0003 149 July 2020 4 References and Preparers 4.1 References Cited 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. ACOE (Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. January 1987. https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/ Portals/38/docs/USACE%2087%20Wetland%20Delineation%20Manual.pdf. AESD (Anaheim Elementary School District). 2020. “District Overview.” January 3, 2020. https://anaheimelementary.org/district-overview/. AFR (Anaheim Fire and Rescue). 2020. “Operations.” Accessed April 2020. http://www.anaheim.net/ 678/Operations. ALUC (Airport Land Use Commission). 2004. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport. Amended November 18, 2004. Accessed May 2017. http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/ docs/FMA_AELUP-November-18-2004.pdf. ALUC. 2016. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Air Force Base Los Alamitos. Amended 2016. Accessed April 2020. http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JFTB-AELUP2016ProposedFINAL.pdf. APUD (Anaheim Public Utilities Department). 2015. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, Sustainable Electric & Water Initiatives. July 2015. Accessed June 2019. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/ 7987/Sustainability-Reduction-Plan?bidId=. APUD. 2017. “Anaheim Public Utilities 2017 Power Content Label.” Accessed April 2020. https://www.anaheim.net/ 3452/Power-Content-Label. AUHSD (Anaheim Union High School District). 2020. “About Anaheim Union High School District.” Accessed April 2020. https://www.auhsd.us/district/index.php/district/about-anaheim-union-high-school-district CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2011a. Map of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Unincorporated LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE. October 2011. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/ media/5899/county30_orange_vhfhsz2_unincorp3.pdf CAL FIRE. 2011b. Map of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE. October 2011. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map30.pdf California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013. Accessed March 27, 2020. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/ pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 150 July 2020 Caltrans. 2013b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September 2013. Accessed April 2020. http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf. Caltrans. 2019. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Last updated August 2019. Accessed April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2020a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. CalRecyle. 2020b. “Public Notice: Olinda Alpha Landfill – Orange County.” Accessed April 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/PublicNotices/Details/1473. CalRecycle. 2020c. “SWIS Facility Detail: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30-AB-0360).” Accessed April 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/Detail. CalRecycle. 2020d. SWIS Facility Detail: Prima Deshecha Landfill (30-AB-0019).” Accessed April 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0019/Detail. CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Accessed April 20, 2020. http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA- White-Paper.pdf. CAPCOA. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. Accessed December 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/ docs/default-source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2011. “Facts About the Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Revised November 9, 2011. Accessed May 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/ advanced_clean_cars_eng.pdf. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. CARB. 2017a. “Area Designation Maps/State and National.” Accessed March 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ desig/adm/adm.htm. CARB. 2017b. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, The Proposed Strategy For Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Accessed April 2020. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 151 July 2020 CDE (California Department of Education). 2020a. “2019–20 Enrollment by Grade: Anaheim Elementary Report (30-66423).” Accessed April 2020. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx? cds=3066423&agglevel=district&year=2019-20&ro=y. CDE. 2020b. “2019–20 Enrollment by Grade: Anaheim Union High Report (30-66431).” Accessed April 2020. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3066423&agglevel=district&year= 2019-20&ro=y. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019a. “California Natural Community List.” November 8, 2019. Accessed March 2020. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline. CDFW. 2019b. “Special Animals List.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Branch. August 2019. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline=1. CDFW. 2019c. “State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. August 2019. CDFW. 2020a. “State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. January 2020. Accessed March 2020. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline=1. CDFW. 2020b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind 5.2.14 (Commercial Subscription). Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed March 2020. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. CDOC (California Department of Conservation). 2020. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. CEC (California Energy Commission). 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed April 2018. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/ documents/2016_Building_Energy_Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf. CEC. 2019a. “Electricity Consumption by Entity.” Accessed April 2020. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. CEC. 2019b. “Natural Gas Consumption by Entity.” Accessed April 2020. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ gasbyutil.aspx. CEC. 2019c. “Weekly Fuels Watch Report.” Accessed April 2020. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/ petroleum_data/fuels_watch/reports/2019_Weekly_Fuels_Watch_RPT_ADA.xlsx. City of Anaheim. 2004. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2003041105. Prepared by The Planning Center. Costa Mesa, California: The Planning Center. Certified May 25, 2004. Accessed April 20, 2020. http://www.anaheim.net/932/EIR-No-330-Volume-I-FEIR. City of Anaheim. 2016a. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Final. June 2016. Accessed April 2020. http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/11777. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 152 July 2020 City of Anaheim. 2016b. City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. July 18, 2016. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/366/Traffic-Impact-Studies-Criteria-PDF?bidId= City of Anaheim. 2017. 2017 Bicycle Master Plan. Development Case No. 2017-00007. February 2017. http://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/14662/Draft-EIR-Addendum-021617?bidId=. City of Anaheim. 2020a. City of Anaheim General Plan. Adopted May 2004. Amended January 28, 2020. http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan. City of Anaheim. 2020b. Anaheim Municipal Code. Revised March 10, 2020. http://www.anaheim.net/ 2904/Municipal-Code. City of Anaheim. 2020c. “Memorandum: DEV2016-00074, GPA2016-00510, CL2016-00297, 7th Review 3175 W. Ball Rd.” E. Garcia, Development Services, to N. Taylor, Planning Services. March 19, 2020. City of Anaheim. 2020d. Proposed FY 2020–2021 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. June 2021. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/32083/20-21-Proposed-Budget-Book. City of Anaheim. 2020e. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis. April 2020. http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/25914/25944/25947/26186/ 26189/2.%20Proposed%20TIA%20Guidelines%20for%20CEQA%20Analysis26189.pdf CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.45). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed March 2020. www.rareplants.cnps.org. CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. “Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97.” Sacramento, California: CNRA. December 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf. DOF (Department of Finance). 2020. Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit: E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State Provisional population as of Jan. 1, 2020, released May 2020. DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2020. “EnviroStor Database Search.” Accessed April 2020. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=3175+ball+road. EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2017. “Fuel Economy Improvements are Projected to Reduce Future Gasoline Use.” Accessed June 2020. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31332. EIA. 2019. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates – Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2017.” Accessed June 2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/ html/fuel_use_pa.html&sid=US&sid=CA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” Accessed March 2018. http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 153 July 2020 EPA. 2020. “Household Hazardous Waste (HHW).” Last updated February 4, 2020. Accessed April 2020. https://www.epa.gov/hw/household-hazardous-waste-hhw. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. FHWA Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5. Office of Environment and Planning. February 2004. FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. December 2008. FTA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Hopkins, C. (2015). Sound Insulation. Routledge. HCD (Housing and Community Development). 2019. Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements – Annual Progress Reports. Accessed June 2020. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/ housing-element/index.shtml. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of Scientific- Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger, eds. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed April 20, 2020. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/. Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carrol (1997). Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 2020. Facts and Key Statistics. 2020. https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=29768 OCWD (Orange County Water District). 2015. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan – 2015 Update. June 17, 2015. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Accessed February 2015. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance- manual-preparation-health-risk-0. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2020. “Hazard Communication Standard: Safety Data Sheets.” Accessed April 2020. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3514.html. Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 154 July 2020 SARWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2011a. Technical Guidance Document for The Preparation Of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). May 19, 2011. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ docs/ocpermit/wqmp/2011/OC_TGD_5-19-11.pdf SARWQCB. 2011b. Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP). May 19, 2011. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/ocpermit/wqmp/2 011/OC_TGD_5-19-11.pdf SARWQCB. 2012. Letter RE: Case Closure and Well Destruction Approval, Former E-Z Service #100842, 3175 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, California. April 9, 2012. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2012. 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Accessed February 13, 2020. http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Pages/5th-Cycle-RHNA.aspx. SCAG. 2016. 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted April 7, 2016. Accessed August 2017. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. SCAG. 2019a. “Profile of the City of Anaheim.” Accessed May 2019. https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Anaheim.pdf. SCAG. 2019b. Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Housing. Accessed February 13, 2020. http://scag.ca.gov/programs/pages/housing.aspx. SCAG. 2020. Connection SoCal - 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted May 7, 2020. Accessed August 2017. https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/ fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1976. Rule 402. Nuisance. Adopted May 7, 1976. Accessed April 21, 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf. SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. SCAQMD. 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. August 2003. August 2003. Accessed April 20, 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf. SCAQMD. 2005. Rule 403. Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Accessed April 21, 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf. SCAQMD. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. SCAQMD. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2009. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2016-00074) 9289.0003 155 July 2020 SCAQMD. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15. September 28, 2010. PowerPoint slides. Accessed March 2018. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. SCAQMD. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 2017. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised April 2019. Accessed October 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov /docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. SoCalGas (Southern California Gas). 2020. Company Profile. Accessed April 2020. https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile. The Climate Registry. 2019. Default Emission Factors. May. Accessed May 2019. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/05/The-Climate-Registry-2019-Default-Emission-Factor-Document.pdf. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2020. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2020. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. 4.2 List of Preparers City of Anaheim Andy Uk, Associate Planner Nicholas Taylor, Associate Planner Susan Kim, Principal Planner Dudek Collin Ramsey, Project Manager Patrick Cruz, Environmental Analyst Ian McIntire, Air Quality Specialist Tommy Molioo, Biologist Linda Kry, Cultural Resources Specialist Nicole Peacock, Environmental Engineer Michael Greene, Acoustician Andrew Greis, GIS Specialist Amy Seals, Senior Technical Editor Kara Murphy, Publications Specialist INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3175 BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 156 July 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Calculations Page 1 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project. SCAQMD. Adjust CO2 to meet 33% renewables per 2017 Power Content Label. Land Use - Construction of a three story, 11-unit apartment complex totaling 16,917 SF on a 0.36 acre site. A 27-space parking garage would be located on ground floor. Construction Phase - Default schedule. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1100 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.029 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 31 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Anaheim Public Utilities 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Enclosed Parking Structure 27.00 Space 0.00 10,800.00 0 Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 11.00 Dwelling Unit 0.36 16,917.00 31 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/7/2020 8:37 AM 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Page 2 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 6.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 1543.28 1100 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 3.00 4.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.29 0.36 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.24 0.00 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 11,000.00 16,917.00 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Comply with fugitive dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403 - Water twice daily. Water Mitigation - 20% reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance. Waste Mitigation - AB 341 Requirements for residential uses, waste diversion of 75% of all solid waste by 2020. Architectural Coating - Use of low-VOC arch coatings - 50 g/L Grading - Assumed soil balanced. Vehicle Trips - Trip gen based on TIA. Woodstoves - Assume natural gas hearths and no wood burning devices. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Trips and VMT - Adjusted trips to even amount. Page 3 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005.86 0.00 1.66 9.12 0.00 1.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 0.0000 65.7148 65.7148 0.0177 0.0000 66.15798.9900e- 003 0.0242 0.0331 2.4900e- 003 0.0223 0.0248Maximum 0.1000 0.4524 0.4229 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 65.7148 65.7148 0.0177 0.0000 66.15798.9900e- 003 0.0242 0.0331 2.4900e- 003 0.0223 0.02482021 0.1000 0.4524 0.4229 7.4000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 65.7149 65.7149 0.0177 0.0000 66.15809.5500e- 003 0.0242 0.0337 2.7400e- 003 0.0223 0.0250Maximum 0.1000 0.4524 0.4229 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 65.7149 65.7149 0.0177 0.0000 66.15809.5500e- 003 0.0242 0.0337 2.7400e- 003 0.0223 0.02502021 0.1000 0.4524 0.4229 7.4000e- 004 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Page 4 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 1.6071 169.4502 171.0573 0.0440 9.6000e- 004 172.44440.0928 0.0125 0.1053 0.0249 0.0124 0.0373Total 0.1285 0.1303 0.4737 1.3300e- 003 0.1819 5.7287 5.9106 0.0188 4.7000e- 004 6.52220.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water 0.2568 0.0000 0.2568 0.0152 0.0000 0.63620.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste 0.0000 102.2102 102.2102 4.8600e- 003 0.0000 102.33160.0928 8.8000e- 004 0.0937 0.0249 8.2000e- 004 0.0257Mobile 0.0211 0.1203 0.2874 1.1100e- 003 0.0000 59.0801 59.0801 1.5100e- 003 4.1000e- 004 59.23964.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 Energy 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.1684 2.4313 3.5997 3.6600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.71490.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Area 0.1068 4.1700e- 003 0.1838 1.8000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 2.4229 170.8824 173.3053 0.0943 1.0800e- 003 175.98350.0928 0.0125 0.1053 0.0249 0.0124 0.0373Total 0.1285 0.1303 0.4737 1.3300e- 003 0.2274 7.1609 7.3883 0.0235 5.9000e- 004 8.15280.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water 1.0271 0.0000 1.0271 0.0607 0.0000 2.54470.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste 0.0000 102.2102 102.2102 4.8600e- 003 0.0000 102.33160.0928 8.8000e- 004 0.0937 0.0249 8.2000e- 004 0.0257Mobile 0.0211 0.1203 0.2874 1.1100e- 003 0.0000 59.0801 59.0801 1.5100e- 003 4.1000e- 004 59.23964.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 Energy 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.1684 2.4313 3.5997 3.6600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.71490.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Area 0.1068 4.1700e- 003 0.1838 1.8000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 5 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 5 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 34,257; Residential Outdoor: 11,419; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/3/2021 6/9/2021 5 100 4 Paving Paving 5/27/2021 6/2/2021 5 5 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/7/2021 5/26/2021 5 1 2 Grading Grading 1/5/2021 1/6/2021 5 2 End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/4/2021 1/4/2021 5 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date 33.67 0.84 1.30 53.28 11.11 2.010.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Page 6 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTArchitectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 Building Construction 5 12.00 4.00 0.00 14.70 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 Site Preparation 2 6.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Page 7 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.0287 0.0287 0.0000 0.0000 0.02873.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Total 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0287 0.0287 0.0000 0.0000 0.02873.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Worker 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.4276 0.4276 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.43102.7000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 Total 3.2000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 2.0100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.4276 0.4276 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.43101.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 Off-Road 3.2000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 2.0100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Fugitive Dust NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Page 8 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.0287 0.0287 0.0000 0.0000 0.02873.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Total 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0287 0.0287 0.0000 0.0000 0.02873.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Worker 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.4276 0.4276 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.43101.2000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 Total 3.2000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 2.0100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.4276 0.4276 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.43101.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 Off-Road 3.2000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 2.0100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 9 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.0956 0.0956 0.0000 0.0000 0.09561.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Total 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0956 0.0956 0.0000 0.0000 0.09561.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1.0409 1.0409 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.04587.5000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 1.1600e- 003 4.1000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 Total 8.0000e- 004 7.2500e- 003 7.5700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0409 1.0409 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.04584.1000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 Off-Road 8.0000e- 004 7.2500e- 003 7.5700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00007.5000e- 004 0.0000 7.5000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 4.1000e- 004 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 10 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.0956 0.0956 0.0000 0.0000 0.09561.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Total 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0956 0.0956 0.0000 0.0000 0.09561.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1.0409 1.0409 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.04583.4000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 5.8000e- 004 Total 8.0000e- 004 7.2500e- 003 7.5700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0409 1.0409 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.04584.1000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 Off-Road 8.0000e- 004 7.2500e- 003 7.5700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 11 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 10.6169 10.6169 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.62857.8400e- 003 9.0000e- 005 7.9300e- 003 2.1100e- 003 9.0000e- 005 2.1900e- 003 Total 3.0700e- 003 0.0212 0.0257 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.7340 5.7340 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 5.73786.5800e- 003 5.0000e- 005 6.6300e- 003 1.7500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.7900e- 003 Worker 2.5000e- 003 1.8500e- 003 0.0209 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.8829 4.8829 3.1000e- 004 0.0000 4.89071.2600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 003 3.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 Vendor 5.7000e- 004 0.0194 4.8000e- 003 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 50.0410 50.0410 0.0162 0.0000 50.44560.0224 0.0224 0.0206 0.0206Total 0.0388 0.3993 0.3632 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 50.0410 50.0410 0.0162 0.0000 50.44560.0224 0.0224 0.0206 0.0206Off-Road 0.0388 0.3993 0.3632 5.7000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 12 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 10.6169 10.6169 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.62857.8400e- 003 9.0000e- 005 7.9300e- 003 2.1100e- 003 9.0000e- 005 2.1900e- 003 Total 3.0700e- 003 0.0212 0.0257 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.7340 5.7340 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 5.73786.5800e- 003 5.0000e- 005 6.6300e- 003 1.7500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.7900e- 003 Worker 2.5000e- 003 1.8500e- 003 0.0209 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.8829 4.8829 3.1000e- 004 0.0000 4.89071.2600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 003 3.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 Vendor 5.7000e- 004 0.0194 4.8000e- 003 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 50.0410 50.0410 0.0162 0.0000 50.44560.0224 0.0224 0.0206 0.0206Total 0.0388 0.3993 0.3632 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 50.0410 50.0410 0.0162 0.0000 50.44560.0224 0.0224 0.0206 0.0206Off-Road 0.0388 0.3993 0.3632 5.7000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 13 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.4301 0.4301 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.43034.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 Total 1.9000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.4301 0.4301 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.43034.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 Worker 1.9000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.36528.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 Total 1.8000e- 003 0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.36528.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 Off-Road 1.8000e- 003 0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.5 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 14 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.4301 0.4301 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.43034.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 Total 1.9000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.4301 0.4301 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.43034.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 Worker 1.9000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.36528.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 Total 1.8000e- 003 0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.36528.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 Off-Road 1.8000e- 003 0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 15 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.0478 0.0478 0.0000 0.0000 0.04785.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Total 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0478 0.0478 0.0000 0.0000 0.04785.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Worker 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.63942.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 Total 0.0550 3.8200e- 003 4.5400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.63942.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 Off-Road 5.5000e- 004 3.8200e- 003 4.5400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0544 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 16 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.0000 0.0478 0.0478 0.0000 0.0000 0.04785.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Total 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0478 0.0478 0.0000 0.0000 0.04785.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Worker 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.63942.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 Total 0.0550 3.8200e- 003 4.5400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.63942.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 Off-Road 5.5000e- 004 3.8200e- 003 4.5400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0544 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 17 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.000709 0.0008960.005846 0.021394 0.034255 0.002099 0.001828 0.004855Enclosed Parking Structure 0.549559 0.042893 0.201564 0.118533 0.015569 0.034255 0.002099 0.001828 0.004855 0.000709 0.000896 SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.549559 0.042893 0.201564 0.118533 0.015569 0.005846 0.021394 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking Structure 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- W Total 73.15 70.29 64.46 244,326 244,326 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 73.15 70.29 64.46 244,326 244,326 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT 0.0000 102.2102 102.2102 4.8600e- 003 0.0000 102.33160.0928 8.8000e- 004 0.0937 0.0249 8.2000e- 004 0.0257Unmitigated 0.0211 0.1203 0.2874 1.1100e- 003 0.0000 102.2102 102.2102 4.8600e- 003 0.0000 102.33160.0928 8.8000e- 004 0.0937 0.0249 8.2000e- 004 0.0257Mitigated 0.0211 0.1203 0.2874 1.1100e- 003 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Page 18 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 6.74784.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.7079 6.7079 1.3000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.7478 Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.7079 6.7079 1.3000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 Apartments Mid Rise 125702 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 0.0000 6.7079 6.7079 1.3000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 6.74784.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 NaturalGas Unmitigated 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.7079 6.7079 1.3000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 6.74784.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 NaturalGas Mitigated 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 52.3721 52.3721 1.3800e- 003 2.9000e- 004 52.49180.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 52.3721 52.3721 1.3800e- 003 2.9000e- 004 52.49180.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO Page 19 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 52.4918Total 52.3721 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 21.8682 Enclosed Parking Structure 61236 30.5538 8.1000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 30.6236 Land Use kWh/yr t o n MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 43728.3 21.8183 5.8000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 6.7478 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.7079 6.7079 1.3000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.7478 Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.7079 6.7079 1.3000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 125702 6.8000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 2.4600e- 003 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eFugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Page 20 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1684 2.4313 3.5997 3.6600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.71490.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Unmitigated 0.1068 4.1700e- 003 0.1838 1.8000e- 004 1.1684 2.4313 3.5997 3.6600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.71490.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Mitigated 0.1068 4.1700e- 003 0.1838 1.8000e- 004 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 52.4918 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Total 52.3721 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 21.8682 Enclosed Parking Structure 61236 30.5538 8.1000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 30.6236 Land Use kWh/yr t o n MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 43728.3 21.8183 5.8000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Page 21 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1684 2.4313 3.5997 3.6600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.71490.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Total 0.1068 4.1600e- 003 0.1838 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.1860 0.1860 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.19056.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 Landscaping 3.4600e- 003 1.3100e- 003 0.1139 1.0000e- 005 1.1684 2.2453 3.4137 3.4800e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.52440.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105Hearth 0.0360 2.8500e- 003 0.0699 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.0618 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 5.4400e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1.1684 2.4313 3.5997 3.6600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.71490.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111Total 0.1068 4.1600e- 003 0.1838 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.1860 0.1860 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.19056.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 Landscaping 3.4600e- 003 1.3100e- 003 0.1139 1.0000e- 005 1.1684 2.2453 3.4137 3.4800e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.52440.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105Hearth 0.0360 2.8500e- 003 0.0699 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.0618 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 5.4400e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 22 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1528Total 7.3883 0.0235 5.9000e- 004 8.1528 Enclosed Parking Structure 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Land Use Mgal t o n MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 0.716694 / 0.451829 7.3883 0.0235 5.9000e- 004 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 7.3883 0.0235 5.9000e- 004 8.1528 Category t o n MT/yr Mitigated 5.9106 0.0188 4.7000e- 004 6.5222 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Page 23 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Unmitigated 1.0271 0.0607 0.0000 2.5447 CO2e t o n MT/yr Mitigated 0.2568 0.0152 0.0000 0.6362 6.5222 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O Total 5.9106 0.0188 4.7000e- 004 6.5222 Enclosed Parking Structure 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Land Use Mgal t o n MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 0.573355 / 0.361463 5.9106 0.0188 4.7000e- 004 Mitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Page 24 of 24 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 0.6362Total 0.2568 0.0152 0.0000 0.6362 Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Land Use tons t o n MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 1.265 0.2568 0.0152 0.0000 2.5447 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total 1.0271 0.0607 0.0000 2.5447 Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Land Use tons t o n MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 5.06 1.0271 0.0607 0.0000 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Page 1 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project. SCAQMD. Adjust CO2 to meet 33% renewables per 2017 Power Content Label. Land Use - Construction of a three story, 11-unit apartment complex totaling 16,917 SF on a 0.36 acre site. A 27-space parking garage would be located on ground floor. Construction Phase - Default schedule. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1100 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.029 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 31 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Anaheim Public Utilities 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Enclosed Parking Structure 27.00 Space 0.00 10,800.00 0 Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 11.00 Dwelling Unit 0.36 16,917.00 31 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/7/2020 8:40 AM 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Page 2 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 6.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 1543.28 1100 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 3.00 4.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.29 0.36 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.24 0.00 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 11,000.00 16,917.00 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Comply with fugitive dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403 - Water twice daily. Water Mitigation - 20% reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance. Waste Mitigation - AB 341 Requirements for residential uses, waste diversion of 75% of all solid waste by 2020. Architectural Coating - Use of low-VOC arch coatings - 50 g/L Grading - Assumed soil balanced. Vehicle Trips - Trip gen based on TIA. Woodstoves - Assume natural gas hearths and no wood burning devices. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Trips and VMT - Adjusted trips to even amount. Page 3 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0047.89 0.00 32.53 51.32 0.00 27.33 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 0.0000 1,345.079 6 1,345.079 6 0.3670 0.0000 1,354.253 8 0.4505 0.4493 0.8587 0.2158 0.4134 0.6052Maximum 21.9989 8.3993 7.9458 0.0137 0.0000 1,345.079 6 1,345.079 6 0.3670 0.0000 1,354.253 8 0.4505 0.4493 0.8587 0.2158 0.4134 0.60522021 21.9989 8.3993 7.9458 0.0137 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,345.079 6 1,345.079 6 0.3670 0.0000 1,354.253 8 0.8645 0.4493 1.2727 0.4434 0.4134 0.8328Maximum 21.9989 8.3993 7.9458 0.0137 0.0000 1,345.079 6 1,345.079 6 0.3670 0.0000 1,354.253 8 0.8645 0.4493 1.2727 0.4434 0.4134 0.83282021 21.9989 8.3993 7.9458 0.0137 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Page 4 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 103.0361 899.1433 1,002.179 4 0.3400 7.7300e- 003 1,012.983 6 0.5315 0.8528 1.3843 0.1422 0.8525 0.9947Total 3.4098 0.9222 8.2213 0.0210 658.9869 658.9869 0.0303 659.74470.5315 4.9100e- 003 0.5364 0.1422 4.5900e- 003 0.1468Mobile 0.1273 0.6517 1.7024 6.4700e- 003 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Energy 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Area 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 103.0361 899.1433 1,002.179 4 0.3400 7.7300e- 003 1,012.983 6 0.5315 0.8528 1.3843 0.1422 0.8525 0.9947Total 3.4098 0.9222 8.2213 0.0210 658.9869 658.9869 0.0303 659.74470.5315 4.9100e- 003 0.5364 0.1422 4.5900e- 003 0.1468Mobile 0.1273 0.6517 1.7024 6.4700e- 003 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Energy 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Area 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 5 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 5 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 34,257; Residential Outdoor: 11,419; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/3/2021 6/9/2021 5 100 4 Paving Paving 5/27/2021 6/2/2021 5 5 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/7/2021 5/26/2021 5 1 2 Grading Grading 1/5/2021 1/6/2021 5 2 End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/4/2021 1/4/2021 5 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date Page 6 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTArchitectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 Building Construction 5 12.00 4.00 0.00 14.70 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 Site Preparation 2 6.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Page 7 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 66.4442 66.4442 1.7900e- 003 66.48890.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Total 0.0253 0.0164 0.2260 6.7000e- 004 66.4442 66.4442 1.7900e- 003 66.48890.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Worker 0.0253 0.0164 0.2260 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.5303 0.2995 0.8297 0.0573 0.2755 0.3328Total 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.2995 0.2995 0.2755 0.2755Off-Road 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573Fugitive Dust NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Page 8 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 66.4442 66.4442 1.7900e- 003 66.48890.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Total 0.0253 0.0164 0.2260 6.7000e- 004 66.4442 66.4442 1.7900e- 003 66.48890.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Worker 0.0253 0.0164 0.2260 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.2386 0.2995 0.5381 0.0258 0.2755 0.3013Total 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 0.0000 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.2995 0.2995 0.2755 0.2755Off-Road 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 9 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 110.7403 110.7403 2.9800e- 003 110.81480.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Total 0.0422 0.0274 0.3767 1.1100e- 003 110.7403 110.7403 2.9800e- 003 110.81480.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Worker 0.0422 0.0274 0.3767 1.1100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.7528 0.4073 1.1601 0.4138 0.3886 0.8024Total 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.4073 0.4073 0.3886 0.3886Off-Road 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 0.0000 0.00000.7528 0.0000 0.7528 0.4138 0.0000 0.4138Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 10 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 110.7403 110.7403 2.9800e- 003 110.81480.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Total 0.0422 0.0274 0.3767 1.1100e- 003 110.7403 110.7403 2.9800e- 003 110.81480.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Worker 0.0422 0.0274 0.3767 1.1100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.3387 0.4073 0.7461 0.1862 0.3886 0.5748Total 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 0.0000 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.4073 0.4073 0.3886 0.3886Off-Road 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 0.0000 0.00000.3387 0.0000 0.3387 0.1862 0.0000 0.1862Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 11 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 241.8638 241.8638 0.0102 242.11790.1597 1.7600e- 003 0.1615 0.0429 1.6400e- 003 0.0446Total 0.0618 0.4144 0.5426 2.3500e- 003 132.8884 132.8884 3.5700e- 003 132.97770.1341 9.9000e- 004 0.1351 0.0356 9.1000e- 004 0.0365Worker 0.0507 0.0329 0.4521 1.3300e- 003 108.9754 108.9754 6.5900e- 003 109.14020.0256 7.7000e- 004 0.0264 7.3700e- 003 7.3000e- 004 8.1000e- 003 Vendor 0.0111 0.3815 0.0905 1.0200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 12 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 241.8638 241.8638 0.0102 242.11790.1597 1.7600e- 003 0.1615 0.0429 1.6400e- 003 0.0446Total 0.0618 0.4144 0.5426 2.3500e- 003 132.8884 132.8884 3.5700e- 003 132.97770.1341 9.9000e- 004 0.1351 0.0356 9.1000e- 004 0.0365Worker 0.0507 0.0329 0.4521 1.3300e- 003 108.9754 108.9754 6.5900e- 003 109.14020.0256 7.7000e- 004 0.0264 7.3700e- 003 7.3000e- 004 8.1000e- 003 Vendor 0.0111 0.3815 0.0905 1.0200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.0000 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 13 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 199.3326 199.3326 5.3600e- 003 199.46660.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Total 0.0760 0.0493 0.6781 2.0000e- 003 199.3326 199.3326 5.3600e- 003 199.46660.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Worker 0.0760 0.0493 0.6781 2.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.5 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 14 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 199.3326 199.3326 5.3600e- 003 199.46660.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Total 0.0760 0.0493 0.6781 2.0000e- 003 199.3326 199.3326 5.3600e- 003 199.46660.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Worker 0.0760 0.0493 0.6781 2.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 15 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 22.1481 22.1481 6.0000e- 004 22.16300.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Total 8.4400e- 003 5.4800e- 003 0.0753 2.2000e- 004 22.1481 22.1481 6.0000e- 004 22.16300.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Worker 8.4400e- 003 5.4800e- 003 0.0753 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Total 21.9904 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 21.7715 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 16 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 22.1481 22.1481 6.0000e- 004 22.16300.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Total 8.4400e- 003 5.4800e- 003 0.0753 2.2000e- 004 22.1481 22.1481 6.0000e- 004 22.16300.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Worker 8.4400e- 003 5.4800e- 003 0.0753 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Total 21.9904 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 21.7715 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 17 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 0.000709 0.0008960.005846 0.021394 0.034255 0.002099 0.001828 0.004855Enclosed Parking Structure 0.549559 0.042893 0.201564 0.118533 0.015569 0.034255 0.002099 0.001828 0.004855 0.000709 0.000896 SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.549559 0.042893 0.201564 0.118533 0.015569 0.005846 0.021394 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking Structure 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- W Total 73.15 70.29 64.46 244,326 244,326 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 73.15 70.29 64.46 244,326 244,326 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT 658.9869 658.9869 0.0303 659.74470.5315 4.9100e- 003 0.5364 0.1422 4.5900e- 003 0.1468Unmitigated 0.1273 0.6517 1.7024 6.4700e- 003 658.9869 658.9869 0.0303 659.74470.5315 4.9100e- 003 0.5364 0.1422 4.5900e- 003 0.1468Mitigated 0.1273 0.6517 1.7024 6.4700e- 003 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Page 18 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Total 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Apartments Mid Rise 344.389 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 NaturalGas Unmitigated 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO Page 19 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Unmitigated 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Mitigated 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Total 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Apartments Mid Rise 0.344389 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 20 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 7.0 Water Detail 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Total 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 1.6400 1.6400 1.5900e- 003 1.67985.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 Landscaping 0.0277 0.0105 0.9113 5.0000e- 005 103.0361 198.0000 301.0361 0.3073 6.9900e- 003 310.80200.8403 0.8403 0.8403 0.8403Hearth 2.8824 0.2282 5.5941 0.0143 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.3388 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.0298 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Total 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 1.6400 1.6400 1.5900e- 003 1.67985.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 Landscaping 0.0277 0.0105 0.9113 5.0000e- 005 103.0361 198.0000 301.0361 0.3073 6.9900e- 003 310.80200.8403 0.8403 0.8403 0.8403Hearth 2.8824 0.2282 5.5941 0.0143 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.3388 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.0298 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 1 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project. SCAQMD. Adjust CO2 to meet 33% renewables per 2017 Power Content Label. Land Use - Construction of a three story, 11-unit apartment complex totaling 16,917 SF on a 0.36 acre site. A 27-space parking garage would be located on ground floor. Construction Phase - Default schedule. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1100 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.029 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 31 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Anaheim Public Utilities 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Enclosed Parking Structure 27.00 Space 0.00 10,800.00 0 Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 11.00 Dwelling Unit 0.36 16,917.00 31 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/7/2020 8:41 AM 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Page 2 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 6.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 1543.28 1100 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 3.00 4.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.29 0.36 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.24 0.00 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 11,000.00 16,917.00 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Comply with fugitive dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403 - Water twice daily. Water Mitigation - 20% reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance. Waste Mitigation - AB 341 Requirements for residential uses, waste diversion of 75% of all solid waste by 2020. Architectural Coating - Use of low-VOC arch coatings - 50 g/L Grading - Assumed soil balanced. Vehicle Trips - Trip gen based on TIA. Woodstoves - Assume natural gas hearths and no wood burning devices. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Off-road Equipment - Default equipment. Trips and VMT - Adjusted trips to even amount. Page 3 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0047.89 0.00 32.53 51.32 0.00 27.33 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 0.0000 1,333.316 0 1,333.316 0 0.3672 0.0000 1,342.496 3 0.4505 0.4493 0.8587 0.2158 0.4134 0.6052Maximum 21.9996 8.4012 7.9077 0.0136 0.0000 1,333.316 0 1,333.316 0 0.3672 0.0000 1,342.496 3 0.4505 0.4493 0.8587 0.2158 0.4134 0.60522021 21.9996 8.4012 7.9077 0.0136 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,333.316 0 1,333.316 0 0.3672 0.0000 1,342.496 3 0.8645 0.4493 1.2727 0.4434 0.4134 0.8328Maximum 21.9996 8.4012 7.9077 0.0136 0.0000 1,333.316 0 1,333.316 0 0.3672 0.0000 1,342.496 3 0.8645 0.4493 1.2727 0.4434 0.4134 0.83282021 21.9996 8.4012 7.9077 0.0136 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Page 4 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 103.0361 864.3633 967.3994 0.3399 7.7300e- 003 978.20300.5315 0.8528 1.3843 0.1422 0.8525 0.9947Total 3.4034 0.9350 8.1082 0.0207 624.2069 624.2069 0.0303 624.96410.5315 4.9400e- 003 0.5365 0.1422 4.6100e- 003 0.1468Mobile 0.1210 0.6645 1.5893 6.1300e- 003 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Energy 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Area 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 103.0361 864.3633 967.3994 0.3399 7.7300e- 003 978.20300.5315 0.8528 1.3843 0.1422 0.8525 0.9947Total 3.4034 0.9350 8.1082 0.0207 624.2069 624.2069 0.0303 624.96410.5315 4.9400e- 003 0.5365 0.1422 4.6100e- 003 0.1468Mobile 0.1210 0.6645 1.5893 6.1300e- 003 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Energy 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Area 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 5 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 5 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 34,257; Residential Outdoor: 11,419; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/3/2021 6/9/2021 5 100 4 Paving Paving 5/27/2021 6/2/2021 5 5 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/7/2021 5/26/2021 5 1 2 Grading Grading 1/5/2021 1/6/2021 5 2 End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/4/2021 1/4/2021 5 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date Page 6 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTArchitectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 Building Construction 5 12.00 4.00 0.00 14.70 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 Site Preparation 2 6.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Page 7 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 62.1401 62.1401 1.6700e- 003 62.18170.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Total 0.0277 0.0180 0.2031 6.2000e- 004 62.1401 62.1401 1.6700e- 003 62.18170.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Worker 0.0277 0.0180 0.2031 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.5303 0.2995 0.8297 0.0573 0.2755 0.3328Total 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.2995 0.2995 0.2755 0.2755Off-Road 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573Fugitive Dust NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Page 8 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 62.1401 62.1401 1.6700e- 003 62.18170.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Total 0.0277 0.0180 0.2031 6.2000e- 004 62.1401 62.1401 1.6700e- 003 62.18170.0671 4.9000e- 004 0.0676 0.0178 4.5000e- 004 0.0182Worker 0.0277 0.0180 0.2031 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.2386 0.2995 0.5381 0.0258 0.2755 0.3013Total 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 0.0000 942.5842 942.5842 0.3049 950.20550.2995 0.2995 0.2755 0.2755Off-Road 0.6403 7.8204 4.0274 9.7300e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 9 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 103.5668 103.5668 2.7800e- 003 103.63620.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Total 0.0461 0.0300 0.3385 1.0400e- 003 103.5668 103.5668 2.7800e- 003 103.63620.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Worker 0.0461 0.0300 0.3385 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.7528 0.4073 1.1601 0.4138 0.3886 0.8024Total 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.4073 0.4073 0.3886 0.3886Off-Road 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 0.0000 0.00000.7528 0.0000 0.7528 0.4138 0.0000 0.4138Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 10 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 103.5668 103.5668 2.7800e- 003 103.63620.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Total 0.0461 0.0300 0.3385 1.0400e- 003 103.5668 103.5668 2.7800e- 003 103.63620.1118 8.2000e- 004 0.1126 0.0296 7.6000e- 004 0.0304Worker 0.0461 0.0300 0.3385 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.3387 0.4073 0.7461 0.1862 0.3886 0.5748Total 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 0.0000 1,147.433 8 1,147.433 8 0.2138 1,152.779 7 0.4073 0.4073 0.3886 0.3886Off-Road 0.7965 7.2530 7.5691 0.0120 0.0000 0.00000.3387 0.0000 0.3387 0.1862 0.0000 0.1862Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 11 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 230.1002 230.1002 0.0104 230.36050.1597 1.7800e- 003 0.1615 0.0429 1.6700e- 003 0.0446Total 0.0671 0.4163 0.5076 2.2400e- 003 124.2801 124.2801 3.3300e- 003 124.36340.1341 9.9000e- 004 0.1351 0.0356 9.1000e- 004 0.0365Worker 0.0553 0.0360 0.4063 1.2500e- 003 105.8201 105.8201 7.0800e- 003 105.99710.0256 7.9000e- 004 0.0264 7.3700e- 003 7.6000e- 004 8.1300e- 003 Vendor 0.0117 0.3803 0.1013 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 12 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 230.1002 230.1002 0.0104 230.36050.1597 1.7800e- 003 0.1615 0.0429 1.6700e- 003 0.0446Total 0.0671 0.4163 0.5076 2.2400e- 003 124.2801 124.2801 3.3300e- 003 124.36340.1341 9.9000e- 004 0.1351 0.0356 9.1000e- 004 0.0365Worker 0.0553 0.0360 0.4063 1.2500e- 003 105.8201 105.8201 7.0800e- 003 105.99710.0256 7.9000e- 004 0.0264 7.3700e- 003 7.6000e- 004 8.1300e- 003 Vendor 0.0117 0.3803 0.1013 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.0000 1,103.215 8 1,103.215 8 0.3568 1,112.135 8 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 13 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 186.4202 186.4202 5.0000e- 003 186.54510.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Total 0.0830 0.0539 0.6094 1.8700e- 003 186.4202 186.4202 5.0000e- 003 186.54510.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Worker 0.0830 0.0539 0.6094 1.8700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.5 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 14 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 186.4202 186.4202 5.0000e- 003 186.54510.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Total 0.0830 0.0539 0.6094 1.8700e- 003 186.4202 186.4202 5.0000e- 003 186.54510.2012 1.4800e- 003 0.2027 0.0534 1.3600e- 003 0.0547Worker 0.0830 0.0539 0.6094 1.8700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 1,035.342 5 1,035.342 5 0.3016 1,042.881 8 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 15 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 20.7134 20.7134 5.6000e- 004 20.72720.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Total 9.2200e- 003 5.9900e- 003 0.0677 2.1000e- 004 20.7134 20.7134 5.6000e- 004 20.72720.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Worker 9.2200e- 003 5.9900e- 003 0.0677 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Total 21.9904 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 21.7715 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 16 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 20.7134 20.7134 5.6000e- 004 20.72720.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Total 9.2200e- 003 5.9900e- 003 0.0677 2.1000e- 004 20.7134 20.7134 5.6000e- 004 20.72720.0224 1.6000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0800e- 003 Worker 9.2200e- 003 5.9900e- 003 0.0677 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Total 21.9904 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.93090.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 21.7715 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 17 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 0.000709 0.0008960.005846 0.021394 0.034255 0.002099 0.001828 0.004855Enclosed Parking Structure 0.549559 0.042893 0.201564 0.118533 0.015569 0.034255 0.002099 0.001828 0.004855 0.000709 0.000896 SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.549559 0.042893 0.201564 0.118533 0.015569 0.005846 0.021394 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking Structure 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- W Total 73.15 70.29 64.46 244,326 244,326 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 73.15 70.29 64.46 244,326 244,326 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT 624.2069 624.2069 0.0303 624.96410.5315 4.9400e- 003 0.5365 0.1422 4.6100e- 003 0.1468Unmitigated 0.1210 0.6645 1.5893 6.1300e- 003 624.2069 624.2069 0.0303 624.96410.5315 4.9400e- 003 0.5365 0.1422 4.6100e- 003 0.1468Mitigated 0.1210 0.6645 1.5893 6.1300e- 003 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Page 18 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Total 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Apartments Mid Rise 344.389 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 NaturalGas Unmitigated 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO Page 19 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Unmitigated 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Mitigated 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Total 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.5164 40.5164 7.8000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 40.75722.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 Apartments Mid Rise 0.344389 3.7100e- 003 0.0317 0.0135 2.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Page 20 of 20 3175 W. Ball Road Apartments Project - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Total 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 1.6400 1.6400 1.5900e- 003 1.67985.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 Landscaping 0.0277 0.0105 0.9113 5.0000e- 005 103.0361 198.0000 301.0361 0.3073 6.9900e- 003 310.80200.8403 0.8403 0.8403 0.8403Hearth 2.8824 0.2282 5.5941 0.0143 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.3388 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.0298 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 103.0361 199.6400 302.6761 0.3089 6.9900e- 003 312.48180.8453 0.8453 0.8453 0.8453Total 3.2787 0.2387 6.5053 0.0143 1.6400 1.6400 1.5900e- 003 1.67985.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 5.0300e- 003 Landscaping 0.0277 0.0105 0.9113 5.0000e- 005 103.0361 198.0000 301.0361 0.3073 6.9900e- 003 310.80200.8403 0.8403 0.8403 0.8403Hearth 2.8824 0.2282 5.5941 0.0143 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.3388 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.0298 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Appendix B Biological Resources Attachments Appendix B Biological Resources Attachments Wildlife Wildlife Wildlife Wildlife Wildlife Appendix C Cultural Resources Report May 29, 2019 Nick Taylor, Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, California 92805 Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, Anaheim, Orange County, California Dear Mr. Taylor: This letter documents the archaeological resources assessment conducted by Dudek for the 3175 Ball Road Project (Project), located in the City of Anaheim, in Orange County, California. The Project proponent is the City of Anaheim (City). The City is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All cultural resources fieldwork and reporting for the proposed Project has been conducted by staff mee Heather McDevitt, MA, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), is the Principal Investigator and provided senior review. Erica Nicolay, MA, authored the report, conducted Native American coordination, and completed the records search. Dudek archaeologist Linda Kry, BA, is the technical lead, contributed to the report, conducted the intensive pedestrian survey, and provided peer review and finalization of the report. The present study documents the results of a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search conducted at the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC), a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, the results of informal tribal consultation, and an intensive pedestrian survey. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed Project site is located within the City of Anaheim in northeastern Orange County, approximately 7.8 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). The approximately 0.36-acre, square-shaped site is currently vacant and is located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue at 3175 West Ball Road and Number (APN) 078-882-034. The proposed Project site is bound by existing residential Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 2 May 2019 development to the north and east, Western Avenue to the west, and Ball Road to the South (Figure 2). The proposed Project includes the construction of an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building, consisting of a 28-space parking garage on the ground floor and two residential floors above. The residential units would all be two-bedroom units ranging between approximately 876 to 914 square feet. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The proposed Project site is within Public Land Survey System (PLSS) Township 4 South, Range 11 West, Section 23 as shown on the Los Alamitos, CA United Stated Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Quadrangle. 39 Project Location Map 3175 West Ball Road SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Anaheim, Los Alamitos Quadrangle 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 1 San Clemente Dana Point San Juan Capistrano Laguna Niguel Rancho Santa MargaritaMission Viejo Costa Mesa Lake Forest Huntington Beach Irvine Westminster Santa Ana Seal Beach Garden Grove Cypress Orange AnaheimBuena Park Fullerton Brea Placentia Newport Beach Tustin Yorba Linda Lo s An g e l e s C o u n t y R i v e rs i d e C o u n t y S an Di e g o C o u n t y 57 39 91 55 73 241 83142 72 133 71 22 90 19 74 1 5 605 215 105 405 710 15 Project Site Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 4 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Aerial Map 3175 West Ball Road SOURCE: County of Orange 2018; Bing Maps 0 10050Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 2 Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 6 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 7 May 2019 REGULATORY CONTEXT This section includes a discussion of the applicable state laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during construction of the proposed Project. State The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, Resources Code (PRC), Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), enumerated below (NPS 1990). According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1 4), a resource is considered historically (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 4852(d)(2)). The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 8 May 2019 properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. California Environmental Quality Act As described further, the following CEQA statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources: PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 150 the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource. PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony. PRC Sections 21083.2(b) and 21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s). More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)). If a site is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meet Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 9 May 2019 nificant resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would 15064.5(b)(1); PRC Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project does any of the following: (1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or (2) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (3) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)). Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains is materially impaired. If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2(a)(c)). Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 10 May 2019 (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC Section 21083.2(g)). Impacts on nonunique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a nonunique archaeological resource qualifies as a TCR (PRC Sections 21074(c) and 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98. California State Assembly Bill 52 Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that TCRs must be considered under CEQA and also provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for the lead agency. Section 21074 describes a TCR as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and that is either: On or determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register; or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. AB 52 formalizes the lead agency tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report. TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 11 May 2019 alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]). Senate Bill 18 The Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation process, commonly known as Senate Bill (SB) 18 was signed into law September of 2004 and took effect March 1, 2005. SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995, which defines cultural places as: Native American sanctified cemetery place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9). Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993). SB 18 established responsibilities for local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC and if that tribe requests consultation after local government outreach as stipulated in Government Code Section 65352.3. The purpose of this consultation process is to protect the identity of the cultural place and to develop appropriate and dignified treatment of the cultural place in any subsequent project. The consultation is required whenever a general plan, specific plan, or open space designation is proposed for adoption or to be amended. Once local governments have sent notification, tribes are responsible for requesting consultation. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), each tribe has 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to respond and request consultation. In addition to the requirements stipulated previously, SB 18 amended Government Code of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 12 May 2019 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the county coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5(b)). PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC within 24 hours (Sec permission of the landowner, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of notification of the most likely descendant by NAHC. The most likely descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans. Local Orange County Orange County has two sections within its municipal code pertaining to the protection of archaeological and cultural resources. These sections include Section 2-5-27 (Ord. No. 99-21, § 2, 8-31-99) and Section 2-5-227 (Ord. No. 99-22, § 1, 8-31-99) the aspects of these sections which relate to archaeological and cultural resources are as follows: Section 2-5-27 and Section 2-5-227. - Protection of natural, cultural, structural, and archaeological resources. a) Artifacts. No person shall possess, destroy, injure, deface, remove, dig, or disturb from its natural state any fossilized or nonfossilized paleontological specimens, cultural or archaeological resources, or the parts thereof in any park, beach or recreational facility. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH SCCIC Records Search On April 24, 2019, Dudek completed a CHRIS records search at the SCCIC, located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton of the proposed Project site and a 1-mile (1608 feet) record search area. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric, historic, and built environment resources, Department of Parks and Recreation Site Records, technical reports, Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 13 May 2019 and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources included historical maps of the study area, the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historic Property Data File, the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. The results of the records search are presented in Confidential Appendix A. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies The SCCIC records indicate that 13 previous cultural resources technical studies have been conducted within 1-mile of the proposed Project site between 1978 and 2016. Of these, none intersect the proposed Project site. All 13 cultural resource investigations are summarized in Table 1, below. Table 1. Previous Technical Studies Within 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site SCCIC Report No. (OR-) Authors Date Title Proximity to Proposed Project Site 01810 Mason, Roger D. and Bonner, Wayne H. 1998 Cultural Resources Records Search and Literature Review Report for a Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility: Cm 137-09, in the City of Anaheim, California Outside 02515 McKenna, Jeanette A. 2002 Historic Property Survey Report- Highway Project Outside 02771 Duke, Curt 2002 Revised Cultural Resource Assessment at & T Wireless Services Facility No. 13254b Orange County, California Outside 02780 Duke, Curt 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment at & T Wireless Services Facility No. 13254a Orange County, California Outside 02900 Shepard, Richard S. 2005 Cultural Resources Assessment: Lincoln Avenue Relief Improvements Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County Outside 03304 Taniguchi, Christeen 2006 Historic Architectural Report for the Proposed Development of Hobby City in the Cities of Anaheim and Stanton, Orange County Outside 03338 McKenna, Jeanette A. 2002 Project Located in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, on Dale Avenue Between Lincoln and Broadway. Street Rehabilitation Will Grind and Replace the Top 2 Inches of the Existing 6 Inches Ac Over 8 Inches Ab. Outside 03491 Sorrell, Tanya and Shannon Carmack 2007 Draft Cultural Resource Assessment Report the Hobby City Development Project, Cities of Stanton and Anaheim, Orange County, California Outside 03599 Scott Billat 2009 New Tower Submission Packet: A-American, LA0682C Outside 04001 Anthofer, Joseph and Regier, Jeanna 1998 Union Pacific Railroad Company, Abandonment and Discontinuance Exemption, in Orange County, CA (Los Alamitos Branch) Combined Environmental and Historic Report Outside Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 14 May 2019 Table 1. Previous Technical Studies Within 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site SCCIC Report No. (OR-) Authors Date Title Proximity to Proposed Project Site 04010 Fulton, Phil and Terri Fulton 2008 Cultural Resource Assessment, Verizon Wireless Services, West Ball Facility, City of Stanton, Orange County, California Outside 04127 Puckett, Heather R. 2010 Cypress Relo, 138 S. Knott Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 Outside 04213 Fulton, Phil 2012 Cultural Resources Assessment Verizon Wireless Services West Ball Facility City of Anaheim, Orange County, California Outside Previously Recorded Cultural Resources SCCIC records indicate that 23 previously recorded cultural resources are located within 1-mile of the proposed Project site. All 23 resources are built-environment resources, none of which intersect or overlap the proposed Project site. No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified within 1-mile of the proposed Project site through the records search. Table 2, below, summarizes all 23 resources identified. Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site Primary (P-30-) Trinomial Age/Type Description Recorded By / Year NRHP Eligibility Proximity to Proposed Project Site 176810 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Gems and Opals, Hobby City 2005 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galvin Preservation Associates, Inc.); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates, Inc.) Not evaluated Outside 176811 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Stamps & Coins, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galvin Preservation Associates, Inc.); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) Not evaluated Outside 176812 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Hobby City District 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galvin Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates, Inc.) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176813 -- Historic/ Built-Environment The Bear Tree, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 15 May 2019 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site Primary (P-30-) Trinomial Age/Type Description Recorded By / Year NRHP Eligibility Proximity to Proposed Project Site 176814 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Sunshine Dollhouse & Miniatures, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176815 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Royal Antiques, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176816 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Prestige Hobbies, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176817 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Sports Cards Dugout, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176818 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Deco Facil Cake Decorating, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176819 -- Historic/ Built-Environment The Indian Store, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176820 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Dolly & Toy Museum, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 16 May 2019 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site Primary (P-30-) Trinomial Age/Type Description Recorded By / Year NRHP Eligibility Proximity to Proposed Project Site 176821 -- Historic/ Built-Environment 8041 Starr St 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galvin Preservation Associates, Inc.) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176822 -- Historic/ Built-Environment 8042 Starr St 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176823 -- Historic/ Built-Environment 8062 Starr St 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176824 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Building L, Hobby City Complex 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176825 -- Historic/ Built-Environment 8082 Starr St 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176826 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Building O, Hobby City Comples 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176827 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Radical Reptiles, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 17 May 2019 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site Primary (P-30-) Trinomial Age/Type Description Recorded By / Year NRHP Eligibility Proximity to Proposed Project Site 176828 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Living Nature Children's Museum , Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176829 -- Historic/ Built-Environment Ansdell Piano; Annie & Friends; Restaurant next door to White House, Hobby City 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 176830 -- Historic/ Built-Environment 8111 Starr St 2006 (Horak, Tanaguchi, Galving Preservation Associates); 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 179853 -- Historic/ Built-Environment 8132 Starr St 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside 179854 -- Historic/ Built-Environment 8112 Starr St 2006 (T. Sorrell, LSA Associates, Inc.) 6Z;Determined ineligible during survey evaluation; Pending SHPO Concurrence Outside NAHC and Tribal Correspondence Dudek contacted the NAHC on April 19, 2019 and requested a review of the SLF. The NAHC replied via email on April 24, 2019 stating that the SLF search was completed with negative results. Because the SLF search does not include an exhaustive list of Native American cultural resources, the NAHC suggested contacting six Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have direct knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed Project. On May 1, 2019, Dudek contacted all groups and/or individuals identified by the NAHC (Table 3; see Appendix B). To date, one response was received from a representative of the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation requesting formal AB 52 consultation. This outreach was conducted for Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 18 May 2019 informational purposes only and did not constitute formal government-to-government consultation as specified by AB 52 or SB 18, which is discussed in the following sections. Table 3. Native American Heritage Commission-Listed Native American Contacts Native American Tribal Representatives Method of Notification/Date Response Received Andrew Salas, Chairperson Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Certified Mail; May 1, 2019 Responded via email on May 22, 2019 requesting AB 52 consultation with the Lead Agency Anthony Morales, Chairperson Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Certified Mail; May 1, 2019 None to date Sandonne Goad, Chairperson Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Certified Mail; May 1, 2019 None to date Robert F. Dorame, Chairman Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Certified Mail; May 1, 2019 None to date Linda Candelaria, Chairperson Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Certified Mail; May 1, 2019 None to date Charles Alvarez, Councilmember Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Certified Mail; May 1, 2019 None to date Record of Assembly Bill 52 Consultation The proposed Project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to TCRs as part of the CEQA process, and that the lead agency notify California Native American Tribal representatives (that have requested notification) who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed Project. All NAHC- listed California Native American Tribal representatives that have requested project notification pursuant to AB 52 were sent letters by the City. The letters contained a project description, outline of AB 52 timing, request for consultation, and contact information for the appropriate lead agency representative. Documents related to AB 52 consultation are on file with the City. Record of Senate Bill 18 Consultation The proposed Project is subject to compliance with SB 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3), which requires local governments to invite California Native American Tribal representatives to participate in consultation about proposed General Plan and Specific Plan adoptions or amendments. The City is considering an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation for the parcel within the proposed Project site and as such, initiated SB 18 consultation. All NAHC- listed California Native American Tribal representatives were sent notification letters via email by Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 19 May 2019 the City. The letters contained a project description, request for consultation, and contact information for the appropriate lead agency representative. Documents related to SB 18 consultation are on file with the City. Review of Historic Aerials and Topographic Maps Dudek consulted historic topographic maps and aerial photographs to understand development of the proposed Project site and surrounding properties. Topographic maps are available for the years 1896, 1899, 1902, 1906, 1911, 1916, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1929, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1942, 1945, 1950, 1957, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1975, 1977, 1982, 2012, and 2015 (NETR 2019a). Historic aerials are available for the years 1953, 1963, 1972, 1980, 1994, 2012, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2014 (NETR 2019b). The first USGS topographic map showing the proposed Project site dates to 1896 and shows that the area and general vicinity were largely undeveloped at this time. There were sparse developments throughout the area; however, none within the proposed Project site. Topographic maps do not show any changes to the area until 1935, when the major streets had been laid out and several small developments were present within the general vicinity. The 1935 map shows that the community of Hansen, to the west of the proposed Project site, and Stanton, to the south of the proposed Project site, had been developed. The 1935 topographic map does not show any developments within the proposed Project site. There are no changes on the topographic maps from the 1940s. The topographic map from 1950 shows essentially the same level of development in the general area and also indicates that much of the area was dedicated to agricultural activity. The 1950 topographic map also shows one structure within or just along the northern border of the proposed Project site. There are no discernible changes on the topographic maps until 1966, which indicates that the area had undergone extensive redevelopment during the 1950s and 1960s as much of the City of Anaheim had been developed, replacing the agricultural fields that had existed there. The proposed Project site was developed by 1966. Topographic maps from the remainder of the twentieth century do not indicate any discernible changes to the proposed Project site, though they do indicate a general increase in development throughout the area. The first historic aerial showing the proposed Project site dates to 1953 and shows that at this time the proposed Project site and much of the general area were being used for agricultural purposes. Between 1953 and 1963, the proposed Project site was redeveloped with what appears to be two rectangular structures. These structures are associated with the E-Z Service Gas Station which existed within the site until 1988, when the entire station was demolished. The 1963 aerial also shows that many of the agricultural fields surrounding the proposed Project site had been redeveloped for residential purposes. The 1972 aerial shows no changes to the proposed Project Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 20 May 2019 site, however, the general area had experienced an increase in development at this time and all of the agricultural fields in the immediate vicinity had been redeveloped. The structures within the proposed Project site were demolished in 1988. There are no new developments within the proposed Project site visible on the 1994 aerial. Historic aerials from the remainder of the twentieth century do not show any significant changes to the proposed Project site, which has not been redeveloped since 1988. Review of Previously Conducted Technical Studies As previously stated, the proposed Project site contained the E-Z Service Gas Station which was developed in the early 1960s and demolished in 1988. In October 2017, Dudek prepared a Soil Vapor Report for the proposed Project site to determine the concentrations of volatile organic compounds within the proposed Project site (Peacock 2017). This study summarized the previous construction work which has been conducted within the proposed Project site as part of the remediation efforts associated with the E-Z Service Gas Station and the Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) that were present. These efforts involved a large amount of ground disturbance, and are therefore pertinent to the discussion of archaeological sensitivity within the proposed Project site. The remediation efforts are briefly described below. During removal of three 10,000-gallon capacity USTs and one 500-gallon capacity used oil UST, the tanks were found to be corroding and leaking. Between 1988 and 2000 the proposed Project site was then subject to remediation efforts to mitigate for the petroleum leakage; this included soil borings, hydropunch sampling, installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells, and a dual-phase vapor extraction/air sparge pilot test. In 2000, over 3,000 tons of petroleum- contaminated soil, over 1,000-gallons of free product, and nearly 60,000-gallons of impacted groundwater were removed from the proposed Project site. Between 2006 and 2011 additional remedial efforts were performed at the proposed Project site including high vacuum dual-phase extraction and continued groundwater monitoring. The remediation efforts were discontinued in 2012. The 2017 study involved 16 soil vapor probes within the proposed Project site. As a result of the 2017 study, the proposed Project site was found to have risk hazards within the acceptable level. INTENSIVE PEDESTRIAN SURVEY A qualified Dudek archaeologist conducted a survey of the proposed Project site on March 25, 2019. The survey was conducted to identify and record any cultural resources that may occur in the proposed Project site. The survey was conducted using standard archaeological procedures and techniques that inventory. Survey transects were spaced 15 meters wide and oriented north-south across the Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 21 May 2019 proposed Project site. The ground surface was examined for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discolorations that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, and depressions and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings. Results Ground visibility throughout the proposed Project site was good (<50%). Soils within the proposed Project site are characterized by brown loamy sand. The proposed Project site appears to have been graded, indicating by grading scars throughout the area. Vegetation within the proposed Project site consists of grasses and weeds. No cultural resources were observed within the proposed Project site during the intensive pedestrian survey. Figures 3 through 6, show overviews and the current site condition of the proposed Project site. Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 22 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 23 May 2019 Figure 3. Project site overview from northwest corner towards Ball Road. View to the south. Figure 4. Project site overview from northwest corner. View to the southeast. Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 24 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 25 May 2019 Figure 5. Project site overview from northwest corner. View to the east. Figure 6. Visible grading scars within the proposed Project site from the southwest corner of the site. View to the east. Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 26 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 27 May 2019 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Archaeological Sensitivity No archaeological resources were identified within the proposed Project site through the SCCIC records search, an intensive pedestrian survey, through a NAHC SLF search or informal tribal consultation, or through AB 52 and SB 18 consultation conducted by the City. Additionally, no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources have been identified within a 1-mile of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site was initially developed in the early 1960s for the E-Z Service Gas Station, which was demolished in 1988. The E-Z Service Gas station contained three USTs, including two 10,000-gallon tanks and one 500-gallon tank, which were also removed in 1988. Remediation efforts took place within the proposed Project site between 1988 and 2000, involving extensive ground disturbance, including the removal of over 3,000 tons of petroleum- contaminated soil. The extensive amount of ground disturbance that has occurred within the proposed Project site, for the construction and the demolition of the E-Z Service Gas Station as well as the remediation efforts have likely destroyed any archaeological deposits that may have been present. Considering these factors, the likelihood that there are prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits within the proposed Project site is considered to be low. work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified specialist, construction activities involving ground disturbance for the proposed Project, all construction the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, and artifacts) are exposed during All construction crews shall be alerted to the potential to encounter archaeological resources. In Unanticipated Archaeological Resources than significant impact on cultural resources. provided below. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed Project will have a less unanticipated archaeological resources and human remains during construction activities are unanticipated resources. Management recommendations to reduce potential impacts to efforts are recommended to be required beyond standard considerations for the management of Project site has a low potential to contain archaeological resources. No additional archaeological the pedestrian survey. Based on the results of the cultural study, the area within the proposed as a result of the SCCIC records search, the NAHC SLF search, informal tribal consultation, or No archaeological resources were identified within the proposed Project site or immediate vicinity SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 28 May 2019 significance of the find and determine whether additional study is warranted. This avoidance buffer may be adjusted following inspection of this area by that qualified specialist. Prehistoric archaeological deposits may be indicated by the presence of discolored or dark soil, fire-affected material, concentrations of fragmented or whole shell, burned or complete bone, non-local lithic materials, or the characteristic observed to be atypical of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric artifacts may include modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that appeared to have been used for chopping, drilling, or grinding; projectile points; fired clay ceramics or non-functional items; and other items. Historic-age deposits are often indicated by the presence of glass bottles and shards, ceramic material, building or domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as concrete foundations or privies. Depending upon the significance of the find under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. Feasible options for avoidance must also be considered. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted. Unanticipated Human Remains In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the county coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall complete his/her inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 29 May 2019 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this report. I may be reached via email at lkry@dudek.com. Sincerely, _______________________ _______________________ Linda Kry, Archaeologist Erica Nicolay, Archaeologist DUDEK DUDEK Office: (626) 590-1739 Office: (760) 936-7952 cc: Heather McDevitt, Collin Ramsey, Patrick Cruz, Dudek Att: Appendix A: (Confidential): SCCIC Records Search Results Appendix B: (Confidential): Native American Communication Subject: Archaeological Resources Assessment for the 3175 Ball Road Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California 9289.0003 30 May 2019 REFERENCES Peacock, Nicole. 2017. Subject: Submittal Soil Vapor Investigation Report for Former E-Z Service Station, 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA, Development Case No. 2016- 00074. Prepared by Dudek. Prepared for City of Anaheim. NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2019a. Historical Topographic Maps: 1896, 1899, 1902, 1906, 1911, 1916, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1929, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1942, 1945, 1950, 1957, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1975, 1977, 1982, 2012, and 2015. Electronic resource, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed April 2019. NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2019b. Historical Topographic Maps: 1953, 1963, 1972, 1980, 1994, 20012, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 201. Electronic resource, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed April 2019. NPS (National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior). 1990. National Register Bulletin: Technical Information on the National Register of Historic Places: Survey, Evaluation, Registration, and Preservation of Cultural Resources. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf. APPENDIX A (CONFIDENTIAL) SCCIC Records Search Results APPENDIX B (CONFIDENTIAL) Native American Communication Appendix D Geotechnical Study Appendix E Soil Vapor Investigation Report CORPORATE OFFICE 605 THIRD STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 T 760.942.5147 T 800.450.1818 F 760.632.0164 October 3, 2017 Nicholas Taylor City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Subject: Submittal – Soil Vapor Investigation Report for Former E-Z Service Station, 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA Dear Mr. Taylor: Attached please find the soil vapor investigation report for the Former E-Z Service Station, located at 3175 West Ball Road in Anaheim, California. The report includes the results of the soil vapor sampling conducted at the site and the human health risk assessment. A draft report was reviewed by Dr. Jill Ryer-Powder, a Board-certified toxicologist. Dr. Ryer-Powder’s comments were incorporated into this final report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 760-479-4152 or npeacock@dudek.com. Sincerely, Nicole Peacock Senior Engineer Dudek Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA ii October 2017 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SAMPLING ACTIVITIES ANALYTICAL RESULTS HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA iii October 2017 List of Tables List of Figures List of Appendices Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 1 October 2017 Introduction Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 2 October 2017 Site Description Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 3 October 2017 Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 4 October 2017 Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 5 October 2017 Environmental Setting Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 6 October 2017 Sampling Activities Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 7 October 2017 Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 8 October 2017 Analytical Results ³ Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 9 October 2017 Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 10 October 2017 Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 11 October 2017 Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 12 October 2017 Conclusions Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 13 October 2017 Soil Vapor Investigation Report 9289.0003 City of Anaheim Dudek 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 14 October 2017 References Site Location June 2017Former E-Z Service Station - Soil Vapor Investigation SOURCE: Bing MAPS 0 4020Feet Property Boundary FIGURE 1 ) Site Location 0 22,00011,000 Feet BALL ROAD WE S T E R N A V E N U E 20 1 1 G r o u n d w a t e r C o n t a m i n a n t P l u m e a n d P o t e n t i a l B u i l d i n g L a y o u t D a t e : 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 7 - L a s t s a v e d b y : k b l a c k m o n - P a t h : Z : \ H y d r o \ P r o j e c t s \ 9 2 8 9 . 0 0 0 3 A n a h e i m S o i l V a p o r \ m x d \ F I N A L _ M X D \ F i g u r e 2 - K n o w n C o n t a m i n a t i o n a n d P o t e n t i a l B u i l d i n g L a y o u t . m x d BA L L R O A D W E S T E R N A V E N U E Be n z e n e C o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n G r o u n d w a t e r 2 0 1 1 ( µ g / L ) Sample Locations July 2017Former E-Z Service Station - Soil Vapor Investigation Report SOURCE: Bing MAPS 0 2010Feet FIGURE 3 BALL ROAD Notes: bgs - below ground surface Soil vapor samples were taken from a depth of 5 feet bgs Samples !Soil Vapor "Soil Vapor & BTEX in Soil (4-5 ft bgs) Potential Building Layout APPENDIX A 1 of 11 2 of 11 3 of 11 4 of 11 5 of 11 6 of 11 7 of 11 8 of 11 9 of 11 10 of 11 11 of 11 APPENDIX DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 6.40E+01 1.4E 03 8.8E 02 9.1E 07 2.8E 02 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 71432 6.40E+01 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 MESSAGE: See VLOOKUP table comments on chemical properties and/or toxicity criteria for this chemical. Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 8.00E+00 1.3E 03 1.0E 02 8.4E 08 1.0E 04 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 67663 8.00E+00 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 2.80E+01 1.2E 03 3.4E 02 3.0E 08 3.2E 05 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 100414 2.80E+01 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 1.20E+01 1.1E 03 1.4E 02 NA 3.3E 05 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 98828 1.20E+01 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 MESSAGE: See VLOOKUP table comments on chemical properties and/or toxicity criteria for this chemical. Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 4.90E+01 1.2E 03 5.9E 02 NA 5.7E 04 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 108383 4.90E+01 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 1.50E+01 1.2E 03 1.8E 02 NA 1.7E 04 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 95476 1.50E+01 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 1.50E+01 1.2E 03 1.9E 02 NA 2.0E 05 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 100425 1.50E+01 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET Soil Gas Conc. Attenuation Factor Indoor Air Conc. Cancer Noncancer Soil Soil (g/m3) (unitless) (g/m3)Risk Hazard Chemical gas OR gas 1.96E+02 1.3E 03 2.5E 01 NA 8.1E 04 CAS No. conc., conc., (numbers only,Cg Cg no dashes)(g/m3)(ppmv) 108883 1.96E+02 Depth below grade Soil gas Vadose zone User-defined to bottom sampling Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed depth soil soil type soil vapor space floor, below grade, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Ls TS soil vapor kv (15 or 200 cm)(cm)(oC)permeability)(cm2) 15 152 24 S Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-filled flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, (Leave blank to calculate) bA nV wV Qsoil (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)(L/m) S 1.66 0.375 0.054 5 Averaging Averaging time for time for Exposure Exposure Exposure Air Exchange carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, Time Rate ATC ATNC ED EF ET ACH (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr) (hrs/day) (hour)-1 Residential 70 26 26 350 24 0.5 USEPA SG-SCREEN Version 2.0, 04/2003 DTSC Modification December 2014 Soil Gas Concentration Data Reset to Defaults Lookup Soil Parameters Lookup Receptor Parameters Last Update: December 2014 DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office DTSC Vapor Intrusion Screening Model Soil Gas DATENTER Page 1 of 1 Appendix F Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Sarkis Tatarian by CRF Engineering, Inc. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan , including the ongoing operation and maintenance of all best management practices (BMPs), and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region . Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Planning Application No. (If applicable) OTH2018-01044 Grading Permit No. Tract/Parcel Map and Lot(s) No. Record of Survey No. 2018-1002 R.S.B. 299/8-9 Building Permit No. Address of Project Site and APN (If no address, specify Tract/Parcel Map and Lot Numbers) 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, 92804. APN: 079 882 34 Latitude:N, Longitude: Provide discretionary or grading/building permit information and water quality conditions of approval, or permit issuance, applied to the project. If conditions are unknown, please request applicable conditions from staff. Refer to Section 2.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) available on the OC Planning website (ocplanning.net). Permit/Application No. (If applicable) OTH2018-01044 Grading or Building Permit No. (If applicable) Address of Project Site (or Tract Map and Lot Number if no address) and APN 3175 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, 92804. APN: 079-882-34 Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance applied to this project. (Please list verbatim.) This is the conceptual/preliminary priority project WQMP. No conditions of approval have been assigned at this time. At this time, in the preliminary phase, there is no Right of Way Construction Permit (RCP) number. An RCP number will be provided by the city when the project has moved past the preliminary phase. A full capture system is proposed on site. The project will require the relocation of a street catch basin along Ball Road. Once relocated, the new catch basin will have a connector pipe screen (CPS) to prevent trash and debris from getting into the catch basin. Was a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan previously approved for this project? No. Provide applicable conditions from watershed - based plans including WIHMPs and TMDLS. A Model WIHMP has been developed for the Coyote Creek San Gabriel River watershed and has been submitted to the Executive Officer for approval, but has not yet been approved. Carbon Canyon Creek Does not have TMDLs N/A Provide a detailed project description including: Project areas; Land uses; Land cover; Design elements; A general description not broken down by drainage management areas (DMAs). Include attributes relevant to determining applicable source controls. Refer to Section 2.2 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for information that must be included in the project description. Development Category (From Model WQMP, Table 7.11-2; or -3): Priority Project Category #1 for North County Permit Area surface. This category includes commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions, mixed-use, and public projects on private or public property that falls under the planning and building authority or the permittees. Project Area (ft2): 15,541 Number of Dwelling Units: 11 SIC Code: ___6513__ Project Area Pervious Impervious Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Pre-Project Conditions 0.354 or 15,416 99% 0.003 or 125 1% Post-Project Conditions 31%0.248 or 10,790 69% Drainage Patterns/Connections Existing Drainage Conditions: Currently, the site is a vacant lot surrounded by a 9 width of sidewalk and driveway approaches fitted with an curb & gutter. There are two city storm drain catch basins directly adjacent to the westerly & southerly right of way lines. The site is almost finished grade and is generally flat with mild slopes of up to 2% and is surrounded by a perimeter block wall along the northerly and easterly property lines directly adjacent to the neighbors. Currently, runoff is diverted in the southwesterly direction away from a highpoint on site located in the northeasterly corner. From there runoff sheet flows over existing grade where some runoff is absorbed and recharges the water table and any remaining sheet flow is diverted to the curb and gutter system along Western Ave. & Ball Rd. From there runoff is directly diverted through the curb & gutter into two city concrete catch basins located directly in front of the project along Western Ave. & Ball Rd. one catch basin per street. Proposed Drainage On Site: The site will be graded to have a highpoint in the northeasterly corner and direct flows through various storm water diversion devices towards the right of way on both Ball Rd. and Western Ave. The majority of stormwater collected on site will be retained on the roof of the structure which will then be routed to two landscape areas on the West and South sides of the building. Other surrounding area drains for landscaped and parking areas surrounding the building will also be routed into the same landscape areas. Runoff from hardscape and parking areas will be diverted by sheet flowing towards a low point fitted with a concrete catch basin. Once runoff is collected from various areas on site and is diverted to the previously described landscape areas on the West and South, all runoff will be diverted to the proposed HDPE tank on the west side of the property. The tank should be able to handle the combined DCV of the single proposed drainage management area (DMA). Water will be stored in the tank before being pumped to a proposed biotreatment planter at a fixed rate to not overflow the planter. The bioretention planter will have a ponding depth of before entering the catch basin inside the planter. After treatment from the planter, water will be diverted towards the proposed relocated catch basin on the street via a pvc pipes cored into the back of the catch basin. Although the detention tanks are sized to contain the full calculated DCV, as a precaution, a pipe has been proposed that will take overflow water from the detention system to the catch basin. Both the existing catch basin on Western and the relocated catch basin on Ball will have pipe screens (BC 3) installed to prevent debris and trash from entering the public storm drain system. (Please see the Preliminary Grading & Drainage plan set & WQMP Site plan for On Site drainage details.) Narrative Project Description: (Use as much space as necessary.) Project Narrative: Existing conditions: The lot is vacant with the site currently flowing towards both streets. The site will be used as a multifamily residential area with patio areas and This site will be developed into an 11 unit two story apartment building over a parking garage. One proposed trash enclosure will be covered, and furthermore any drainage from the trash enclosure areas will be connected to the sewer line. One storage area will be at garage level with enclosed with walls, a door and a roof for general building storage and mechanical items. Each unit will have 100 Cubic feet of storage within the first and second floor (inside the units). Paved and landscape areas are hatched on the preliminary grading and drainage plan. The parking will consist of underground parking which includes one ADA parking space. The parking areas will be paved with concrete and be under the building with landscape areas surrounding said building these areas will generate the following pollutants: Pathogens. Metals. Nutrients. Organic Compounds. Pesticides. Sediments. Trash & Debris. Oxygen demanding compounds. Oil & Grease. Determine and list expected stormwater pollutants based on land uses and site activities. Refer to Section 2.2.2 and Table 2.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for guidance. Pollutant Check One for each: E=Expected to be of concern N=Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Suspended-Solid/ Sediment E N Expected Nutrients E N Expected Heavy Metals E N Not Expected Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E N Expected Pesticides E N Expected Oil and Grease E N Expected Toxic Organic Compounds E N Not Expected Trash and Debris E N Expected Determine if streams located downstream from the project area are potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts. Refer to Section 2.2.3.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for North Orange County or Section 2.2.3.2 for South Orange County. ic conditions of concern below. Refer to Section 2.2.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Describe post development drainage characteristics. Refer to Section 2.2.4 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Posts Development Flow Characteristics: As previously described in the proposed project in section II.1, all on site runoff is diverted to city storm drain catch basins located directly in front of the project. The first catch basin is located on Western Ave. about 125 ft North of the intersection of Ball Rd. and Western Ave. on the Eastern side of the street. This catch basin diverts runoff through a RCP which connects to a RCP main line running West & East along Ball Rd. The second catch basin is located on Ball Rd. about 155 ft east of the intersection of Ball Rd. and Western Ave. on the Northern side of the street. This catch basin diverts runoff through a RCP which connects to the same RCP main mentioned previously. The main storm drainage line diverts runoff in the Westerly direction along Ball Rd. for approximately 3,015 ft. At this point the Mainline spillways into a RCP which turns and heads in the Northwesterly direction for about 1,630 ft. Once here runoff is released into the Carbon Canyon Creek. River & Stream Flow Characteristics: Carbon Canyon Creek Coyote Creek San Gabriel River Reach 1 San Gabriel River Estuary San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zone Pacific Ocean. Describe property ownership/management. Refer to Section 2.2.5 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). The property owner is Mr. Sarkis Tatarian who will be responsible for long term maintenance of the project stormwater facilities, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) plans. Fill out table with relevant information. Refer to Section 2.3.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Name of Planned Community/Planning Area (if applicable) Two Story Apartment Building Over Parking Garage Location/Address 3175 West Ball Road Anaheim, California, 92804. General Plan Land Use Designation Land will be developed into an 11 unit apartment building. Zoning C-G Acreage of Project Site 0.364 Predominant Soil Type Type A (See Figure XVI-2a in Attachment A) Fill out table with relevant information and include information regarding BMP sizing, suitability, and feasibility, as applicable. Refer to Section 2.3.2 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Precipitation Zone 0.85 Inches (See Figure XVI 1 in Attachment A) Topography Site is flat and tends to drain towards Ball Road and Western Avenue at around 2%. Drainage Patterns/Connections Drainage will be carried to a HDPE tank capable of holding the combined DCV of the DMA. From there, water is pumped at a fix rate to a proposed biotreatment planter before going into the relocated catch basin on Ball Road via a PVC pipe cored into the back of said catch basin. For detailed explanation of existing & proposed drainage patterns/connections see section II.1 Drainage For detailed explanation of connection to storm drainage system, downstream conveyance & receiving waters, see section II.4 Development Drainage Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties The predominant soil type is A (Per Figure XVI 2a Attachment A) The infiltration rate was found to be 2.9 in/hr. (See Infiltration Test Report Excerpt Performed by Soil Exploration Company, Inc., Project No. 16155 01, Dated: 09 12 2016 Attachment C). Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions The current soils report states that groundwater was encountered at 16 feet below ground surface. (See Preliminary Soil Investigation Report Excerpt Performed by Soil Exploration Company, Inc., Project No. 16155 01, Dated: 09 12 2016 Attachment B). Geotechnical Conditions (relevant to infiltration) Three bioretention planters are being used with each one going down around 4 feet in depth. The separation of the bioretention planters to the ground water is 12 feet which exceeds the 10 feet minimum needed. Per information found from Geotracker, infiltration is not feasible due to prior contamination by gasoline from when the site used to have a gasoline station. Biotreatment BMPs are being proposed instead. Please see the Geotracker information and Worksheet I made a part of attachment D. Off-Site Drainage Off site drainage consists of any overflow water being caught by catch basins on site that drain to the streets. See detailed description of how overflow catch basins work on site in section II.1 Drainage Patters/Connections. No off site run on will comingle with project site runoff. As described in previous sections the two neighboring developments to the North and the East are separated by a 6 ft tall block wall which will prevent any off site run on from entering the site. Utility and Infrastructure Information There are currently no utilities on site. Fill out table with relevant information and include information regarding BMP sizing, suitability, and feasibility, as applicable. Refer to Section 2.3.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Receiving Waters River & Stream Flow Path: Carbon Canyon Creek Coyote Creek San Gabriel River Reach 1 San Gabriel River Estuary San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zone Pacific Ocean. 303(d) Listed Impairments Carbon Canyon Creek:None to be listed. Coyote Creek:Ammonia, Copper (Dissolved), Indicator Bacteria, Lead, pH San Gabriel River Reach 1:Coliform Bacteria, pH San Gabriel River Estuary:Copper, Dioxin, Nickel, Oxygen (Dissolved) San Pedro Bay:Chlordane, DDT,Sediment Toxicity Applicable TMDLs Bacteria Indicators/Pesticides Nutrients Pesticides Toxicity Pollutants of Concern for the Project Pathogens Nutrients Bacteria Indicators/Pesticides Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological Significant Areas N/A Describe project performance criteria. Several steps must be followed in order to determine what performance criteria will apply to a project. These steps include: If the project has an approved WIHMP or equivalent, then any watershed specific criteria must be used and the project can evaluate participation in the approved regional or sub- regional opportunities. (Please ask your assigned planner or plan checker regarding whether your project is part of an approved WIHMP or equivalent.) Determine applicable hydromodification control performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.II- 2.4.2.2 of the Model WQMP. Determine applicable LID performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.II-2.4.3 of the Model WQMP. Determine applicable treatment control BMP performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.II-3.2.2 of the Model WQMP. Calculate the LID design storm capture volume for the project. Refer to Section 7.II-2.4.3 of the Model WQMP. (NOC Permit Area only) Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional basis? YES NO If yes, describe WIHMP feasibility criteria or regional/sub-regional LID opportunities. N/A If HCOC exists, list applicable hydromodification control performance criteria (Section 7.II-2.4.2.2 in MWQMP) Not in HCOC area. List applicable LID performance criteria (Section 7.II-2.4.3 from MWQMP) Priority projects must infiltrate, harvest and use, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85 th percentile, 24 hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). A properly designed biotreatment system may only be considered if infiltration, harvest and use, and evapotranspiration (ET) cannot be feasibly implemented for the full design capture volume. In this case, infiltration, harvest and use, and ET practices must be implemented to the greatest extent feasible and biotreatment may be provided for the remaining design capture volume. List applicable treatment control BMP performance criteria (Section 7.II-3.2.2 from MWQMP) If cost of providing treatment control BMPs greatly outweighs pollution control benefits they would provide, waiver of treatment control and LID requirements can be requested, and alternative compliance approaches must be used to fulfill remaining unmet volume. BMP sizing is based on the unmet volume after claiming applicable water quality credits. Calculate LID design storm capture volume for Project. Please see Worksheet B for the DCV Calculation for the entire site. DCV = 744.22 CF Describe site design and drainage including A narrative of site design practices utilized or rationale for not using practices; A narrative of how site is designed to allow BMPs to be incorporated to the MEP A table of DMA characteristics and list of LID BMPs proposed in each DMA. Calculation of Design Capture Volume (DCV) for each drainage area. A listing of GIS coordinates for LID and Treatment Control BMPs. Refer to Section 2.4.2 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). BMP LATITUDE & LONGITUDE LAT: 33° 49' 02.99" NORTH LON: 118° 00' 06.38" WEST Each sub-section below documents that the proposed design features conform to the applicable project performance criteria via check boxes, tables, calculations, narratives, and/or references to worksheets. Refer to Section 2.4.2.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for selecting LID BMPs and Section 2.4.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for conducting conformance analysis with project performance criteria. If required HSCs are included, fill out applicable check box forms. If the retention criteria are otherwise met with other LID BMPs, include a statement indicating HSCs not required. Localized on-lot infiltration Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) Street trees (canopy interception) Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) Green roofs/Brown roofs Blue roofs Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Identify infiltration BMPs to be used in project. If design volume cannot be met, state why. Bioretention without underdrains Rain gardens Porous landscaping Infiltration planters Retention swales Infiltration trenches Infiltration basins Drywells Subsurface infiltration galleries French drains Permeable asphalt Permeable concrete Permeable concrete pavers Other: Other: Show calculations below to demonstrate if the LID Design Strom Capture Volume can be met with infiltration BMPs. If not, document how much can be met with infiltration and document why it is not feasible to meet the full volume with infiltration BMPs. If the full Design Storm Capture Volume cannot be met with infiltration BMPs, describe any evapotranspiration and/or rainwater harvesting BMPs included. All HSCs; See Section IV.3.1 Surface-based infiltration BMPs Biotreatment BMPs Above-ground cisterns and basins Underground detention Other: Other: Other: Show calculations below to demonstrate if the LID Design Storm Capture Volume can be met with evapotranspiration and/or rainwater harvesting BMPs in combination with infiltration BMPs. If not, document below how much can be met with either infiltration BMPs, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting BMPs, or a combination, and document why it is not feasible to meet the full volume with these BMP categories. If the full Design Storm Capture Volume cannot be met with infiltration BMPs, and/or evapotranspiration and rainwater harvesting BMPs, describe biotreatment BMPs included. Include sections for selection, suitability, sizing, and infeasibility, as applicable. Bioretention with underdrains Stormwater planter boxes with underdrains Rain gardens with underdrains Constructed wetlands Vegetated swales Vegetated filter strips Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems Wet extended detention basin Dry extended detention basins Other: Other: Show calculations below to demonstrate if the LID Design Storm Capture Volume can be met with infiltration, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting and/or biotreatment BMPs. If not, document how much can be met with either infiltration BMPs, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting BMPs, or a combination, and document why it is not feasible to meet the full volume with these BMP categories. The site used to serve as an E Z Services location prior to it being demolished and cleared. Therefore, the contaminant of concern is gasoline and how this contaminant can affect water being infiltrated to replenish groundwater. Due to this prior contamination, infiltration is not feasible, and biotreatment BMPs will be proposed. Storm water volume will be retained within an HDPE tank system capable of holding the calculated DCV and then pumped into a stormwater planter with a sump pump system at a rate which will allow the planter to work at maximum efficiency. DCV = 744.22 cu ft (Per Worksheet B) 189.36 cu ft (Per Worksheet C) Drainage System: 115 lf ADS HDPE Volume: 812.89 cu ft Volume Retained: 812.89 cu ft > 744.22 cu ft O.K. Maximum flow rate into planter: kdesign = 2.5 in/hr Surface area of BMP ABMP = 231 SF Treatment Flowrate: Qdesign = Abmp * kdesign/FS Qdesign = 231sf * 2.5 in/hr * 1/12 * 1/60 2 Qdesign = 0.013 cfs Pump Specification: Max Flow: 0.013 cfs Total Dynamic Head: 6.97 ft Time it takes to treat DCV: Qdesign = 0.013 cfs * 60 s/min * 60 min/hr Qdesign = 46.80 cu ft/hr TDCV = DCV/Qdesign TDCV = (744.22 cu ft)/ (46.80 cu ft/hr) TDCV =15.90 hr < 48 hr. (O.K.) Calculation for Biotreatment with Detention and Pump: DCV = 744.22 cu ft Detention Tank Size = 115 lf at diameter; Volume = 812.89 cu ft Drawdown rate of planter box = 2.5 in/hr * 1hr/60min * 1ft/12in * 231sf * 7.48 gal/cf = 6.00 gpm Minimum required pump rate = 744.22 * 7.48gal/cf * 1/48hr * 1hr/60min = 1.93 gpm < 6.00 gpm (ok) Pump that will be used has a GPM performance of 6.00 gpm. DMA = 15,541 SF Impervious Area = 10,790 SF Pervious Area = 4,751 SF %Impervious = 69% Simple Method DCV = 744.22 CF Capture Efficiency Method DCV = 189.36 CF Bioretention Planter BMP LATITUDE & LONGITUDE LAT: 33° 49' 02.99" NORTH LON: 118° 00' 06.38" WEST Describe hydromodification control BMPs. See Section 5 of the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Include sections for selection, suitability, sizing, and infeasibility, as applicable. Detail compliance with Prior Conditions of Approval (if applicable). N/A N/A Describe regional/sub-regional LID BMPs in which the project will participate. Refer to Section 7.II- 2.4.3.2 of the Model WQMP. Treatment control BMPs can only be considered if the project conformance analysis indicates that it is not feasible to retain the full design capture volume with LID BMPs. Describe treatment control BMPs including sections for selection, sizing, and infeasibility, as applicable. Modular Connector Pipe Trash Screen (BC-3) (2 each, 1 for the catch basin on Ball Road, and 1 for the catch basin on Western Avenue) Trash screen to be provided inside proposed relocated catch basin to prevent trash and debris from entering the public storm drain system. Fill out non-structural source control check box forms or provide a brief narrative explaining if non- structural source controls were not used. N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational brochures. N2 Activity Restrictions Property rules restricting littering and stenciling to protect catch basins. N3 Common Area Landscape Management Areas need to remain clean. N4 BMP Maintenance Consistent BMP check ups. N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) N/A N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance Residential Project N7 Spill Contingency Plan No hazardous materials N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance Not proposed N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance No hazardous materials N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation N/A N11 Common Area Litter Control Keeping areas clean and organized. N12 Employee Training Educating on storm water pollution. N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Not proposed N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Routine inspections enforced. N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Routine clean ups. N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets Not proposed Fill out structural source control check box forms or provide a brief narrative explaining if structural source controls were not used. S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Each catch basin will have stenciling to warn about dumping into these catch basins. S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction N/A S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Keeping these areas organized and clean. S4 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Limiting water use and educating on smart water use. S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Flat topography. Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit) Less than 1 acre. S6 Dock areas Not Proposed S7 Maintenance bays Not Proposed S8 Vehicle wash areas Not Proposed S9 Outdoor processing areas Not Proposed S10 Equipment wash areas Not Proposed S11 Fueling areas Not Proposed S12 Hillside landscaping Not Proposed S13 Wash water control for food preparation areas Not Proposed S14 Community car wash racks Not Proposed Describe an alternative compliance plan (if applicable). Include alternative compliance obligations (i.e., gallons, pounds) and describe proposed alternative compliance measures. Refer to Section 7.II 3.0 in the WQMP. Determine if water quality credits are applicable for the project. Refer to Section 3.1 of the Model WQMP for description of credits and Appendix VI of the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for calculation methods for applying water quality credits. Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits (Select all that apply): Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. Brownfield redevelopment, meaning redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real property which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, and which have the potential to contribute to adverse ground or surface WQ if not redeveloped. Higher density development projects which include two distinct categories (credits can only be taken for one category): those with more than seven units per acre of development (lower credit allowance); vertical density developments, for example, those with a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance). Mixed use development, such as a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that can demonstrate environmental benefits that would not be realized through single use projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with the potential to reduce sources of water or air pollution). Transit-oriented developments, such as a mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation; similar to above criterion, but where the development center is within one half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, rail, light rail or commuter train station). Such projects would not be able to take credit for both categories, but may have greater credit assigned Redevelopment projects in an established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant city area including core City Center areas (to be defined through mapping). Developments with dedication of undeveloped portions to parks, preservation areas and other pervious uses. Developments in a city center area. Developments in historic districts or historic preservation areas. Live-work developments, a variety of developments designed to support residential and similar to criteria to mixed use development; would not be able to take credit for both categories. In-fill projects, the conversion of empty lots and other underused spaces into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas. Calculation of Water Quality Credits (if applicable) N/A Describe an alternative compliance plan (if applicable). Include alternative compliance obligations (i.e., gallons, pounds) and describe proposed alternative compliance measures. Refer to Section 7.II 3.0 in the Model WQMP. N/A Fill out information in table below. Prepare and attach an Operation and Maintenance Plan. Identify the funding mechanism through which BMPs will be maintained. Inspection and maintenance records must be kept for a minimum of five years for inspection by the regulatory agencies. Refer to Section 7.II 4.0 in the Model WQMP. Include a BMP Exhibit (Site Plan), at a size no le minimum information: Insert in the title block (lower right-hand corner) of BMP Exhibit: the WQMP Number (assigned by staff) and the grading/building or Planning Application permit numbers Project location (address, tract/lot number(s), etc.) Site boundary Land uses and land covers, as applicable Suitability/feasibility constraints Structural BMP locations Drainage delineations and flow information Delineate the area being treated by each structural BMP GIS coordinates for LID and Treatment Control BMPs Drainage connections BMP details Preparer name and stamp Please do not include any areas outside of the project area or any information not related to drainage or water quality. The approved BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) shall be submitted as a plan sheet on all grading and building plan sets submitted for plan check review and approval. The BMP Exhibit shall be at the same size as the rest of the plan sheets in the submittal and shall have an approval stamp and signature prior to plan check submittal. Following approval of the Final Project-Specific WQMP, three copies of the approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be submitted. In addition, these documents shall be submitted in a PDF format. Each approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be recorded in the Orange County grading and/or building permit. Educational Materials are not required to be included. Refer to the Orange County Stormwater Program (ocwatersheds.com) for a library of materials available. Please only attach the educational materials specifically applicable to this project. Other materials specific to the project may be included as well and must be attached. The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Household Tips Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank System Responsible Pest Control Sewer Spill Tips for the Home Improvement Projects Tips for Horse Care Tips for Landscaping and Gardening Tips for Pet Care Tips for Pool Maintenance Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains Tips for Projects Using Paint *Go to the following website online to view checked brochures.https://h2oc.org/resources/view order brochures/resident brochures/ Los Alamitos Naval Air Station Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Fullerton Airport 1 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 2-18 December 20, 2013 Table 2.2: Summary of the Approved 2010 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Associated Pollutants of Concern for North Orange County Silverado Creek On October 11, 2011, the 2010 303(d) list was approved by USEPA Region 9. Project proponents should consult the most recent 303(d) list located on the State Water Resources Control Board website10. 10 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/#wqassessment O R A N G E C O U N TY O R A N G E C O U N TY S A N B E R N A R DIN O C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R DIN O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R DIN O C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R DIN O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R DIN O C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R DIN O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-50 December 20, 2013 XIV.5. Biotreatment BMP Fact Sheets (BIO) Conceptual criteria for biotreatment BMP selection, design, and maintenance are contained in Appendix XII. These criteria are generally applicable to the design of biotreatment BMPs in Orange County and BMP-specific guidance is provided in the following fact sheets. 24 Note: Biotreatment BMPs shall be designed to provide the maximum feasible infiltration and ET based on criteria contained in Appendix XI.2. BIO-1: Bioretention with Underdrains Bioretention stormwater treatment facilities are landscaped shallow depressions that capture and filter stormwater runoff. These facilities function as a soil and plant-based filtration device that removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes. The facilities normally consist of a ponding area, mulch layer, planting soils, and plants. As stormwater passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded, and sequestered by the soil and plants. Bioretention with an underdrain are utilized for areas with low permeability native soils or steep slopes where the underdrain system that routes the treated runoff to the storm drain system rather than depending entirely on infiltration. Bioretention must be designed without an underdrain in areas of high soil permeability. Feasibility Screening Considerations bioinfiltration facilities 24 Not all BMPs presented in this se Permit Area. Biofiltration BMPs are vegetated treat-and-release BMPs that filter stormwater through amended soil media that is biologically active, support plant growth, and also promote infiltration and/or evapotranspiration. For projects in South Orange County, the total volume of storage in surface ponding and pores spaces is required to be at least 75% of the remaining DCV that the biofiltration BMP is designed to address. This prevents significant down- sizing of BMPs which otherwise may be possible via routing calculations. Biotreatment BMPs that do not meet this definition are not considered to be LID BMPs, but may be used as treatment control or pre-treatment BMPs. See Section III.7 and Worksheet SOC-1 for guidance. Also known as: Rain gardens with underdrains Vegetated media filter Downspout planter boxes Source: Geosyntec Consultants TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-51 December 20, 2013 Opportunity Criteria Drainage area is 5 acres. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-52 December 20, 2013 Simple Sizing Method for Bioretention with Underdrain III.3.1 III.3.1 III.3.2 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-53 December 20, 2013 Capture Efficiency Method for Bioretention with Underdrains III.3.2 III.3.3 III.3.2 Configuration for Use in a Treatment Train Additional References for Design Guidance http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-32.pdf TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-54 December 20, 2013 http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/guest75/pub/All_Projects/SoCal_LID_Manual/SoCalL ID_Manual_FINAL_040910.pdf http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/LID-Appendices.pdf http://www.laschools.org/employee/design/fs-studies-and- reports/download/white_paper_report_material/Storm_Water_Technical_Manual_2009-opt- red.pdf?version_id=76975850 http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/LA_County_LID_Manual.pdf TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 2-7 December 20, 2013 Table 2.1: Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type Priority Project Categories and/or Project Features General Pollutant Categories Suspended Solid/ Sediments Nutrients Heavy Metals Pathogens (Bacteria/ Virus) Pesticides Oil & Grease Toxic Organic Compounds Trash & Debris Detached Residential Development E E N E E E N E Attached Residential Development E E N E E E(2) N E Commercial/ Industrial Development E(1) E(1) E(5) E(3) E(1) E E E Automotive Repair Shops N N E N N E E E Restaurants E(1)(2) E(1) E(2) E E(1) E N E Hillside Development >5,000 ft2 E E N E E E N E Parking Lots E E(1) E E(4) E(1) E E E Streets, Highways, & Freeways E E (1) E E(4) E(1) E E E Retail Gasoline Outlets N N E N N E E E E = expected to be of concern N = not expected to be of concern (1) Expected pollutant if landscaping exists on-site, otherwise not expected. (2) Expected pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas, otherwise not expected. (3) Expected pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products, otherwise not expected. (4) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff. (5) Expected if outdoor storage or metal roofs, otherwise not expected. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 2-34 December 20, 2013 Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet Infeasibility Criteria Yes No From information found on Geotracker, infiltration would pose a significant risk to groundwater as there was contamination from gasoline previously. Please see Attachment D for Geotracker information and Worksheet "I". Due to limited space, the BMP would be located less than eight feet from buidling foundations. There are no downstream water right violations. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 2-35 December 20, 2013 Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Partial Infeasibility Criteria Yes No The site is located in an HSG A soil area. See the Soil Group Map provided in Attachment "A". The infiltration rate was found to be 2.9 in/hr. See the infiltration study provided in Attachment "C". Per information found on Geotracker, infiltration would cause contamination of gasoline into groundwater. Please see Worksheet "I" in Attachment D. Per information found on Geotracker, infiltration would cause contamination of gasoline into groundwater. Please see Worksheet "I" in Attachment D. The site is currently an empty lot, so water either infiltrates currently or sheet flows out onto the street. Development of the project would help limit infiltration and groundwater contamination. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 2-36 December 20, 2013 Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Harvest and Use Infeasibility Harvest and use infeasibility criteria include: If inadequate demand exists for the use of the harvested rainwater. See Appendix X for guidance on determining harvested water demand and applicable feasibility thresholds. If the use of harvested water for the type of demand on the project violates codes or ordinances most applicable to stormwater harvesting in effect at the time of project application and a waiver of these codes and/or ordinances cannot be obtained. It is noted that codes and ordinances most applicable to stormwater harvesting may change Row 1 is a "yes". From to info found in Geotracker, infiltration is not feasible due to prior contamination by gasoline from when the site used to be a gas station. Please see worksheet "I" attached. See worksheet "I" attached. From info found on Geotracker, infiltration is not feasible due to prior contamination by gasoline. There is currently no Appendix XVII in the TGD. Currently, the sanitary sewer main lines are located on the street. There is no significant concern for I&I due to infiltration. As proposed, a full capture system will be used once the project is fully developed. Infiltration not feasible. See Worksheet "I". TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 4-7 December 20, 2013 Table 4.2 Relative Treatment Performance Ratings of Biotreatment BMPs TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 4-8 December 20, 2013 Table 4.2 Relative Treatment Performance Ratings of Biotreatment BMPs TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES III-16 December 20, 2013 Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Figure III.1 d 2 dHSC Worksheet A 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 A 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) 3 C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 4 Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV 1 Kobserved 1 Appendix VII 2 Worksheet H Stotal 3 Kdesign = Kobserved / Stotal 4 T 5 Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12) 6 Amin = Vdesign/ dmax 0.36 0.69 0.67 0 0.85 0.85 744.22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES III-20 December 20, 2013 Worksheet C: Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Figure III.1 d T Figure III.2 X1 dHSC Worksheet A Y2 Worksheet A Figure III.2 X2 fraction = X1 – X2 dfraction= fraction × d Step 2: Calculate the DCV A imp C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 Vdesign= (C x drfraction x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Supporting Calculations 0.85 3 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 0.21 0.36 0.69 0.69 189.36 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES III-21 December 20, 2013 Worksheet C: Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs Graphical Operations Example III.6 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES VIII-13 December 20, 2013 Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria Table VIII.2 VIII.2 Figure TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES VIII-14 December 20, 2013 Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria VIII.2 Figure VIII.2 Note: if a single criterion or group of criteria would render infiltration infeasible, it is not necessary to evaluate every question in this worksheet. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES VIII-9 December 20, 2013 Table VIII.1: Recommendations/Requirements for BMP Selection to Minimize Groundwater Quality Impacts 18 18 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES X-13 December 20, 2013 Table X.8: Minimum Irrigated Area for Potential Partial Capture Feasibility General Landscape Type Conservation Design: KL = 0.35 Active Turf Areas: KL = 0.7 Closest ET Station Irvine Santa Ana Laguna Irvine Santa Ana Laguna Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Minimum Required Irrigated Area per Tributary Impervious Acre for Potential Partial Capture, ac/ac 0.60 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.65 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.70 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.75 0.83 0.84 0.90 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.80 0.88 0.90 0.96 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.85 0.93 0.95 1.02 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.90 0.99 1.01 1.08 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.95 1.04 1.07 1.14 0.52 0.53 0.57 1.00 1.10 1.12 1.20 0.55 0.56 0.60 Worksheet J: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility Figure III.1 Table X.6 Table X.7 0.85 0.36 0.25 104 100 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES X-14 December 20, 2013 Worksheet J: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility Table X.8 NO BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed Bioretention Planter #1 (BIO-1) Per attached operation and maintenance plan attached hereon. (Property Owner to be responsible for Operation & Maintenance of BMP.) (2) Modular Connector Trash Pipe Screen (BC-3) Regular inspection for debris and sedimentation build up. Remove trash and debris. Also per attached operation and maintenance attached hereon. (Property Owner to be responsible for Operation & Maintenance of BMP.) S1 – Storm Drain System Stencilling and Signage Maintain legibility of stencils and signs. S3 – Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Sweep trash area at least once per week and before October 1st each year. Maintain area clean of trash at all times. S4 – Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control. Check the connection on all wires. N1 - Education for Property Owners, Tenants, and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants annually. N2 – Activity Restrictions The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality through lease terms or other equally effective measures for the property. N3 – Common Area Landscape Management Appointed property management company to provide maintenance of landscaping to meet current water efficiency and keep plants healthy. Bio areas maintained with proper soil amendments. BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed N4 – BMP Maintenance N11 – Common Area Litter Control Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. N12 – Employee Training Education programs as it would apply to future employees managing property N14 – Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall be inspected after each storm event and once per year. Inlets and other facilities shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season by October 1st of each year. N15 – Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Routine inspection and sweeping of parking lot area to avoid accumulation of debris. 36” Detention Pipe Maintain a clean and obstruction-free retention system. Retention/Detention System Maintenance 1 TECHNICAL NOTE 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD. HILLIARD, OH 43026. (800) 821-6710 – www.ads-pipe.com ATN601 ©ADS 2007 TN 6.01 February 2007 This document is provided for informational purposes only and is meant only to be a guide. Individuals using this information should make their own decisions as to suitability of this guideline for their individual projects and adjust accordingly. Introduction A retention/detention system is comprised of a series of pipes and fittings that form an underground storage area, which retains or detains storm water runoff from a given area. As sediment and debris settle out of the detained stormwater, build up occurs that requires the system to be regularly inspected and cleaned in order for the system to perform as originally designed. The following provides the available fittings and guidelines for inspection and maintenance of an HDPE underground storage system. System Accessories and Fittings Concentric Reducers Concentric Reducers are fittings that transition between two pipes, either in line with one another or at perpendicular angles. The centerlines of the two pipes are at the same elevation. When a concentric reducer is used to connect the manifold pipe to the lateral pipes, most debris will be trapped in the manifold pipe. SIDE VIEW SECTION VIEWSIDE VIEW SECTION VIEW Eccentric Reducers Eccentric Reducers are fittings that transition between two pipes, either in line with one another or at perpendicular angles. The inverts of the two pipes are at the same elevations. When an eccentric reducer is used to connect the manifold pipe to the lateral pipes, most debris will follow the flow of the storm water into the lateral pipes. SIDE VIEW SECTION VIEW SIDE VIEW SECTION VIEW 24640 TRUEMAN BLVD. HILLIARD, OH 43026. (800) 821-6710 – www.ads-pipe.com Riser Each retention/detention system typically has risers strategically placed for maintenance and inspection of the system. These risers are typically 24” in diameter or larger and are placed on the manifold fittings. Cleanouts Cleanout ports are usually 4-, 6-, or 8-in diameter pipe and are placed on the manifold fittings. They are used for entrance of a pipe from a vacuum truck or a water-jetting device. For a complete listing of available fittings and components please refer to the ADS Fittings Manual. Maintenance Overview of a Retention/Detention System Maintaining a clean and obstruction-free retention/detention system helps to ensure the system performs the intended function of the primary design. Build up of debris may obstruct flow through the laterals in a retention system or block the entranceway of the outlet pipe in a detention system. This may result in ineffective operation or complete failure of the system . Additionally, surrounding areas may potentially run the risk of damage due to flooding or other similar issues. Inspection/Maintenance Frequency All retention/detention systems must be cleaned and maintained. Underground systems may be maintained more cost effectively if these simple guidelines are followed. Inspection should be performed at a minimum of once per year. Cleaning should be done at the discretion of individuals responsible to maintain proper storage and flow. While maintenance can generally be performed year round, it should be scheduled during a relatively dry season. Pre-Inspection A post-installation inspection should be performed to allow the owner to measure the invert prior to accumulation of sediment. This survey will allow the monitoring of sediment build-up without requiring access to the retention/detention system. The following is the recommended procedure for pre-inspections: 1) Locate the riser section or cleanouts of the retention/detention system. The riser will typically be 24” in diameter or larger and the cleanouts are usually 4”, 6” or 8” in diameter. 2) Remove the lid of the riser or clean outs. 3) Insert a measuring device into the opening and make note to a point of reference on the stick or string. (This is done so that sediment build up can be determined in the future without having to enter the system.) RISER CROSS-SECTION VIEW CLEANOUT CROSS-SECTION VIEW 34640 TRUEMAN BLVD. HILLIARD, OH 43026. (800) 821-6710 – www.ads-pipe.com Inspection/Maintenance A retention/detention system should be inspected at a minimum of one time a year or after major rain events if necessary. The following is the recommended procedure to inspect system in service: 1) Locate the riser section of the retention/detention system. The riser will typically be 24” in diameter or larger. 2) Remove the lid from the riser. 3) Measure the sediment buildup at each riser and cleanout location. Only certified confined space entry personnel having appropriate equipment should be permitted to enter the retention/detention System. 4) Inspect each manifold, all laterals, and outlet pipes for sediment build up, obstructions, or other problems. Obstructions should be removed at this time. 5) If measured sediment build up is between 5% - 20% of the pipe diameter, cleaning should be considered; if sediment build up exceeds 20%, cleaning should be performed at the earliest opportunity. A thorough cleaning of the system (manifolds and laterals) shall be performed by either manual methods or by a vacuum truck. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-1 December 20, 2013 SECTION 6. SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES This section provides guidance on the selection and design of structural source control measures. 6.1. Introduction Source Control BMPs reduce the potential for stormwater runoff and pollutants from coming into contact with one another. Source Control BMPs are defined as any administrative action, design of a structural facility, usage of alternative materials, and operation, maintenance, inspection, and compliance of an area to eliminate or reduce stormwater pollution. Each new development and significant redevelopment project is required to implement appropriate Source Control BMP(s) pursuant to Section 2.4.5 of the Model WQMP. Applicable Source Control BMPs (which includes subcategories of routine non-structural BMPs, routine structural BMPs and BMPs for individual categories/project features) are required to be incorporated into all new development and significant redevelopment projects regardless of their priority, including those identified in an applicable regional or watershed program, unless they do not apply due to the project characteristics. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Fact Sheet numbers are included in parentheses where applicable. 6.2. Non-Structural Measures N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants For developments with no Property Owners Association (POA) or with POAs of less than fifty (50) dwelling units, practical information materials will be provided to the first residents/occupants/tenants on general housekeeping practices that contribute to the protection of stormwater quality. These materials will be initially developed and provided to first residents/occupants/tenants by the developer. Thereafter such materials will be available commercial, retail commercial, vehicle-related commercial and industrial uses will be developed. For developments with POA and residential projects of more than fifty (50) dwelling units, project conditions of approval will require that the POA periodically provide environmental awareness education materials, made available by the municipalities, to all of its members. Among other things, these materials will describe the use of chemicals (including household type) that should be limited to the property, with no discharge of wastes via hosing or other direct discharge to gutters, catch basins and storm drains. Educational materials available from the County of Orange can be downloaded here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/PublicEd/resources/default.aspx N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-2 December 20, 2013 N2 Activity Restrictions If a POA is formed, conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) must be prepared by the developer for the purpose of surface water quality protection. An example would be not allowing car washing outside of established community car wash areas in multi-unit complexes. Alternatively, use restrictions may be developed by a building operator through lease terms, etc. These restrictions must be included in the Project WQMP. N3 (SC-73) Common Area Landscape Management Identify on-going landscape maintenance requirements that are consistent with those in the County Water Conservation Resolution (or city equivalent) that include fertilizer and/or pesticide usage consistent with Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (DAMP Section 5.5). Statements regarding the specific applicable guidelines must be included in the Project WQMP. N4 BMP Maintenance The Project WQMP shall identify responsibility for implementation of each non-structural BMP and scheduled cleaning and/or maintenance of all structural BMP facilities. N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance Compliance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and relevant sections of the California Health & Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management is enforced by County Environmental Health on behalf of the State. The Project WQMP must describe how the development will comply with the applicable hazardous waste management section(s) of Title 22. N6 Local Water Quality Permit Compliance The Permittees, under the Water Quality Ordinance, may issue permits to ensure clean stormwater discharges from fuel dispensing areas and other areas of concern to public properties. N7 (SC-11) Spill Contingency Plan A Spill Contingency Plan is prepared by building operator or occupants for use by specified types of building or suite occupancies. The Spill Contingency Plan describes how the occupants will prepare for and respond to spills of hazardous materials. Plans typically describe stockpiling of cleanup materials, notification of responsible agencies, disposal of cleanup materials, documentation, etc. N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance Compliance with State regulations dealing with underground storage tanks, enforced by County Environmental Health on behalf of State. N2 Activity Restrictions N2 Activity Restrictions N3 (SC-73) Common Area Landscape Management N3 (SC-73) Common Area Landscape Management N4 BMP Maintenance N4 BMP Maintenance TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-3 December 20, 2013 N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Compliance with Permittee ordinances typically enforced by respective fire protection agencies for the management of hazardous materials. The Orange County, health care agencies, and/or other appropriate agencies (i.e., Department of Toxics Substances Control) are typically responsible for enforcing hazardous materials and hazardous waste handling and disposal regulations. N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation Compliance with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code enforced by fire protection agency. N11 (SC-60) Common Area Litter Control For industrial/commercial developments and for developments with POAs, the owner/POA should be required to implement trash management and litter control procedures in the common areas aimed at reducing pollution of drainage water. The owner/POA may contract with their landscape maintenance firms to provide this service during regularly scheduled maintenance, which should consist of litter patrol, emptying of trash receptacles in common areas, and noting trash disposal violations by tenants/homeowners or businesses and reporting the violations to the owner/POA for investigation. N12 Employee Training Education program (see N1) as it would apply to future employees of individual businesses. Developer either prepares manual(s) for initial purchasers of business site or for development that is constructed for an unspecified use makes commitment on behalf of POA or future business owner to prepare. An example would be training on the proper storage and use of fertilizers and pesticides, or training on the implementation of hazardous spill contingency plans. N13 (SD-31) Housekeeping of Loading Docks Loading docks typically found at large retail and warehouse-type commercial and industrial facilities should be kept in a clean and orderly condition through a regular program of sweeping and litter control and immediate cleanup of spills and broken containers. Cleanup procedures should minimize or eliminate the use of water if plumed to the storm sewer. If wash water is used, it must be disposed of in an approved manner and not discharged to the storm drain system. If there are no other alternatives, discharge of non-stormwater flow to the sanitary sewer must be at an acceptable discharge point such as a cleanout, oil/water separator, grease interceptor, or industrial sewer connection. All sewer discharges shall be in accordance with ewater Discharge Regulations and/or Washwater Disposal Guidelines. . N11 (SC-60) Common Area Litter Control N11 (SC-60) Common Area Litter Control N11 (SC-60) Common Area Litter Control N12 Employee Training N12 Employee Training TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-4 December 20, 2013 N14 (SC-74) Common Area Catch Basin Inspection For industrial/commercial developments and for developments with privately maintained drainage systems, the owner is required to have at least 80 percent of drainage facilities inspected, cleaned and maintained on an annual basis with 100 percent of the facilities included in a two-year period. Cleaning should take place in the late summer/early fall prior to the start of the rainy season. Drainage facilities include catch basins (storm drain inlets) detention basins, retention basins, sediment basins, open drainage channels and lift stations. Records should be kept to document the annual maintenance. N15 (SC-43, SC-70) Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Streets and parking lots are required to be swept prior to the storm season, in late summer or early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season or equivalent as required by the governing jurisdiction. N16 (SD-30, SC-20) Retail Gasoline Outlets Retail gasoline outlets (RGOs) are required to follow the guidelines of this TGD and Model WQMP and non-structural source control operations and maintenance BMPs shown in the CASQA Structural Source Control Fact Sheet SD-30, and Non-structural Source Control Fact Sheet (SC-20). Other Non-structural Measures for Public Agency Projects As required by the Model WQMP other non-structural measures shall be implemented and included in the Project WQMP as applicable for new public agency Priority Projects as described in the Municipal Activity fact sheets http://www.ocwatersheds.com/MunicipalActivities.aspx. These include BMPs FF-1 through FF-13 for Fixed Facilities and DF-1 for Drainage Facilities. These are listed in Section 6.4, below. 6.3. Structural Measures The following measures are applicable to all project types. CASQA BMP Fact Sheet numbers are included in parentheses where applicable; these fact sheets provide further detail on these BMPs. S1 (SD-13) Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage Storm drain stencils are highly visible source control messages, typically placed directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. The stencils contain a brief statement that prohibits the dumping of improper materials into the municipal storm drain system. Graphical icons, either illustrating anti-dumping symbols or images of receiving water fauna, are effective supplements to the anti- dumping message. Stencils and signs alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into stormwater. The following requirements should be included in the project design and shown on the project plans: N14 (SC-74) Common Area Catch Basin Inspection N14 (SC-74) Common Area Catch Basin Inspection N14 (SC-74) Common Area Catch Basin Inspection N15 (SC-43, SC-70) Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N15 (SC-43, SC-70) Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N15 (SC-43, SC-70) Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots S1 (SD-13) Provide Storm Drain S1 (SD-13) Provide Storm Drain S1 (SD-13) Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-5 December 20, 2013 1. Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or 2. Post signs and prohibitive language and/or graphical icons, which prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels and creeks within the project area. 3. Maintain legibility of stencils and signs. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook BMP Fact Sheet SD-13 for additional information. S2 (SD-34) Design Outdoor Hazardous Material Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction Improper storage of materials outdoors may increase the potential for toxic compounds, oil and grease, fuels, solvents, coolants, wastes, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids, and other pollutants to enter the municipal storm drain system. Where the plan of development includes outdoor areas for storage of hazardous materials that may contribute pollutants to the municipal storm drain system, or include transfer areas where incidental spills often occur, the following stormwater BMPs are required: 1. Hazardous materials with the potential to contaminate urban runoff shall either be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as, but not limited to, a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with storm water or spillage to the municipal storm drain system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures (not double wall containers) such as berms, dikes, or curbs. 2. The storage area shall be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills. 3. The storage area shall have a roof or awning to minimize direct precipitation and collection of stormwater within the secondary containment area. 4. Any stormwater retained within the containment structure must not be discharged to the street or storm drain system. 5. Location(s) of installations of where these preventative measures will be employed must be included on the map or plans identifying BMPs. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook Section 3.2.6 and BMP Fact Sheet SD-34 for additional information. S3 (SD-32) Design Trash Enclosures to Reduce Pollutant Introduction Design trash storage areas to reduce pollutant introduction. All trash container areas shall meet the following requirements (limited exclusion: detached residential homes): 1. Paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash; and 2. Provide solid roof or awning to prevent direct precipitation. S3 (SD-32) Design Trash Enclosures to Reduce Pollutant Introduction S3 (SD-32) Design Trash Enclosures to Reduce Pollutant Introduction S3 (SD-32) Design Trash Enclosures to Reduce Pollutant Introduction TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-6 December 20, 2013 Connection of trash area drains to the municipal storm drain system is prohibited. Potential conflicts with fire code and garbage hauling activities should be considered in implementing this source control. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook Section 3.2.9 and BMP Fact Sheet SD-32 for additional information. S4 (SD-12) Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design Projects shall design the timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the municipal storm drain system. (Limited exclusion: detached residential homes.) The following methods to reduce excessive irrigation runoff shall be considered, and incorporated on common areas of development and other areas where determined applicable and feasible by the Permittee: 1. Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation. 2. Designing irrigation systems to each land 3. Using flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. 4. Implementing landscape plan consistent with County Water Conservation Resolution or city equivalent, which may include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc. 5. The timing and application methods of irrigation water shall be designed to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the municipal storm drain system. 6. Employing other comparable, equally effective, methods to reduce irrigation water runoff. 7. Group plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Choose plants with low irrigation requirements (for example, native or drought tolerant species). Consider other design features, such as: Use mulches (such as wood chips or shredded wood products) in planter areas without ground cover to minimize sediment in runoff. Install appropriate plant materials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and use native plant material where possible and/or as recommended by the landscape architect. Leave a vegetative barrier along the property boundary and interior watercourses, to act as a pollutant filter, where appropriate and feasible. Choose plants that minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizer or pesticides to sustain growth. Irrigation practices shall comply with local and statewide ordinances related to irrigation efficiency. S4 (SD-12) Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design S4 (SD-12) Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design S4 (SD-12) Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-7 December 20, 2013 S5 Protect Slopes and Channels Projects shall protect slopes and channels as described in Section 3.4 of this TGD. S6 (SD-31) Loading Dock Areas Loading /unloading dock areas shall include the following: 1. Cover loading dock areas, or design drainage to preclude run-on and runoff, unless the material loaded and unloaded at the docks does not have potential to contribute to stormwater pollution, and this use is ensured for the life of the facility. 2. Direct connections to the municipal storm drain system from below grade loading docks (truck wells) or similar structures are prohibited. Stormwater can be discharged through a permitted connection to the storm drain system with a treatment control BMP applicable to the use. 3. Other comparable and equally effective features that prevent unpermitted discharges to the municipal storm drain system. 4. Housekeeping of loading docks shall be consistent with N13. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook Section 3.2.8 for additional information. S7 (SD-31) Maintenance Bays Maintenance bays shall include the following: 1. Repair/maintenance bays shall be indoors; or, designed to preclude urban run-on and runoff in an equally effective manner. 2. Design a repair/maintenance bay drainage system to capture all wash water, leaks and spills. Provide impermeable berms, drop inlets, trench catch basins, or overflow containment structures around repair bays to prevent spilled materials and wash-down waters from entering the storm drain system. Connect drains to a sump for collection and disposal. Direct connection of the repair/maintenance bays to the municipal storm drain system is prohibited. If there are no other alternatives, discharge of non- stormwater flow to the sanitary sewer may be considered only if allowed by the local sewerage agency through permitted connection. Other features which are comparable and equally effective that prevent discharges to the municipal storm drain system without appropriate permits. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook Fact Sheet SD-31 for additional information. S8 (SD-33) Vehicle Wash Areas Projects that include areas for washing /steam cleaning of vehicles shall use the following: 1. Self-contained or covered with a roof or overhang. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-8 December 20, 2013 2. Equipped with a wash racks, and with the prior approval of the sewerage agency (Note: Discharge monitoring may be required by the sewerage agency). 3. Equipped with a clarifier or other pretreatment facility. 4. If there are no other alternatives, discharge of non-stormwater flow to the sanitary sewer may be considered only allowed by the local sewerage agency through permitted connection. Alternately, non-storm water discharges may require a separate NPDES permit in order to discharge to the MS4. Some local jurisdictions also have permitting systems in place for these situations. 5. Other features which are comparable and equally effective that prevent unpermitted discharges, to the municipal storm drain system. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook Sections 3.2.7 and 3.2.10 and Fact Sheet SD-33 for additional information. S9 (SD-36) Outdoor Processing Areas Outdoor process equipment operations, such as rock grinding or crushing, painting or coating, grinding or sanding, degreasing or parts cleaning, landfills, waste piles, and wastewater and solid waste handling, treatment, and disposal, and other operations determined to be a potential threat to water quality by the Permittee shall adhere to the following requirements. 1. Cover or enclose areas that would be the sources of pollutants; or, slope the area toward a sump that will provide infiltration or evaporation with no discharge; or, if there are no other alternatives, discharge of non-stormwater flow to the sanitary sewer may be considered only allowed by the local sewerage agency through permitted connection. 2. Grade or berm area to prevent run-on from surrounding areas. 3. Installation of storm drains in areas of equipment repair is prohibited. 4. Other features which are comparable or equally effective that prevent unpermitted discharges to the municipal storm drain system. 5. Where wet material processing occurs (e.g. Electroplating), secondary containment structures (not double wall containers) shall be provided to hold spills resulting from accidents, leaking tanks or equipment, or any other unplanned releases (Note: If these are plumbed to the sanitary sewer, the structures and plumbing shall be in accordance with Section 7.II - 8, Attachment D, and with the prior approval of the sewerage agency). Design of secondary containment structures sh Material Storage Areas to Redu Some of these land uses (e.g. landfills, waste piles, wastewater and solid waste handling, treatment and disposal) may be subject to other permits including Phase I Industrial Permits that may require additional BMPs. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook Section 3.2.5 for additional information. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-9 December 20, 2013 S10 Equipment Wash Areas Outdoor equipment/accessory washing and steam cleaning activities shall use the following: 1. Be self-contained or covered with a roof or overhang. 2. Design an equipment wash area drainage system to capture all wash water. Provide impermeable berms, drop inlets, trench catch basins, or overflow containment structures around equipment wash areas to prevent wash -down waters from entering the storm drain system. Connect drains to a sump for collection and disposal. Discharge from equipment wash areas to the municipal storm drain system is prohibited. If there are no other alternatives, discharge of non-stormwater flow to the sanitary sewer may be considered, but only when allowed by the local sewerage agency through a permitted connection. 3. Other comparable or equally effective features that prevent unpermitted discharges to the municipal storm drain system. S11 (SD-30) Fueling Areas Fuel dispensing areas shall contain the following: 1. At a minimum, the fuel dispensing area must extend 6.5 feet (2.0 meters) from the corner of each fuel dispenser, or the length at which the hose and nozzle assembly may be operated plus 1 foot (0.3 meter), whichever is less. 2. The fuel dispensing area shall be paved with Portland cement concrete (or equivalent smooth impervious surface). The use of asphalt concrete shall be prohibited. 3. The fuel dispensing area shall have an appropriate slope (2% - 4%) to prevent ponding, and must be separated from the rest of the site by a grade break that prevents run-on of stormwater. 4. An overhanging roof structure or canopy dimensions must be equal to or greater than the area of the fuel dispensing area in the first item above. The cover must not drain onto the fuel dispensing area and the downspouts must be routed to prevent drainage across the fueling area. The fueling area rol BMP(s) prior to discharging to the municipal storm drain system. See CASQA Stormwater Handbook Section 3.2.11 and BMP Fact Sheet SD-30 for additional information. S12 (SD-10) Site Design and Landscape Planning (Hillside Landscaping) Hillside areas that are disturbed by project development shall be landscaped with deep-rooted, drought tolerant plant species selected for erosion control, satisfactory to the local permitting authority. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 6-10 December 20, 2013 S13 Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas Food establishments (per State Health & Safety Code 27520) shall have either contained areas or sinks, each with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. If located outside, the contained areas or sinks shall also be structurally covered to prevent entry of stormwater. Adequate signs shall be provided and appropriately placed stating the prohibition of discharging washwater to the storm drain system. S14 Community Car Wash Racks In complexes larger than 100 dwelling units where car washing is allowed, a designated car wash area that does not drain to a storm drain system shall be provided for common usage. Wash waters from this area may be directed to the sanitary sewer (with the prior approval of the sewerage agency); to an engineered infiltration system; or to an equally effective alternative. Pre-treatment may also be required. 6.4. Municipal Non-Structural Source Control Measures The following measures are applicable to fixed facility municipal projects such as maintenance yards, schools, and libraries. Generally, these controls are more applicable to municipal projects than the fact sheets contained in Section 6.2, however other structural and nonstructural controls described in Section 6.2 and 6.3 shall be used where applicable. The links below contain the most recent versions of the Fixed Facility fact sheets, which can also be found at http://www.ocwatersheds.com/MunicipalActivities.aspx. FF-1, Bay/Harbor Activities FF-2, Building Maintenance and Repair FF-3 Equipment Maintenance and Repair FF-4, Fueling FF-5, Landscape Maintenance FF-6, Material Loading and Unloading FF-7, Material Storage, Handling, and Disposal FF-8, Minor Construction FF-9, Parking Lot Maintenance FF-10, Spill Prevention and Control FF-11, Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning FF-12, Vehicle and Equipment Storage FF-13, Waste Handling and Disposal Appendix G Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report VICINITY MAP LATITUDE: 33°49’03.44” N, LONGITUDE: 118°00’06.42” W, SITE ELEVATION: 57 ft EXISTING I(100) = 4.41 IN/ PROPOSED I(100)=5.44 IN/HR PROPOSED I(25) = 4.25 IN/HR EXISTING I(25) = 3.46 IN/HR EXISTING I(10) = 2.90 IN/HR PROPOSED I(10) = 3.57 IN/HR ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION Generated by a Trial Version of NetCentric Technologies’ CommonLook® Acrobat® Plug-in. www.net-centric.com TABLE 1 Values of Runoff Coefficient C URBAN AREAS: Type of drainage area Runoff coefficient C Lawns: Sandy soil, flat 2% Sandy soil, average, 2 - 7% Sandy soil, steep, 7% Heavy soil, flat, 2% Heavy soil, average, 2 - 7% Heavy soil, steep, 7% 0.05 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.20 0.13-0.17 0.18 - 0.22 0.25 - 0.35 Business: Downtown areas Neighborhood areas 0.70 - 0.95 0.50.0.70 Residential: Single-family areas Multi units, detached Multi units, attached Suburban Apartment dwelling areas 0.30 - 0.50 0.40 - 0.60 0.60 - 0.75 0.25 - 0.40 0.50 - 0.70 Industrial: Light areas Heavy areas 0.50 - 0.80 0.60 - 0.90 Parks, cemeteries 0.10 - 0.25 Playgrounds 0.20 - 0.35 Railroad yard areas 0.20 - 0.40 Unimproved areas 0.10 - 0.30 Streets: Asphaltic Concrete Brick 0.70 - 0.95 0.80 - 0.95 0.70 - 0.85 Drives and walks Roofs 0.75 - 0.85 0.75 - 0.95 AGRICULTURAL AREAS: Topography and Vegetation Runoff Coefficient C Soil Texture Soil Texture Open Sandy Loam Clay and Silt Loam Tight Clay Woodland Flat 0 - 5% Slope Rolling 5 - 10% Slope Hilly 10 - 30% Slope 0.10 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.60 Pasture Flat Rolling Hilly 0.10 0.16 0.22 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.40 0.55 0.60 Cultivated Flat Rolling Hilly 0.30 0.40 0.52 0.50 0.60 0.72 0.60 0.70 0.82 Appendix H Noise Analysis Attachments Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis File Name : 01_ANA WEBA AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume Western Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 12 155 17 184 28 136 9 173 15 94 14 123 18 152 25 195 675 07:15 AM 9 133 21 163 28 203 14 245 14 88 13 115 17 204 26 247 770 07:30 AM 18 164 30 212 30 197 20 247 12 98 13 123 24 189 39 252 834 07:45 AM 12 122 21 155 41 191 32 264 15 145 20 180 24 199 60 283 882 Total 51 574 89 714 127 727 75 929 56 425 60 541 83 744 150 977 3161 08:00 AM 20 177 20 217 33 204 49 286 15 127 14 156 19 176 23 218 877 08:15 AM 26 137 33 196 31 204 53 288 11 157 10 178 27 173 26 226 888 08:30 AM 36 196 34 266 37 149 23 209 20 137 12 169 24 152 32 208 852 08:45 AM 16 114 27 157 29 154 19 202 10 62 11 83 23 151 20 194 636 Total 98 624 114 836 130 711 144 985 56 483 47 586 93 652 101 846 3253 Grand Total 149 1198 203 1550 257 1438 219 1914 112 908 107 1127 176 1396 251 1823 6414 Apprch %9.6 77.3 13.1 13.4 75.1 11.4 9.9 80.6 9.5 9.7 76.6 13.8 Total %2.3 18.7 3.2 24.2 4 22.4 3.4 29.8 1.7 14.2 1.7 17.6 2.7 21.8 3.9 28.4 Western Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 12 122 21 155 41 191 32 264 15 145 20 180 24 199 60 283 882 08:00 AM 20 177 20 217 33 204 49 286 15 127 14 156 19 176 23 218 877 08:15 AM 26 137 33 196 31 204 53 288 11 157 10 178 27 173 26 226 888 08:30 AM 36 196 34 266 37 149 23 209 20 137 12 169 24 152 32 208 852 Total Volume 94 632 108 834 142 748 157 1047 61 566 56 683 94 700 141 935 3499 % App. Total 11.3 75.8 12.9 13.6 71.4 15 8.9 82.9 8.2 10.1 74.9 15.1 PHF .653 .806 .794 .784 .866 .917 .741 .909 .763 .901 .700 .949 .870 .879 .588 .826 .985 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 01_ANA WEBA AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Western Avenue B a l l R o a d B a l l R o a d Western Avenue Right 108 Thru 632 Left 94 InOut Total 817 834 1651 R i g h t 1 5 7 T h r u 7 4 8 L e f t 1 4 2 O u t T o t a l I n 8 5 0 1 0 4 7 1 8 9 7 Left 61 Thru 566 Right 56 Out TotalIn 915 683 1598 Le f t 94 Th r u 70 0 Ri g h t 14 1 To t a l Ou t In 91 7 9 3 5 1 8 5 2 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 08:00 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 07:15 AM +0 mins.20 177 20 217 30 197 20 247 15 145 20 180 17 204 26 247 +15 mins.26 137 33 196 41 191 32 264 15 127 14 156 24 189 39 252 +30 mins.36 196 34 266 33 204 49 286 11 157 10 178 24 199 60 283 +45 mins.16 114 27 157 31 204 53 288 20 137 12 169 19 176 23 218 Total Volume 98 624 114 836 135 796 154 1085 61 566 56 683 84 768 148 1000 % App. Total 11.7 74.6 13.6 12.4 73.4 14.2 8.9 82.9 8.2 8.4 76.8 14.8 PHF .681 .796 .838 .786 .823 .975 .726 .942 .763 .901 .700 .949 .875 .941 .617 .883 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 01_ANA WEBA PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume Western Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 22 133 12 167 21 146 20 187 20 208 29 257 20 170 18 208 819 04:15 PM 8 92 19 119 24 143 33 200 20 172 20 212 30 167 24 221 752 04:30 PM 27 128 23 178 17 164 26 207 30 222 30 282 35 164 27 226 893 04:45 PM 21 119 21 161 29 203 28 260 26 202 30 258 37 147 24 208 887 Total 78 472 75 625 91 656 107 854 96 804 109 1009 122 648 93 863 3351 05:00 PM 16 131 28 175 19 148 16 183 29 230 33 292 30 161 23 214 864 05:15 PM 20 132 19 171 17 196 45 258 26 207 40 273 35 185 23 243 945 05:30 PM 21 151 28 200 25 145 26 196 24 249 38 311 36 151 23 210 917 05:45 PM 19 133 25 177 29 199 28 256 21 220 26 267 33 162 20 215 915 Total 76 547 100 723 90 688 115 893 100 906 137 1143 134 659 89 882 3641 Grand Total 154 1019 175 1348 181 1344 222 1747 196 1710 246 2152 256 1307 182 1745 6992 Apprch %11.4 75.6 13 10.4 76.9 12.7 9.1 79.5 11.4 14.7 74.9 10.4 Total %2.2 14.6 2.5 19.3 2.6 19.2 3.2 25 2.8 24.5 3.5 30.8 3.7 18.7 2.6 25 Western Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 16 131 28 175 19 148 16 183 29 230 33 292 30 161 23 214 864 05:15 PM 20 132 19 171 17 196 45 258 26 207 40 273 35 185 23 243 945 05:30 PM 21 151 28 200 25 145 26 196 24 249 38 311 36 151 23 210 917 05:45 PM 19 133 25 177 29 199 28 256 21 220 26 267 33 162 20 215 915 Total Volume 76 547 100 723 90 688 115 893 100 906 137 1143 134 659 89 882 3641 % App. Total 10.5 75.7 13.8 10.1 77 12.9 8.7 79.3 12 15.2 74.7 10.1 PHF .905 .906 .893 .904 .776 .864 .639 .865 .862 .910 .856 .919 .931 .891 .967 .907 .963 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 01_ANA WEBA PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Western Avenue B a l l R o a d B a l l R o a d Western Avenue Right 100 Thru 547 Left 76 InOut Total 1155 723 1878 R i g h t 1 1 5 T h r u 6 8 8 L e f t 9 0 O u t T o t a l I n 8 7 2 8 9 3 1 7 6 5 Left 100 Thru 906 Right 137 Out TotalIn 726 1143 1869 Le f t 13 4 Th r u 65 9 Ri g h t 89 To t a l Ou t In 88 8 8 8 2 1 7 7 0 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 05:00 PM 04:30 PM 05:00 PM 04:30 PM +0 mins.16 131 28 175 17 164 26 207 29 230 33 292 35 164 27 226 +15 mins.20 132 19 171 29 203 28 260 26 207 40 273 37 147 24 208 +30 mins.21 151 28 200 19 148 16 183 24 249 38 311 30 161 23 214 +45 mins.19 133 25 177 17 196 45 258 21 220 26 267 35 185 23 243 Total Volume 76 547 100 723 82 711 115 908 100 906 137 1143 137 657 97 891 % App. Total 10.5 75.7 13.8 9 78.3 12.7 8.7 79.3 12 15.4 73.7 10.9 PHF .905 .906 .893 .904 .707 .876 .639 .873 .862 .910 .856 .919 .926 .888 .898 .917 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 02_ANA WEOR AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Orange Avenue Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume Western Avenue Southbound Orange Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Orange Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 17 138 12 167 11 98 15 124 11 99 11 121 7 73 14 94 506 07:15 AM 13 129 22 164 9 142 13 164 11 107 15 133 14 114 24 152 613 07:30 AM 17 158 33 208 13 114 19 146 17 109 12 138 14 116 26 156 648 07:45 AM 15 134 35 184 17 114 10 141 36 139 29 204 11 125 37 173 702 Total 62 559 102 723 50 468 57 575 75 454 67 596 46 428 101 575 2469 08:00 AM 24 182 38 244 20 101 10 131 63 118 49 230 21 113 49 183 788 08:15 AM 23 166 46 235 15 119 45 179 68 146 44 258 18 124 36 178 850 08:30 AM 49 188 70 307 19 132 39 190 58 150 25 233 26 142 47 215 945 08:45 AM 22 151 17 190 11 98 20 129 18 94 15 127 35 137 23 195 641 Total 118 687 171 976 65 450 114 629 207 508 133 848 100 516 155 771 3224 Grand Total 180 1246 273 1699 115 918 171 1204 282 962 200 1444 146 944 256 1346 5693 Apprch %10.6 73.3 16.1 9.6 76.2 14.2 19.5 66.6 13.9 10.8 70.1 19 Total %3.2 21.9 4.8 29.8 2 16.1 3 21.1 5 16.9 3.5 25.4 2.6 16.6 4.5 23.6 Western Avenue Southbound Orange Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Orange Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 15 134 35 184 17 114 10 141 36 139 29 204 11 125 37 173 702 08:00 AM 24 182 38 244 20 101 10 131 63 118 49 230 21 113 49 183 788 08:15 AM 23 166 46 235 15 119 45 179 68 146 44 258 18 124 36 178 850 08:30 AM 49 188 70 307 19 132 39 190 58 150 25 233 26 142 47 215 945 Total Volume 111 670 189 970 71 466 104 641 225 553 147 925 76 504 169 749 3285 % App. Total 11.4 69.1 19.5 11.1 72.7 16.2 24.3 59.8 15.9 10.1 67.3 22.6 PHF .566 .891 .675 .790 .888 .883 .578 .843 .827 .922 .750 .896 .731 .887 .862 .871 .869 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 02_ANA WEOR AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Orange Avenue Weather: Clear Western Avenue O r a n g e A v e n u e O r a n g e A v e n u e Western Avenue Right 189 Thru 670 Left 111 InOut Total 733 970 1703 R i g h t 1 0 4 T h r u 4 6 6 L e f t 7 1 O u t T o t a l I n 7 6 2 6 4 1 1 4 0 3 Left 225 Thru 553 Right 147 Out TotalIn 910 925 1835 Le f t 76 Th r u 50 4 Ri g h t 16 9 To t a l Ou t In 88 0 7 4 9 1 6 2 9 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 08:00 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 08:00 AM +0 mins.24 182 38 244 17 114 10 141 36 139 29 204 21 113 49 183 +15 mins.23 166 46 235 20 101 10 131 63 118 49 230 18 124 36 178 +30 mins.49 188 70 307 15 119 45 179 68 146 44 258 26 142 47 215 +45 mins.22 151 17 190 19 132 39 190 58 150 25 233 35 137 23 195 Total Volume 118 687 171 976 71 466 104 641 225 553 147 925 100 516 155 771 % App. Total 12.1 70.4 17.5 11.1 72.7 16.2 24.3 59.8 15.9 13 66.9 20.1 PHF .602 .914 .611 .795 .888 .883 .578 .843 .827 .922 .750 .896 .714 .908 .791 .897 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 02_ANA WEOR PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Orange Avenue Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume Western Avenue Southbound Orange Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Orange Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 24 136 24 184 18 97 36 151 13 183 15 211 14 132 16 162 708 04:15 PM 25 118 18 161 18 100 27 145 27 213 21 261 18 125 17 160 727 04:30 PM 17 138 27 182 17 95 28 140 22 198 24 244 20 92 16 128 694 04:45 PM 23 159 29 211 8 109 26 143 28 234 25 287 25 112 24 161 802 Total 89 551 98 738 61 401 117 579 90 828 85 1003 77 461 73 611 2931 05:00 PM 21 149 36 206 14 100 33 147 21 203 27 251 14 106 24 144 748 05:15 PM 18 142 31 191 30 96 20 146 35 229 19 283 24 121 20 165 785 05:30 PM 13 151 26 190 30 126 26 182 27 219 26 272 24 103 18 145 789 05:45 PM 25 159 37 221 26 119 35 180 37 251 17 305 12 80 20 112 818 Total 77 601 130 808 100 441 114 655 120 902 89 1111 74 410 82 566 3140 Grand Total 166 1152 228 1546 161 842 231 1234 210 1730 174 2114 151 871 155 1177 6071 Apprch %10.7 74.5 14.7 13 68.2 18.7 9.9 81.8 8.2 12.8 74 13.2 Total %2.7 19 3.8 25.5 2.7 13.9 3.8 20.3 3.5 28.5 2.9 34.8 2.5 14.3 2.6 19.4 Western Avenue Southbound Orange Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound Orange Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 21 149 36 206 14 100 33 147 21 203 27 251 14 106 24 144 748 05:15 PM 18 142 31 191 30 96 20 146 35 229 19 283 24 121 20 165 785 05:30 PM 13 151 26 190 30 126 26 182 27 219 26 272 24 103 18 145 789 05:45 PM 25 159 37 221 26 119 35 180 37 251 17 305 12 80 20 112 818 Total Volume 77 601 130 808 100 441 114 655 120 902 89 1111 74 410 82 566 3140 % App. Total 9.5 74.4 16.1 15.3 67.3 17.4 10.8 81.2 8 13.1 72.4 14.5 PHF .770 .945 .878 .914 .833 .875 .814 .900 .811 .898 .824 .911 .771 .847 .854 .858 .960 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 02_ANA WEOR PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: Orange Avenue Weather: Clear Western Avenue O r a n g e A v e n u e O r a n g e A v e n u e Western Avenue Right 130 Thru 601 Left 77 InOut Total 1090 808 1898 R i g h t 1 1 4 T h r u 4 4 1 L e f t 1 0 0 O u t T o t a l I n 5 7 6 6 5 5 1 2 3 1 Left 120 Thru 902 Right 89 Out TotalIn 783 1111 1894 Le f t 74 Th r u 41 0 Ri g h t 82 To t a l Ou t In 69 1 5 6 6 1 2 5 7 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins.21 149 36 206 14 100 33 147 21 203 27 251 25 112 24 161 +15 mins.18 142 31 191 30 96 20 146 35 229 19 283 14 106 24 144 +30 mins.13 151 26 190 30 126 26 182 27 219 26 272 24 121 20 165 +45 mins.25 159 37 221 26 119 35 180 37 251 17 305 24 103 18 145 Total Volume 77 601 130 808 100 441 114 655 120 902 89 1111 87 442 86 615 % App. Total 9.5 74.4 16.1 15.3 67.3 17.4 10.8 81.2 8 14.1 71.9 14 PHF .770 .945 .878 .914 .833 .875 .814 .900 .811 .898 .824 .911 .870 .913 .896 .932 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 03_ANA WECE AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: West Cerritos Avenue Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume Western Avenue Southbound West Cerritos Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound West Cerritos Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 9 165 16 190 18 102 8 128 10 75 12 97 10 106 31 147 562 07:15 AM 20 209 22 251 23 139 10 172 11 99 15 125 12 122 23 157 705 07:30 AM 14 165 30 209 26 152 15 193 10 78 11 99 12 119 21 152 653 07:45 AM 19 201 48 268 26 153 17 196 22 140 18 180 20 127 28 175 819 Total 62 740 116 918 93 546 50 689 53 392 56 501 54 474 103 631 2739 08:00 AM 13 166 25 204 17 151 35 203 15 89 15 119 18 118 46 182 708 08:15 AM 29 194 28 251 13 132 24 169 14 118 10 142 27 114 15 156 718 08:30 AM 20 191 33 244 15 100 17 132 12 103 7 122 20 86 24 130 628 08:45 AM 12 169 27 208 23 105 14 142 13 68 17 98 10 96 29 135 583 Total 74 720 113 907 68 488 90 646 54 378 49 481 75 414 114 603 2637 Grand Total 136 1460 229 1825 161 1034 140 1335 107 770 105 982 129 888 217 1234 5376 Apprch %7.5 80 12.5 12.1 77.5 10.5 10.9 78.4 10.7 10.5 72 17.6 Total %2.5 27.2 4.3 33.9 3 19.2 2.6 24.8 2 14.3 2 18.3 2.4 16.5 4 23 Western Avenue Southbound West Cerritos Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound West Cerritos Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 14 165 30 209 26 152 15 193 10 78 11 99 12 119 21 152 653 07:45 AM 19 201 48 268 26 153 17 196 22 140 18 180 20 127 28 175 819 08:00 AM 13 166 25 204 17 151 35 203 15 89 15 119 18 118 46 182 708 08:15 AM 29 194 28 251 13 132 24 169 14 118 10 142 27 114 15 156 718 Total Volume 75 726 131 932 82 588 91 761 61 425 54 540 77 478 110 665 2898 % App. Total 8 77.9 14.1 10.8 77.3 12 11.3 78.7 10 11.6 71.9 16.5 PHF .647 .903 .682 .869 .788 .961 .650 .937 .693 .759 .750 .750 .713 .941 .598 .913 .885 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 03_ANA WECE AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: West Cerritos Avenue Weather: Clear Western Avenue W e s t C e r r i t o s A v e n u e W e s t C e r r i t o s A v e n u e Western Avenue Right 131 Thru 726 Left 75 InOut Total 593 932 1525 R i g h t 9 1 T h r u 5 8 8 L e f t 8 2 O u t T o t a l I n 6 0 7 7 6 1 1 3 6 8 Left 61 Thru 425 Right 54 Out TotalIn 918 540 1458 Le f t 77 Th r u 47 8 Ri g h t 11 0 To t a l Ou t In 78 0 6 6 5 1 4 4 5 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:45 AM 07:15 AM 07:45 AM 07:15 AM +0 mins.19 201 48 268 23 139 10 172 22 140 18 180 12 122 23 157 +15 mins.13 166 25 204 26 152 15 193 15 89 15 119 12 119 21 152 +30 mins.29 194 28 251 26 153 17 196 14 118 10 142 20 127 28 175 +45 mins.20 191 33 244 17 151 35 203 12 103 7 122 18 118 46 182 Total Volume 81 752 134 967 92 595 77 764 63 450 50 563 62 486 118 666 % App. Total 8.4 77.8 13.9 12 77.9 10.1 11.2 79.9 8.9 9.3 73 17.7 PHF .698 .935 .698 .902 .885 .972 .550 .941 .716 .804 .694 .782 .775 .957 .641 .915 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 03_ANA WECE PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: West Cerritos Avenue Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume Western Avenue Southbound West Cerritos Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound West Cerritos Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 17 112 21 150 17 102 20 139 17 207 27 251 26 141 18 185 725 04:15 PM 26 119 13 158 18 98 19 135 23 212 32 267 18 108 32 158 718 04:30 PM 14 116 23 153 20 107 22 149 21 213 28 262 32 147 24 203 767 04:45 PM 22 145 22 189 13 103 12 128 31 245 19 295 35 128 26 189 801 Total 79 492 79 650 68 410 73 551 92 877 106 1075 111 524 100 735 3011 05:00 PM 16 127 19 162 23 135 24 182 25 243 25 293 31 187 29 247 884 05:15 PM 16 128 34 178 21 111 17 149 36 275 20 331 32 146 25 203 861 05:30 PM 22 144 24 190 19 119 20 158 27 240 24 291 27 166 24 217 856 05:45 PM 20 143 21 184 23 106 21 150 34 267 27 328 29 141 17 187 849 Total 74 542 98 714 86 471 82 639 122 1025 96 1243 119 640 95 854 3450 Grand Total 153 1034 177 1364 154 881 155 1190 214 1902 202 2318 230 1164 195 1589 6461 Apprch %11.2 75.8 13 12.9 74 13 9.2 82.1 8.7 14.5 73.3 12.3 Total %2.4 16 2.7 21.1 2.4 13.6 2.4 18.4 3.3 29.4 3.1 35.9 3.6 18 3 24.6 Western Avenue Southbound West Cerritos Avenue Westbound Western Avenue Northbound West Cerritos Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 16 127 19 162 23 135 24 182 25 243 25 293 31 187 29 247 884 05:15 PM 16 128 34 178 21 111 17 149 36 275 20 331 32 146 25 203 861 05:30 PM 22 144 24 190 19 119 20 158 27 240 24 291 27 166 24 217 856 05:45 PM 20 143 21 184 23 106 21 150 34 267 27 328 29 141 17 187 849 Total Volume 74 542 98 714 86 471 82 639 122 1025 96 1243 119 640 95 854 3450 % App. Total 10.4 75.9 13.7 13.5 73.7 12.8 9.8 82.5 7.7 13.9 74.9 11.1 PHF .841 .941 .721 .939 .935 .872 .854 .878 .847 .932 .889 .939 .930 .856 .819 .864 .976 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 03_ANA WECE PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: Western Avenue E/W: West Cerritos Avenue Weather: Clear Western Avenue W e s t C e r r i t o s A v e n u e W e s t C e r r i t o s A v e n u e Western Avenue Right 98 Thru 542 Left 74 InOut Total 1226 714 1940 R i g h t 8 2 T h r u 4 7 1 L e f t 8 6 O u t T o t a l I n 8 1 0 6 3 9 1 4 4 9 Left 122 Thru 1025 Right 96 Out TotalIn 723 1243 1966 Le f t 11 9 Th r u 64 0 Ri g h t 95 To t a l Ou t In 69 1 8 5 4 1 5 4 5 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:45 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins.22 145 22 189 23 135 24 182 25 243 25 293 35 128 26 189 +15 mins.16 127 19 162 21 111 17 149 36 275 20 331 31 187 29 247 +30 mins.16 128 34 178 19 119 20 158 27 240 24 291 32 146 25 203 +45 mins.22 144 24 190 23 106 21 150 34 267 27 328 27 166 24 217 Total Volume 76 544 99 719 86 471 82 639 122 1025 96 1243 125 627 104 856 % App. Total 10.6 75.7 13.8 13.5 73.7 12.8 9.8 82.5 7.7 14.6 73.2 12.1 PHF .864 .938 .728 .946 .935 .872 .854 .878 .847 .932 .889 .939 .893 .838 .897 .866 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 04_ANA BEBA AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: South Beach Boulevard E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume South Beach Boulevard Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Beach Boulevard Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 29 513 24 566 37 133 26 196 18 349 23 390 47 117 53 217 1369 07:15 AM 23 573 42 638 62 161 21 244 21 425 28 474 44 131 50 225 1581 07:30 AM 36 559 25 620 49 152 34 235 58 472 35 565 48 146 49 243 1663 07:45 AM 48 638 43 729 43 167 20 230 46 415 26 487 41 140 49 230 1676 Total 136 2283 134 2553 191 613 101 905 143 1661 112 1916 180 534 201 915 6289 08:00 AM 36 571 45 652 57 182 20 259 54 440 31 525 31 150 52 233 1669 08:15 AM 49 496 44 589 73 202 39 314 38 365 36 439 47 137 41 225 1567 08:30 AM 48 539 47 634 43 116 24 183 32 402 30 464 41 152 36 229 1510 08:45 AM 36 458 31 525 65 139 25 229 50 306 25 381 37 116 41 194 1329 Total 169 2064 167 2400 238 639 108 985 174 1513 122 1809 156 555 170 881 6075 Grand Total 305 4347 301 4953 429 1252 209 1890 317 3174 234 3725 336 1089 371 1796 12364 Apprch %6.2 87.8 6.1 22.7 66.2 11.1 8.5 85.2 6.3 18.7 60.6 20.7 Total %2.5 35.2 2.4 40.1 3.5 10.1 1.7 15.3 2.6 25.7 1.9 30.1 2.7 8.8 3 14.5 South Beach Boulevard Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Beach Boulevard Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 23 573 42 638 62 161 21 244 21 425 28 474 44 131 50 225 1581 07:30 AM 36 559 25 620 49 152 34 235 58 472 35 565 48 146 49 243 1663 07:45 AM 48 638 43 729 43 167 20 230 46 415 26 487 41 140 49 230 1676 08:00 AM 36 571 45 652 57 182 20 259 54 440 31 525 31 150 52 233 1669 Total Volume 143 2341 155 2639 211 662 95 968 179 1752 120 2051 164 567 200 931 6589 % App. Total 5.4 88.7 5.9 21.8 68.4 9.8 8.7 85.4 5.9 17.6 60.9 21.5 PHF .745 .917 .861 .905 .851 .909 .699 .934 .772 .928 .857 .908 .854 .945 .962 .958 .983 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 04_ANA BEBA AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: South Beach Boulevard E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear South Beach Boulevard B a l l R o a d B a l l R o a d South Beach Boulevard Right 155 Thru 2341 Left 143 InOut Total 2011 2639 4650 R i g h t 9 5 T h r u 6 6 2 L e f t 2 1 1 O u t T o t a l I n 8 3 0 9 6 8 1 7 9 8 Left 179 Thru 1752 Right 120 Out TotalIn 2752 2051 4803 Le f t 16 4 Th r u 56 7 Ri g h t 20 0 To t a l Ou t In 99 6 9 3 1 1 9 2 7 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM +0 mins.23 573 42 638 49 152 34 235 21 425 28 474 44 131 50 225 +15 mins.36 559 25 620 43 167 20 230 58 472 35 565 48 146 49 243 +30 mins.48 638 43 729 57 182 20 259 46 415 26 487 41 140 49 230 +45 mins.36 571 45 652 73 202 39 314 54 440 31 525 31 150 52 233 Total Volume 143 2341 155 2639 222 703 113 1038 179 1752 120 2051 164 567 200 931 % App. Total 5.4 88.7 5.9 21.4 67.7 10.9 8.7 85.4 5.9 17.6 60.9 21.5 PHF .745 .917 .861 .905 .760 .870 .724 .826 .772 .928 .857 .908 .854 .945 .962 .958 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 04_ANA BEBA PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: South Beach Boulevard E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume South Beach Boulevard Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Beach Boulevard Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 41 374 28 443 39 114 24 177 60 472 43 575 29 135 44 208 1403 04:15 PM 45 379 34 458 54 148 37 239 57 455 37 549 39 128 42 209 1455 04:30 PM 56 419 44 519 37 137 30 204 61 492 47 600 40 135 35 210 1533 04:45 PM 55 379 43 477 43 176 43 262 53 492 50 595 33 141 35 209 1543 Total 197 1551 149 1897 173 575 134 882 231 1911 177 2319 141 539 156 836 5934 05:00 PM 58 405 29 492 60 146 33 239 42 538 48 628 31 137 35 203 1562 05:15 PM 63 459 40 562 41 161 26 228 60 588 47 695 49 167 35 251 1736 05:30 PM 52 485 36 573 60 162 36 258 43 498 53 594 39 141 29 209 1634 05:45 PM 57 466 49 572 39 154 33 226 58 554 52 664 35 102 24 161 1623 Total 230 1815 154 2199 200 623 128 951 203 2178 200 2581 154 547 123 824 6555 Grand Total 427 3366 303 4096 373 1198 262 1833 434 4089 377 4900 295 1086 279 1660 12489 Apprch %10.4 82.2 7.4 20.3 65.4 14.3 8.9 83.4 7.7 17.8 65.4 16.8 Total %3.4 27 2.4 32.8 3 9.6 2.1 14.7 3.5 32.7 3 39.2 2.4 8.7 2.2 13.3 South Beach Boulevard Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Beach Boulevard Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 58 405 29 492 60 146 33 239 42 538 48 628 31 137 35 203 1562 05:15 PM 63 459 40 562 41 161 26 228 60 588 47 695 49 167 35 251 1736 05:30 PM 52 485 36 573 60 162 36 258 43 498 53 594 39 141 29 209 1634 05:45 PM 57 466 49 572 39 154 33 226 58 554 52 664 35 102 24 161 1623 Total Volume 230 1815 154 2199 200 623 128 951 203 2178 200 2581 154 547 123 824 6555 % App. Total 10.5 82.5 7 21 65.5 13.5 7.9 84.4 7.7 18.7 66.4 14.9 PHF .913 .936 .786 .959 .833 .961 .889 .922 .846 .926 .943 .928 .786 .819 .879 .821 .944 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 04_ANA BEBA PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: South Beach Boulevard E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear South Beach Boulevard B a l l R o a d B a l l R o a d South Beach Boulevard Right 154 Thru 1815 Left 230 InOut Total 2460 2199 4659 R i g h t 1 2 8 T h r u 6 2 3 L e f t 2 0 0 O u t T o t a l I n 9 7 7 9 5 1 1 9 2 8 Left 203 Thru 2178 Right 200 Out TotalIn 2138 2581 4719 Le f t 15 4 Th r u 54 7 Ri g h t 12 3 To t a l Ou t In 98 0 8 2 4 1 8 0 4 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 05:00 PM 04:45 PM 05:00 PM 04:30 PM +0 mins.58 405 29 492 43 176 43 262 42 538 48 628 40 135 35 210 +15 mins.63 459 40 562 60 146 33 239 60 588 47 695 33 141 35 209 +30 mins.52 485 36 573 41 161 26 228 43 498 53 594 31 137 35 203 +45 mins.57 466 49 572 60 162 36 258 58 554 52 664 49 167 35 251 Total Volume 230 1815 154 2199 204 645 138 987 203 2178 200 2581 153 580 140 873 % App. Total 10.5 82.5 7 20.7 65.3 14 7.9 84.4 7.7 17.5 66.4 16 PHF .913 .936 .786 .959 .850 .916 .802 .942 .846 .926 .943 .928 .781 .868 1.000 .870 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 05_ANA KNBA AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: South Knott Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume South Knott Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Knott Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 39 188 36 263 27 134 20 181 13 111 16 140 14 138 23 175 759 07:15 AM 38 190 45 273 35 209 17 261 23 117 47 187 21 164 25 210 931 07:30 AM 38 217 57 312 52 173 27 252 41 139 64 244 29 163 17 209 1017 07:45 AM 36 176 56 268 45 216 28 289 45 160 74 279 35 161 27 223 1059 Total 151 771 194 1116 159 732 92 983 122 527 201 850 99 626 92 817 3766 08:00 AM 43 163 69 275 15 189 35 239 33 130 27 190 31 146 27 204 908 08:15 AM 43 175 43 261 32 231 29 292 30 145 33 208 36 156 32 224 985 08:30 AM 51 233 30 314 24 164 30 218 16 150 19 185 22 148 20 190 907 08:45 AM 43 182 42 267 21 144 36 201 20 108 25 153 24 98 28 150 771 Total 180 753 184 1117 92 728 130 950 99 533 104 736 113 548 107 768 3571 Grand Total 331 1524 378 2233 251 1460 222 1933 221 1060 305 1586 212 1174 199 1585 7337 Apprch %14.8 68.2 16.9 13 75.5 11.5 13.9 66.8 19.2 13.4 74.1 12.6 Total %4.5 20.8 5.2 30.4 3.4 19.9 3 26.3 3 14.4 4.2 21.6 2.9 16 2.7 21.6 South Knott Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Knott Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 38 217 57 312 52 173 27 252 41 139 64 244 29 163 17 209 1017 07:45 AM 36 176 56 268 45 216 28 289 45 160 74 279 35 161 27 223 1059 08:00 AM 43 163 69 275 15 189 35 239 33 130 27 190 31 146 27 204 908 08:15 AM 43 175 43 261 32 231 29 292 30 145 33 208 36 156 32 224 985 Total Volume 160 731 225 1116 144 809 119 1072 149 574 198 921 131 626 103 860 3969 % App. Total 14.3 65.5 20.2 13.4 75.5 11.1 16.2 62.3 21.5 15.2 72.8 12 PHF .930 .842 .815 .894 .692 .876 .850 .918 .828 .897 .669 .825 .910 .960 .805 .960 .937 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 05_ANA KNBA AM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: South Knott Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear South Knott Avenue B a l l R o a d B a l l R o a d South Knott Avenue Right 225 Thru 731 Left 160 InOut Total 824 1116 1940 R i g h t 1 1 9 T h r u 8 0 9 L e f t 1 4 4 O u t T o t a l I n 9 8 4 1 0 7 2 2 0 5 6 Left 149 Thru 574 Right 198 Out TotalIn 978 921 1899 Le f t 13 1 Th r u 62 6 Ri g h t 10 3 To t a l Ou t In 11 8 3 8 6 0 2 0 4 3 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM +0 mins.38 190 45 273 52 173 27 252 41 139 64 244 29 163 17 209 +15 mins.38 217 57 312 45 216 28 289 45 160 74 279 35 161 27 223 +30 mins.36 176 56 268 15 189 35 239 33 130 27 190 31 146 27 204 +45 mins.43 163 69 275 32 231 29 292 30 145 33 208 36 156 32 224 Total Volume 155 746 227 1128 144 809 119 1072 149 574 198 921 131 626 103 860 % App. Total 13.7 66.1 20.1 13.4 75.5 11.1 16.2 62.3 21.5 15.2 72.8 12 PHF .901 .859 .822 .904 .692 .876 .850 .918 .828 .897 .669 .825 .910 .960 .805 .960 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 05_ANA KNBA PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 1 City of Anaheim N/S: South Knott Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear Groups Printed- Total Volume South Knott Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Knott Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 31 143 23 197 27 111 36 174 19 212 47 278 35 149 27 211 860 04:15 PM 33 144 28 205 26 139 39 204 32 187 42 261 36 138 23 197 867 04:30 PM 32 168 26 226 35 143 32 210 26 227 50 303 33 133 14 180 919 04:45 PM 28 139 26 193 26 177 46 249 35 225 33 293 36 161 27 224 959 Total 124 594 103 821 114 570 153 837 112 851 172 1135 140 581 91 812 3605 05:00 PM 43 152 38 233 36 150 46 232 32 262 45 339 40 130 21 191 995 05:15 PM 31 141 29 201 38 179 44 261 33 209 44 286 35 152 20 207 955 05:30 PM 36 149 28 213 27 153 33 213 30 255 38 323 36 149 30 215 964 05:45 PM 31 146 24 201 28 169 43 240 34 199 53 286 33 134 25 192 919 Total 141 588 119 848 129 651 166 946 129 925 180 1234 144 565 96 805 3833 Grand Total 265 1182 222 1669 243 1221 319 1783 241 1776 352 2369 284 1146 187 1617 7438 Apprch %15.9 70.8 13.3 13.6 68.5 17.9 10.2 75 14.9 17.6 70.9 11.6 Total %3.6 15.9 3 22.4 3.3 16.4 4.3 24 3.2 23.9 4.7 31.8 3.8 15.4 2.5 21.7 South Knott Avenue Southbound Ball Road Westbound South Knott Avenue Northbound Ball Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 28 139 26 193 26 177 46 249 35 225 33 293 36 161 27 224 959 05:00 PM 43 152 38 233 36 150 46 232 32 262 45 339 40 130 21 191 995 05:15 PM 31 141 29 201 38 179 44 261 33 209 44 286 35 152 20 207 955 05:30 PM 36 149 28 213 27 153 33 213 30 255 38 323 36 149 30 215 964 Total Volume 138 581 121 840 127 659 169 955 130 951 160 1241 147 592 98 837 3873 % App. Total 16.4 69.2 14.4 13.3 69 17.7 10.5 76.6 12.9 17.6 70.7 11.7 PHF .802 .956 .796 .901 .836 .920 .918 .915 .929 .907 .889 .915 .919 .919 .817 .934 .973 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 File Name : 05_ANA KNBA PM Site Code : Start Date : 10/10/2017 Page No : 2 City of Anaheim N/S: South Knott Avenue E/W: Ball Road Weather: Clear South Knott Avenue B a l l R o a d B a l l R o a d South Knott Avenue Right 121 Thru 581 Left 138 InOut Total 1267 840 2107 R i g h t 1 6 9 T h r u 6 5 9 L e f t 1 2 7 O u t T o t a l I n 8 9 0 9 5 5 1 8 4 5 Left 130 Thru 951 Right 160 Out TotalIn 806 1241 2047 Le f t 14 7 Th r u 59 2 Ri g h t 98 To t a l Ou t In 91 0 8 3 7 1 7 4 7 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM Total Volume Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:15 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins.33 144 28 205 26 177 46 249 35 225 33 293 36 161 27 224 +15 mins.32 168 26 226 36 150 46 232 32 262 45 339 40 130 21 191 +30 mins.28 139 26 193 38 179 44 261 33 209 44 286 35 152 20 207 +45 mins.43 152 38 233 27 153 33 213 30 255 38 323 36 149 30 215 Total Volume 136 603 118 857 127 659 169 955 130 951 160 1241 147 592 98 837 % App. Total 15.9 70.4 13.8 13.3 69 17.7 10.5 76.6 12.9 17.6 70.7 11.7 PHF .791 .897 .776 .920 .836 .920 .918 .915 .929 .907 .889 .915 .919 .919 .817 .934 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 Page 1 City of Anaheim Ball Road E/ Western Avenue 24 Hour Directional Volume Count ANA002 Site Code: 141-17730 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: (951) 268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Start 11/2/2017 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thu Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 24 174 9 41 12:15 29 166 5 88 12:30 15 188 15 78 12:45 14 151 82 679 2 109 31 316 113 995 01:00 11 171 13 78 01:15 14 168 7 67 01:30 5 185 10 115 01:45 10 192 40 716 0 79 30 339 70 1055 02:00 8 220 6 115 02:15 6 243 7 108 02:30 9 263 14 185 02:45 9 276 32 1002 1 68 28 476 60 1478 03:00 9 235 5 95 03:15 10 258 14 87 03:30 12 235 23 12 03:45 14 260 45 988 3 29 45 223 90 1211 04:00 24 251 33 46 04:15 31 233 45 94 04:30 23 220 43 50 04:45 34 253 112 957 39 165 160 355 272 1312 05:00 32 232 58 121 05:15 51 257 112 200 05:30 70 202 158 137 05:45 81 246 234 937 133 95 461 553 695 1490 06:00 97 185 136 60 06:15 125 230 171 39 06:30 121 198 266 60 06:45 192 167 535 780 239 32 812 191 1347 971 07:00 195 151 291 15 07:15 254 136 280 16 07:30 280 144 299 79 07:45 234 117 963 548 203 45 1073 155 2036 703 08:00 169 104 281 7 08:15 158 86 216 20 08:30 141 107 232 38 08:45 124 109 592 406 159 62 888 127 1480 533 09:00 96 109 114 14 09:15 122 100 147 86 09:30 117 86 146 67 09:45 110 96 445 391 133 43 540 210 985 601 10:00 114 66 119 46 10:15 117 65 134 45 10:30 130 63 94 27 10:45 127 49 488 243 148 32 495 150 983 393 11:00 123 38 127 21 11:15 172 22 94 11 11:30 164 25 38 14 11:45 161 27 620 112 86 29 345 75 965 187 Total 4188 7759 4188 7759 4908 3170 4908 3170 9096 10929 Combined Total 11947 11947 8078 8078 20025 AM Peak - 07:00 - - - 06:45 - - - - - Vol. - 963 - - - 1109 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.860 0.927 PM Peak - - 02:30 - - - 04:45 - - - - Vol. - - 1032 - - - 623 - - - - P.H.F. 0.935 0.779 Percentag e 35.1% 64.9% 60.8% 39.2% ADT/AADT ADT 20,025 AADT 20,025 Page 1 City of Anaheim Ball Road W/ Western Avenue 24 Hour Directional Volume Count ANA001 Site Code: 141-17730 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Start 02-Nov-17 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thu Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 18 186 21 133 12:15 27 145 19 160 12:30 16 164 18 145 12:45 16 140 77 635 6 153 64 591 141 1226 01:00 10 167 15 165 01:15 13 148 13 148 01:30 7 175 17 182 01:45 14 187 44 677 9 188 54 683 98 1360 02:00 8 189 12 187 02:15 5 243 8 184 02:30 9 250 13 179 02:45 10 229 32 911 11 172 44 722 76 1633 03:00 9 225 13 184 03:15 9 217 11 206 03:30 11 227 10 183 03:45 14 236 43 905 12 177 46 750 89 1655 04:00 23 234 15 206 04:15 27 199 27 171 04:30 26 213 32 194 04:45 32 235 108 881 25 238 99 809 207 1690 05:00 41 238 37 208 05:15 51 236 47 241 05:30 64 190 75 252 05:45 70 225 226 889 76 212 235 913 461 1802 06:00 105 167 102 181 06:15 153 201 139 158 06:30 154 177 177 158 06:45 209 161 621 706 190 154 608 651 1229 1357 07:00 240 159 286 103 07:15 301 124 282 111 07:30 326 141 222 132 07:45 253 114 1120 538 162 95 952 441 2072 979 08:00 183 116 170 87 08:15 150 103 158 82 08:30 136 93 188 86 08:45 124 93 593 405 134 78 650 333 1243 738 09:00 125 112 134 86 09:15 126 92 135 81 09:30 127 79 143 75 09:45 107 79 485 362 129 65 541 307 1026 669 10:00 130 74 139 58 10:15 126 57 131 67 10:30 144 63 134 49 10:45 121 48 521 242 138 46 542 220 1063 462 11:00 129 35 143 38 11:15 154 37 148 40 11:30 150 22 127 30 11:45 151 26 584 120 153 28 571 136 1155 256 Total 4454 7271 4454 7271 4406 6556 4406 6556 8860 13827 Combined Total 11725 11725 10962 10962 22687 AM Peak - 07:00 - - - 06:45 - - - - - Vol. - 1120 - - - 980 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.859 0.857 PM Peak - - 02:15 - - - 04:45 - - - - Vol. - - 947 - - - 939 - - - - P.H.F. 0.947 0.932 Percentag e 38.0% 62.0% 40.2% 59.8% ADT/AADT ADT 22,687 AADT 22,687 Page 1 City of Anaheim Western Avenue N/ Ball Road 24 Hour Directional Volume Count ANA003 Site Code: 141-17730 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Start 02-Nov-17 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thu Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 22 206 22 206 12:15 20 201 20 201 12:30 13 182 13 182 12:45 12 154 67 743 12 154 67 743 134 1486 01:00 10 203 10 203 01:15 9 225 9 225 01:30 10 210 10 210 01:45 14 203 43 841 14 203 43 841 86 1682 02:00 5 211 5 211 02:15 9 235 9 235 02:30 8 204 8 204 02:45 12 295 34 945 12 295 34 945 68 1890 03:00 11 258 11 258 03:15 5 291 5 291 03:30 13 371 13 371 03:45 12 326 41 1246 12 326 41 1246 82 2492 04:00 11 342 11 342 04:15 32 308 32 308 04:30 34 342 34 342 04:45 28 280 105 1272 28 280 105 1272 210 2544 05:00 38 328 38 328 05:15 54 292 54 292 05:30 65 338 65 338 05:45 56 277 213 1235 56 277 213 1235 426 2470 06:00 81 295 81 295 06:15 114 285 114 285 06:30 104 248 104 248 06:45 121 275 420 1103 121 275 420 1103 840 2206 07:00 199 225 199 225 07:15 234 193 234 193 07:30 168 156 168 156 07:45 180 123 781 697 180 123 781 697 1562 1394 08:00 127 161 127 161 08:15 99 97 99 97 08:30 103 126 103 126 08:45 85 99 414 483 85 99 414 483 828 966 09:00 98 121 98 121 09:15 96 72 96 72 09:30 100 78 100 78 09:45 98 83 392 354 98 83 392 354 784 708 10:00 89 72 89 72 10:15 109 65 109 65 10:30 130 60 130 60 10:45 104 43 432 240 104 43 432 240 864 480 11:00 108 45 108 45 11:15 143 38 143 38 11:30 159 31 159 31 11:45 166 33 576 147 166 33 576 147 1152 294 Total 3518 9306 3518 9306 3518 9306 3518 9306 7036 18612 Combined Total 12824 12824 12824 12824 25648 AM Peak - 07:00 - - - 07:00 - - - - - Vol. - 781 - - - 781 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.834 0.834 PM Peak - - 03:30 - - - 03:30 - - - - Vol. - - 1347 - - - 1347 - - - - P.H.F. 0.908 0.908 Percentag e 27.4% 72.6% 27.4% 72.6% ADT/AADT ADT 25,648 AADT 25,648 Page 1 City of Anaheim Western Avenue S/ Ball Road 24 Hour Directional Volume Count ANA004 Site Code: 141-17730 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Start 02-Nov-17 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thu Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 25 203 7 123 12:15 23 203 7 110 12:30 6 208 4 117 12:45 10 174 64 788 8 119 26 469 90 1257 01:00 8 219 5 128 01:15 13 243 6 142 01:30 12 231 7 154 01:45 11 237 44 930 6 123 24 547 68 1477 02:00 8 250 2 147 02:15 10 235 8 159 02:30 8 226 9 219 02:45 13 319 39 1030 4 168 23 693 62 1723 03:00 14 281 6 182 03:15 9 327 11 167 03:30 9 370 21 191 03:45 19 360 51 1338 10 188 48 728 99 2066 04:00 10 368 27 191 04:15 31 325 45 214 04:30 25 353 39 202 04:45 27 325 93 1371 39 234 150 841 243 2212 05:00 36 310 66 229 05:15 44 313 109 251 05:30 63 339 140 212 05:45 57 310 200 1272 103 172 418 864 618 2136 06:00 77 301 119 162 06:15 93 324 153 176 06:30 90 264 212 145 06:45 119 250 379 1139 185 122 669 605 1048 1744 07:00 169 230 219 120 07:15 198 219 243 112 07:30 118 143 241 87 07:45 160 131 645 723 220 78 923 397 1568 1120 08:00 101 158 226 76 08:15 106 116 156 71 08:30 82 129 121 67 08:45 89 110 378 513 114 78 617 292 995 805 09:00 84 125 93 56 09:15 78 69 94 66 09:30 87 75 100 60 09:45 85 90 334 359 86 51 373 233 707 592 10:00 84 64 80 60 10:15 103 66 115 36 10:30 109 53 83 31 10:45 101 38 397 221 105 23 383 150 780 371 11:00 104 47 94 27 11:15 181 38 109 24 11:30 183 36 80 17 11:45 179 25 647 146 102 25 385 93 1032 239 Total 3271 9830 3271 9830 4039 5912 4039 5912 7310 15742 Combined Total 13101 13101 9951 9951 23052 AM Peak - 11:00 - - - 07:15 - - - - - Vol. - 647 - - - 930 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.817 0.957 PM Peak - - 03:15 - - - 04:45 - - - - Vol. - - 1425 - - - 926 - - - - P.H.F. 0.963 0.922 Percentag e 25.0% 75.0% 40.6% 59.4% ADT/AADT ADT 23,052 AADT 23,052 APPENDIX B OCTA ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES Appendix J Tribal Cultural Resources Consultation Correspondence City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Matias Belardes Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes 32161 Avenida Los Amigos San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Matias Belardes: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 rsuant to Senate Bill 18 and Government Code 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Angela Elliot Santos Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation P.O. Box 1302 Boulevard, CA 91905 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Angela Elliot Santos: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 Code 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritag notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Erica Pinto Jamul Indian Village P.O. Box 612 Jamul, CA 91935 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Erica Pinto: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning es to be notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Robert Pinto Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office 4054 Willows Road Alpine, CA 91901 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Robert Pinto: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning list of tribes to be notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Andrew Salas Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Andrew Salas: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Co notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Anthony Morales Gabrieleno / Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Anthony Morales: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 nd Government Code 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native Am notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Charles Alvarez Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA 91307 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Charles Alvarez: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 .3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commissi notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Robert Dorame Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, CA 90707 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Robert Dorame: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 ernment Code 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Sandonne Goad Gabrielino / Tongva Nation 106 ½ Judge John Aiso Street #231 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Sandonne Goad: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 Code 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Herita notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Sonia Johnston Juaneno Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Sonia Johnston: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commissio notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Teresa Romero Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Romero 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Teresa Romero: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 to Senate Bill 18 and Government Code 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Donna Yocum San Fernando Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 221838 Newhall, CA 91322 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Donna Yocum: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commission (N notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Allen E. Lawson San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Allen E. Lawson: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Com notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Cody J. Martinez Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 1 Kwaaypaay Court El Cajon, CA 92019 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Cody J. Martinez: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 65352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Co notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Gwendolyn Parada La Posta Band of Mission Indians 8 Crestwood Road Boulevard, CA 91905 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Gwendolyn Parada: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 352.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commi notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Javaughn Miller La Posta Band of Mission Indians 8 Crestwood Road Boulevard, CA 91905 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Javaughn Miller: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 52.3, local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commis notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Michael Garcia Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office 4054 Willow Road Alpine, CA 91901 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Michael Garcia: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Ralph Goff Campo Band of Mission Indians 36190 Church Road, Suite 1 Campo, CA 91906 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Ralph Goff: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commission ( notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net June 8, 2018 Robert Welch Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 1 Viejas Grade Road Alpine, CA 91901 Re: Ball Western Apartments Project in the City of Anaheim Notification per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Dear Robert Welch: The City of Anaheim has initiated the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ball Road Apartment Project located on 0.36 acres at 3175 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County (see enclosed map of the project site). The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress to the parking garage would be from a one-way driveway off Ball Road, and egress from a one-way driveway onto Western Avenue. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial-General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. This project would require a General Plan Amendment, zoning reclassification, and conditional use permit approvals. Page 2 of 3 local Native American tribes must be notified of any General Plan Amendment request for the purpose of offering a consultation to protect any cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. Your tribe is on the Native American Heritage Commission (N notified for Orange County. Your tribal group is invited to contact the City of Anaheim and participate in SB 18 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. If your tribal group wishes to consult with the City about any cultural resources located in the project area, please contact me within the next 90 days. Apart from a cultural resource consultation, please also contact me if you would like to be notified of public hearings for the proposed project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 714-765-5238 or irincon@anaheim.net. Sincerely, Ignacio Rincon Associate Planner Page 3 of 3 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net April 14, 2020 Scott Cozart, Chairperson Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians P. O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92583 Phone: (951) 654 - 2765 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Subject: AB 52 Consultation for Ball Western Apartments Project Dear Mr. Cozart: Thank you for your interest in proposed development projects in the City of Anaheim. The City is in receipt of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians request, pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 52 and Section 21080.3.1 (d) of the Public Resources Code, for formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with your tribe. This notification is for the purpose of extending the opportunity to request a consultation to protect any tribal cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building located at 3175 West Ball Road, consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress and egress to the parking garage would be from a driveway off Ball Road. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial- General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. Please contact me within 30 days of receipt of this letter if you would like additional information about this project or would like to consult with the City of Anaheim about any tribal cultural resources located within the project area. I can be reached at 714-765- 5238 or auk@anaheim.net. Sincerel y, Andy Uk Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 Project Location Ball Western Apartments City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net April 14, 2020 Charles Alvarez Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA, 91307 Phone: (310) 403 - 6048 roadkingcharles@aol.com Subject: AB 52 Consultation for Ball Western Apartments Project Dear Mr. Alvarez: Thank you for your interest in proposed development projects in the City of Anaheim. The City is in receipt of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe request, pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 52 and Section 21080.3.1 (d) of the Public Resources Code, for formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with your tribe. This notification is for the purpose of extending the opportunity to request a consultation to protect any tribal cultural resources that may exist in the planning area. The Applicant proposes an 11-unit, 3-story apartment building located at 3175 West Ball Road, consisting of a parking garage on the ground floor with 28 parking spaces, and two residential stories above. There would be all two-bedroom units (876 to 914 square feet). Vehicular ingress and egress to the parking garage would be from a driveway off Ball Road. Project amenities include an interior common court area and a recreation room. The site was formerly an E-Z Serve Station. Three gasoline and one waste oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in 1988, and it was found to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbon contamination into the soil. Remediation activities were performed on the site as detailed in the Case Closure Summary. The case was closed in 2012, with the requirement that a vapor human health risk assessment be performed if there is a change in land use to a residential or more restrictive use than the Commercial- General designation. A vapor human health risk assessment was completed in 2017. Please contact me within 30 days of receipt of this letter if you would like additional information about this project or would like to consult with the City of Anaheim about any tribal cultural resources located within the project area. I can be reached at 714-765- 5238 or auk@anaheim.net. Sincerel y, Andy Uk Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 Project Location Ball Western Apartments GABRIELEÑO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS KIZH NATION Historically known as The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the Council of Elders PO Box 393, Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians.org gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 200 S. Anaheim, CA 92805 July 2, 2018 Re: SB 18 Consultation (Government Code Section 65352.3) Ball Western Apartments Project Dear Ignacio Rincon, Please find this letter as a written request for consultation regarding the above-mentioned project pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Government Code Section 65352.3. Your project lies within our ancestral tribal territory, meaning descending from, a higher degree of kinship than traditional or cultural affiliation. Your project is located within a sensitive area and may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of our tribal cultural resources. Most often, a records search for our tribal cultural resou historians, and professional archaeologists can only provide limited information that has been previously documented about California Native Tribes. This is the reason the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will always refer the lead agency to the respective Native American Tribe of the area because the NAHC is only aware of general information and are not the experts on each California Tribe. Our Elder Committee & tribal historians are the experts for our Tribe and are able to provide a more complete history (both written and oral) regarding the location of historic villages, trade routes, cemeteries and sacred/religious sites in the project area. Therefore, to avoid adverse effects to our tribal cultural resources, we would like to consult with you and your staff to provide you with a more complete understanding of the prehistoric use(s) of the project area and the potential risks for causing a substantial adverse change to the significance of our tribal cultural resources. Consultation appointments are available on Wednesdays and Thursdays at our offices at 901 N. Citrus Ave. Covina, CA 91722 or over the phone. Please call toll free 1-844-390-0787 or email gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com to schedule an appointment. With Respect, Andrew Salas, Chairman Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program #371 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project (Development Project No. 2016-00074) Prepared for: City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Contact: Andy Uk, Associate Planner Prepared by: 27372 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Contact: Collin Ramsey, Project Manager AUGUST 2020 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 9289.0003 i August 2020 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TABLE ................................................................. 2 TABLES 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist ...................................................................................2 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 ii August 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK <Project Number> 1 <Month Year> 1 Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented after project approval. The lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the mitigation measures incorporated into a project or included as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with the MND during project implementation (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(a)(1)). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Anaheim to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures identified in the MND for the proposed 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project (Proposed Project) when construction begins. The City of Anaheim, as the lead agency, will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are carried out. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems. The remainder of this MMRP consists of a table that identifies the mitigation measures by resource for each project component. Table 1 identifies the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, including the entity(s) responsible for verifying implementation of the mitigation measure, timing of verification (prior to, during, or after construction), and responsible party. Space is provided for sign-off following completion/implementation of the mitigation measure. Along with the MND and related documents, this MMRP will be kept on file at the following location: City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 <Project Number> 2 <Month Year> 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Biological Resources MM-BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, and/or building permit for activities during the avian nesting season (i.e., February 1 and September 1), the property owner/developer shall submit a survey for active nests to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department conducted by a qualified biologist a maximum of 1 week prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project Site. The nesting bird survey shall consist of full coverage of the project footprint and an appropriate buffer, as determined by the biologist. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) shall be established around any active nest. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field by the biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the City of Anaheim within 5 days after the survey. Submittal/ review of nesting bird survey X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department Cultural Resources MM-CUL-1 If skeletal remains are uncovered during construction activities, all work shall stop immediately and the construction supervisor in charge at the Project Site shall notify the County Coroner of the find immediately, in conformance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall N/A X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 3 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date notify a most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials subject to City approval. Geology and Soils MM-GEO-1 The property owner/developer shall implement all recommendations in the approved Geotechnical Investigation report for the Proposed Project during site preparation, grading, and construction, and compliance with the approved Geotechnical Investigation shall be verified in the field by a qualified representative. The property owner/developer shall demonstrate to the City of Anaheim’s Planning & Building Department and/or Public Works Department staff that all or equivalent recommendations in the Preliminary Soil Investigation, Liquefaction Evaluation and Infiltration Test Report. Proposed Two- Story Apartment Complex with Partial Subterranean Parking, 3175 W. Ball Road, City of Anaheim, California, prepared by Soil Exploration Company, Inc. September 12, 2016, or any updates to that report have been incorporated into the Proposed Project’s design and grading plans. Submittal/ review of statement of verification by qualified representative X X City of Anaheim Public Works Department Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM-HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a site-specific Health and Safety Plan to the Planning and Building Department. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall require that the property owner/developer include the following instructions to its construction contractor: “The construction contractor shall use a photoionization detector (PID) to regularly inspect the exposed soil for evidence of any contamination.” These instructions shall be included on all plans pertaining to subsurface construction activities for the Proposed Project. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall identify air monitoring action levels based on the benzene Cal-OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) to protect worker health and safety. The site- specific Health and Safety Plan shall note measures to be taken if air Submittal/ review of site- specific Health and Safety Plan to the Planning and Building Department X X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 4 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date monitoring in the breathing zone of site workers indicates concentrations above the action levels. These measures could include the use of personal protective equipment, including air purifying respirators, or engineering controls, as well as site perimeter monitoring. MM-HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that if potential contamination indicators are identified during excavation based on visual observations and/or air monitoring the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons may be stained or odorous. Stained soil may have bluish to dark gray discoloration. Discoloration may remain even after the product has naturally degraded. If suspect petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils are observed during excavation, the soil will be segregated and evaluated. Evaluation will include collection of samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis. The number of samples to be collected will be based on potential disposal facility requirements. If concentrations of TPH and VOCs are below direct exposure human health soil screening levels (Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels), then the soil may remain on-site. If the concentrations exceed the screening levels, then the soil will be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. Visually screening the soil will be accompanied by air monitoring using a photoionization detector (PID) or other organic vapor analyzer. In accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations (specifically Rule 1166), VOC-contaminated soil, if identified at the Project Site during excavation activities, will be properly managed. VOC-contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, consis ts of soil with concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using a PID calibrated with hexane. If volatile organics are measured at concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater when measured within 3 inches of the soil using Submittal/ review of plans; Submittal/ review of statement indicating whether contamination indicators were identified during excavation and if so, submittal/ review of a memorandum or report summarizing how soil was evaluated and/or removed from site. X X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 5 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date a PID calibrated with hexane, then the excavation, stockpile management, and agency notification shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1166. If identified, VOC-contaminated soil, as defined in Rule 1166, shall be removed from the Project Site and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. MM-HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department notes on plans that indicate that during construction, should groundwater be encountered and require extraction, any extracted groundwater will be managed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction dewatering, in accordance with existing regulations. The NPDES permit will require monitoring of volatile organic compound concentrations in the extracted groundwater per the Monitoring and Reporting Program developed at the time of issuance of a NPDES permit. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a memorandum or report indicating whether construction dewatering was requiring during site preparation and grading. If construction dewatering is necessary, the Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall identify whether effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations. The Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. If the effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations, the Planning and Building Department shall require that the property owner/developer retain a qualified environmental professional to reevaluate the potential human health risk under the residential scenario based on the effluent VOC concentrations at the end of dewatering. If the qualified environmental consultant determines that the potential human health risk under the residential scenario exceeds de minimis thresholds of one in a million for cancer risk or the non-cancer hazard index risk value of 1.0, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for informing the Submittal/ review of a memorandum or report indicating whether construction dewatering was requiring during site preparation and grading. If construction dewatering is necessary, the Monitoring and Reporting Program and memorandum or report shall identify whether effluent concentrations at the end of dewatering increased compared to the initial concentrations. 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 6 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date Planning and Building Department and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in writing of the discovery. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for coordinating with the qualified environmental consultant to ensure that the vapor mitigation noted in Mitigation Measure (MM-) HAZ-4 is designed to sufficiently mitigate vapor impacts to human health and safety of future occupants at the Project Site. MM-HAZ-4 Prior to the issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department, showing that the property owner/developer has incorporated at least one of following options into the Proposed Project: • Option A: Limiting vapor intrusion into future residences through use of a well-ventilated ground-level garage that is not intended for human occupation; or • Option B: Installation of a sub-slab liner/passive ventilation to limit vapor intrusion to the future residences. Submittal/ review of statement of plans to the Planning and Building Department Noise MM-NOI-1 Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the property owner/developer and/or its construction contractor, shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department with notes indicating compliance with the following measures during construction: 1. Construction activities shall be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. In the event that construction is required to extend beyond these times, extended hours permits shall be required. 2. Pumps and associated equipment (e.g., portable generators) shall be shielded from sensitive uses using local temporary noise barriers or enclosures, or shall otherwise be designed or configured so as to minimize noise at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. 3. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any noise- or vibration-sensitive land uses. Submittal/ review of grading/ construction plans X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 7 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date 4. All noise-producing equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers; air-inlet silencers where appropriate; and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. 5. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used for the Project that are regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall be in compliance with regulations. 6. Idling equipment shall be kept to a minimum and moved as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. 7. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where feasible. 8. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. 9. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be used for safety warning purposes only. MM-NOI-2 Prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the Planning and Building Department that effective communication with local residents will be maintained prior to and during construction. Specifically, the property owner/developer or their representative shall inform local residents of the schedule, duration, and progress of the construction. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall provide residents contact information for noise- or vibration-related complaints. Evidence of compliance may include copies of letters and mailing lists for adjacent property owners and residents, photographs of posting of information on site, or any other such information as deemed compliant by the Planning and Building Director and/or his/her designee. Submittal/ review of evidence of compliance City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 8 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date MM-NOI-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit final design plans, to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, specifying that windows in habitable rooms will have the following minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings: • Windows with northern and eastern-facing exposures: 19 STC or greater • Windows with southern and western-facing exposures: 25 STC or greater Submittal/ review of final design plans City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department Tribal Cultural Resources MM-TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any grading and/or construction activity, the property owner/developer shall retain a Native American Monitor and a copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the Project Site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the property owner/developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or Submittal/ review of brief letter report of excavations and findings X City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 9 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Utilities and Service Systems MM-UTL-1 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the property owner/developer shall submit Project plans and a Solid Waste Management Plan to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim to the maximum extent feasible, which shall be determined by the Streets and Sanitation Division. Implementation of said plans shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: Submittal/ review of proof of Project Plans, Submission of Solid Waste Management plan for approval X City of Anaheim Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 10 August 2020 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measure No. Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Party Completed Comments Pre Const. During Const. Post Cost. Initials Date • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM #371 9289.0003 11 August 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Responses to Comments, and Errata 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project (Development Project No. 2016-00074) Prepared for: City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Contact: Andy Uk, Associate Planner Prepared by: 27372 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Contact: Collin Ramsey, Senior Planner AUGUST 2020 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 9289.0003 i August 2020 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 3 3 ERRATA ................................................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES A Comment Letters TABLES 1 Comment Letter Summary ..................................................................................................................................1 2 Development Standards ......................................................................................................................................5 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 ii August 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9289.0003 1 August 2020 1 Introduction An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the proposed 3175 West Ball Road Apartments Project (Proposed Project) and made available for public comment for a 33-day public review period from July 9, 2020, through August 10, 2020. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15074(b) (14 CCR 15074(b)), before approving the Proposed Project, the City of Anaheim (City), as the lead agency under CEQA, will consider the IS/MND with any comments received during this public review period. Specifically, Section 15074(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15074(b)) states the following: Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. The individuals who provided substantive written comments on the environmental issues addressed in the Draft IS/MND are listed in Table 1. Although CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) do not explicitly require a lead agency to provide written responses to comments received on an IS/MND, the lead agency may do so voluntarily as part of a Final IS/MND. Individual comments within each communication are numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Comment letters received during the public review period are included in Appendix A of this Final IS/MND. Table 1 Comment Letter Summary Letter Number Commenter Date 1 Calvin Kuo July 19, 2020 2 Mark Barnes July 19, 2020 Responses to comments are made in the following text to supplement, clarify, or expand on information already presented in the Draft IS/MND. These responses do not change the significance determinations made or the severity of potential environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft IS/MND. Section 15073.5(c)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15073.5(c)(4)) permits the inclusion of new information within an IS/MND if the additional information “merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.” 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 2 August 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9289.0003 3 August 2020 2 Responses to Comments Comment Letter 1: Calvin Kuo Comment 1-1 Comment The comment states the following: I am Calvin Kuo and a resident on Donovan Ranch Road that is right next to 3175 Ball Road apartments. I am concerned about the current blueprint for the parking spaces and unit amount. Donovan Ranch Road already deals with other residents parking on our street and I am worried about the people from 3175 Ball Road apartments parking on our street too. I've seen the blueprint for the building and the parking structure. There are 11 units and 27 parking spaces, 1 for handicap parking. I am worried about the people parking on the street next to our building. Response This comment expresses a concern with regard to the provision of parking supplied by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would include a 27-space parking garage on the ground floor. This provision of parking is consistent with the parking requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code which requires 2.25 spaces for each 2- bedroom unit, 2 spaces for each 1-bedroom unit, and .25 spaces per unit for guest parking. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required as a result of this comment and the Draft IS/MND’s analysis is adequate as provided. Comment 1-2 Comment The comment states the following: There is a red line curb, which sometimes people park, and it makes it very dangerous for us to turn onto the street. One time I almost had an accident even after waiting for few seconds. The vision just isn't there if more people are parking on the western street. I am also worried about the people turning their car out of the 3175 ball road apartments. I think running a collision history report of the intersection would help gain more insight and perhaps make adjustments to either the unit amount or parking space amount. As I was driving home from Ball (east) and making a right turn onto Western (north), I realized the people driving out of 3175 Ball Road will barely have any visibility as they come out. They will certainly have to make a turn base on faith and hope they don't get hit. What makes matter worse is that the people driving on Ball (east) will want to switch to right lane for the right turn onto Western (north). This will cause a lot of issues and potential accidents. I ask that all this potential issue be considered and addressed. 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 4 August 2020 Response This comment expresses a concern with potential safety hazards resulting from vehicles parking along Western Avenue (which might obscure sight lines) as well as hazards resulting from vehicles exiting the Proposed Project’s driveway on Ball Road. As the commenter correctly states, parking is prohibited adjacent to the Project Site’s boundaries on Ball Road and Western Avenue and would continue to be prohibited after completion of the Proposed Project. If vehicles are illegally parked in these areas, local residents are encouraged to contact the Anaheim Police Department’s non- emergency line so that an officer can cite and tow illegally parked vehicles, which can present safety hazards to the public. While it cannot be definitively stated that illegal parking would not occur throughout the life of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project would meet the parking requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code, thereby greatly reducing the potential for future occupants of the Proposed Project to illegally park and create hazardous roadway conditions. Additionally, should one of the future Project occupant’s vehicle be parked illegally, residents would be encouraged to alert the Anaheim Police Department. With regard to hazards resulting from turn movements of vehicles exiting the Proposed Project’s driveways, Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Draft IS/MND acknowledges the proximity of the Proposed Project’s driveway to intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue. The Draft IS/MND states that given the limited space between the Proposed Project’s driveway and the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue, vehicles exiting the Project Site will not be permitted to cross Ball Road to access eastbound lanes of Ball Road. As such, the Proposed Project would include the installation of signage at this driveway to indicate clearly to vehicles exiting the Project Site that only right turns are permitted. The Project Applicant would design these on-site and adjacent improvements in accordance with all applicable design standards set forth by the City, which it established to ensure safe and efficient vehicular circulation on City roadway facilities. The Proposed Project’s driveway would constructed to City standards and comply with City width, clearance, and turning-radius requirements. In addition, the City’s Traffic Engineering Department has reviewed all site plans and determined that adequate line-of-sight is provided at all driveways, making sure that no structures or landscaping block the views of vehicles entering and exiting a site. As such, impacts associated with potential hazardous design features or incompatible land uses would be less than significant. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required as a result of this comment and the Draft IS/MND’s analysis is adequate as provided. Comment Letter 2: Mark Barnes Comment 2-1 Comment The comment states the following: I am a resident on Donovan Ranch Road and I am very concerned and opposed to the 3175 Ball Road Apartments. The proposed plan is already squeezing the building beyond the required landscape and interior structural measurements. This should be a red flag that the building is too big and has too many units for how small the lot is. 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 5 August 2020 One of my main concerns with the proposed plan is parking. If there were 11 units for the building, will there be an underground parking garage to accommodate 22 parking spaces? As a resident in Donovan ranch, we already deal with local apartment residents parking on our street. There is already a shortage of parking spots and every night and weekend when there is no parking citations enforced, there are cars from the local apartments along the red curbs along Western and Donovan Ranch Rd. ( I live on the corner, I see it all the time). Response This comment expresses a concern with the Proposed Project’s size and density, stating that the Proposed Project is too large for the Project Site, noting that the Proposed Project would require approval of reduced landscape and interior structural setbacks. The comment also expresses a concern that the Proposed Project’s size and density would have a detrimental effect on the availability of parking in the area. With regard to the comment’s concern about the availability of parking, please refer to response to comment 1-1 and 2-1. In terms of the comments related to the size and density of the Proposed Project, as well as the request administrative adjustments, Municipal Code Chapter 18.06, Multiple-Family Residential, sets forth various requirements pertaining to development within the RM-4 Zone, including minimum lot size, dimensions, and coverage; maximum density, height, and setbacks; and landscape coverage. The Proposed Project would comply with these development standards, with the exception of two development standards relating to landscape setbacks adjacent to an arterial highway and interior structural setbacks. As shown in Table 2, Development Standards, even with the Proposed Project’s requested Administrative Adjustment, the Proposed Project’s site plan would still include a building footprint that contains fewer square feet than what is allowed, more landscaped area than what is required, and a lot coverage ratio that is lesser that what is allowed for the site. As such, even with approval of the Proposed Project’s Administrative adjustment, the City has determined that the Proposed Project’s size and density would be consistent with the purpose, intent, and development provisions for the RM-4 Zone. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required as a result of this comment and the Draft IS/MND’s analysis is adequate as provided. Table 2 Development Standards Development Standard Required/Allowed Provided Building Footprint (Allowed) 8,584 SF 8,398 SF Lot Coverage (Allowed) 54.11% 52.94% Landscaped Area (Required) 1,586 SF 5,141 SF Note: SF = square feet Comment 2-3 Comment The comment states the following: 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 6 August 2020 This [an existing parking shortage in the greater Project area] obstructs road visibility and makes it dangerous to turn out in either direction. And lastly, if anything is built on the lot or not, the Ball and Western signal needs a left turn phase in all directions. These are two busy streets with a lot of accidents at this intersection. Any resident living at the complex should be protected from the speeding cars coming on Western Road. I would like to request running a collision history report of the intersection to put in a left turn phase regardless of the proposed apartments. Response This comment expresses a concern with regard to the provision of parking supplied by the Proposed Project and states that an existing parking shortage (which the commenter is concerned will be exacerbated by the Proposed Project) will result in potential safety hazards resulting from potentially obscured sight lines. Please refer to response to comment 1-1 and 1 -2, which discuss the Proposed Project’s provision of parking and potential roadway safety hazards. The comment also states that a left turn phase is needed at the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue regardless of whether or not the Proposed Project is approved. As part of the Draft IS/MND, ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in February 2020 (Appendix I of the Draft IS/MND) to assess the existing conditions of the local circulation system surrounding the Project site and evaluate potential transportation impacts associated with the Proposed Project. As discussed in the TIA, the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue currently operates at a Level of Service1 “A” during the AM peak hour and Level of Service “B” during the PM peak hour. As such, the TIA determined that this intersection is currently operating at acceptable conditions. Additionally, the TIA determined that the Proposed Project would not impact level of service of this intersection under either the existing conditions, opening year, and General Plan buildout conditions. Notwithstanding, the City has included the comment as part of the Final IS/MND for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required as a result of this comment and the Draft IS/MND’s analysis is adequate as provided. Comment 2-3 Comment The comment states the following: Here is a traffic collision report for the ball road and western intersection. It is a serious concern and safety issue that many more accidents will happen here with the presence of squeezing a medium density residential structure here. So please reconsider the plan to build here or the total amount of residential units. 1 Level of service values range from LOS “A” to LOS “F”. LOS “A” indicates excellent operating conditions with little delay to motorists, whereas LOS “F” represents congested conditions with excessive vehicle delay. LOS “C” is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City. 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 7 August 2020 Response This comment is a follow-up comment providing a traffic collision report for the intersection of ball Road and Western Avenue. The comment expresses a concern with the Proposed Project’s size and density with relation to roadway safety. Please refer to response to comment 1 -1, 1-2, and 2 -1. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required as a result of this comment and the Draft IS/MND’s analysis is adequate as provided. 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 8 August 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9289.0003 9 August 2020 3 Errata The following provides minor revisions, corrections, and additions to the Draft IS/MND. The corrections and additions are organized by section and page number of the Draft IS/MND. New text additions are shown in underline format, and deletions are shown in strikeout format. Section 2.5, Project Approvals (Page 38 of the Draft IS/MND) Section 2.5, first bullet point, has been revised to correct the land use designation stated in the proposed General Plan Amendment. • General Plan Amendment (GPA2016-00510) to change the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation from General Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential. Section 3.1, Aesthetics (Page 44 of the Draft IS/MND) The first paragraph of Section 3.1, Question C), has also been revised to correct the land use designation stated in the proposed General Plan Amendment. Less-than-Significant-Impact. The Project Site is located in an urbanized part of the City, at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Ball Road and Western Avenue, surrounded by existing multifamily residential and commercial uses. The Proposed Project involves a General Plan Amendment to change the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation from General Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential; a Zoning Reclassification to change the Project Site’s zoning designation from the “C-G” General Commercial Zone to the “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential Zone; and an Administrative Adjustment to allow reduced landscape setbacks adjacent to an arterial highway and reduced interior structural setbacks. Upon approval of these discretionary actions, the Proposed Project would be a permitted use within the RM-4 Zone and would be consistent with the Low-Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. Section 3.17, Transportation (Page 136 of the Draft IS/MND) Section 3.17(a), third paragraph, middle sentence, has been revised to correct a street name. According to the Bicycle Master Plan, the City plans to implement a Class II bike lane on Ball Road from Western Avenue to Gramont Gaymont Street. 3175 WEST BALL ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-00074) 9289.0003 10 August 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix A Comment Letters February 20, 2017 Revised letter of request for General Plan amendment and reclassification 3175 W. Ball road, Anaheim Dear Mr. Taylor: Pursuant to your email of (2, 14, 2017) in regards to correction for requested reclassification of property stated above. We request reclassification from CG to RM-4. In my previous request asked for rezoning to RM-1200 which I believe was the “old” reference to Residential multifamily zone allowing maximum of 48 DU per acre. The rest of our request remains the same. I believe this correction shall constitute last needed document for filing deadline of 2/21/1017. Respectfully: ------------------------- Max Ahmadi CC: Vaske Tatarian Via Sako Tatarian 714-553-2920 Maxahmadi@gmail.com ATTACHMENT NO. 9 ATTACHMENT NO.10 A T T A C H M E N T N O . 1 1 City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Planning Services Division 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net Date: March 18, 2020 To: Nicholas Taylor, Associate Planner F rom: Christine Nguyen, Associate Planner RE: DEV2016-00074 – 3175 West Ball Road – Proposal for an 11-Unit Apartment Complex T he property addressed as 3175 West Ball Road (APN 079-882-34) is a vacant lot located in West Anaheim. In addition to the requirements set forth in the City’s Zoning Code, the project is encouraged to follow certain design standards for new construction, as described in the City’s General Plan, Community Design Element. The City has long recognized the importance of community appearance and identity to its vitality, economic health and overall quality of life. The standards for multi-family development described in the Community Design Element (pgs 14-15) highlight strategies to accommodate higher density housing that retains a neighborhood feel, contributes to the character of the surrounding streetscape and provides a quality residential environment that is safe and attractive. T he following comments are based on the strategies outlined in the City’s Community Design Element: Form and Massing •Roof: In order to create a variety of rooflines along Ball Road and Western Avenue, as well as integrate modern architectural forms, the applicant is encouraged to replace the mansard roof design with a flat, parapet roof. •Corner Element : The corner of Ball Rd. and Western Ave. provides a unique opportunity to highlight the intersection with a prominent architectural feature. Consider options for a tower-like element that integrates the main entry and vertical circulation in a subtle, yet aesthetically pleasing way. The tower should be enclosed in order to reduce the visibility of the staircase to the public. Fenestration •Windows: Visually monotonous window designs should be replaced with a variety of window types and sizes. A cohesive approach to window design should be maintained with the use of regular spacing and the repetition of details. ATTACHMENT NO. 12 DEV2016-00074 3175 West Ball Road Page 2 of 6 • Doors: The number of sliding doors and balconies (real or false) should be reduced in order to create visual interest and give each unit more personalized design. Articulation • Primary Elevations: The elevations along Western and Ball in particular should be further articulated to add visual interest and increase the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The use of large molding, varied window design, cornices and a taller corner element are all encouraged. • Ground Floor: The ground floor parking garage should be a taller than the other two stories and include design strategies to bring the building down to the pedestrian scale. Options could include molding around windows, scoring patterns on the walls, use of plants, and awnings. Windows and other openings on this level should be integrated with the design of the upper floors. The use of bars to cover windows and doors is highly discouraged. • South Elevation: Although variations in setback to increase the aesthetic of buildings is typically encouraged, the inset on the south elevation is recommended to be made flush with the rest of the façade. This is to maintain consistency with the vernacular of the rest of the building and create more of an overhang for entry into the parking structure. Materials • Stucco is a suitable material for the building and may be scored or used in a variety of colors to create interest. A darker color stucco for the ground floor and/ or corner tower element are encouraged. Different materials on the ground floor and corner that are also recommended include brick or stone. Molding around windows and doors, as well as details such as cornices, should be highlighted with color and/ or material variations. Additional Comments • All proposed materials should be labeled on the building elevations. • Concept sketches (Attachment 1) and conceptual images (Attachment 2) are attached for further clarification. Should you have any questions regarding the above information, you may contact Christine Nguyen, Associate Planner, directly at (714) 765-4942 or CNguyen2@anaheim.net. Attachments: 1. Concept Sketches 2. Conceptual Images 3. City of Anaheim General Plan – Community Design Element DEV2016-00074 Attachment 1: Concept Sketches DEV2016-00074 Attachment 2: Concept Images 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.